Posted on 11/30/2017 7:20:45 AM PST by goodnesswins
So just what I said except that I forgot "conniving" and "dishonest" but I thought that that was implied in $h!tweasel.
My rights arent open to negotiations. Congress is designated to wield a small specifically designated portion of these to assist us in securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If wheeling, dealing, and voting against the interest of those who sent them is what is going on then they are either abusing us all through overreach or directly abusing those who sent them.
Its not a failure on my part to understand, its an indictment of the voters who believe these are valuable skills for congressmen.
I understand.
Leave Pompeo and Cotton where they are. Move Haley to State.
Fine by me. I read Pompeo will move from CIA to State and Tom Cotton will take over the CIA.
“Didn’t he orchestrate a downsizing of that swamp?”
Yes, and he did drain foggy bottom a bit.
yes...me too...
I hope so.
So you think good executives are "unprincipled amoral $h!tweasels"?
You won't find anything in my post to lead you to that conclusion.
I suggest you go back and read my post #85 again.
You are way out of line with your comment and it's plain to see that you do have your own reality.
If you read my post, I agreed with you. Nosing
2
le me and you’re cutting me down for agreeing with you,.
I said no such thing. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension.
"You won't find anything in my post to lead you to that conclusion."
[Post 85] "The character, skills and abilities required to succeed in the Senate or House are the exact opposite of those needed to succeed in a high level executive position.
In congress you need to be able to go-along-to-get-along - to compromise regularly as a member of a group with ever shifting goals and values. To horse-trade on a regular basis and often vote against your conscience today so you might have a chance to do better tomorrow."
Right there is your quote. You gave the term "succeed" and said "in congress" then described an unprincipled amoral $h!tweasel. Its right there.
There is no such thing as compromise. They either go to "secure these rights" on your behalf or they dont. Rights dont have a compromise position. Any activity that isnt the "securing of these rights" is overreach or the outright insubordination of a servant against those they are to serve. Ultimately thats all there is, protecting or infringing rights. You cannot improve government by sending the most dishonest man you can find. The people can not send someone willing to unnecessarily restrict or ignore the rights of those sending the representative and especially not those willing to hinder others to only benefit the select few. My reality is that principled honest representatives should be sent. You want to send someone corrupt for personal benefit.
As I said to Rusty0604, "its an indictment of the voters who believe these are valuable skills for congressmen." Your intent is to be clever by finding the person of poorest character to represent you and then trusting them as long as they promise to be good...good to you anyway.
You want to knowingly send either a do nothing parasite or someone willing to behave as a criminal so you can get one up on everyone else because thats the way its done.
You can describe your parasitic $h!tweasel in whatever glowing terms you wish, that doesnt change that there is nothing positive about the person you describe. You may not have created the swamp but, that doesnt change the fact that voters like you are the ones that dumped many of those creatures in it.
I posted to you but only because its proper etiquette to ping someone when they are "being talked about" even though I really wasnt "talking about you" so much as something that was said to you.
Really I suppose its kind of silly since everyone reading is really "part of the conversation" even if they arent commenting. I dont know what to say about that, I didnt make up "the rules".
Thanks.
So to all those who were celebrating his firing on this thread, well, you were premature and now have some egg on your faces.
Now I'm not necessarily a fan of Tillerson but if Trump feels he should be kept in place, then I trust our president. That also goes for other cabinet members that many of us are quick to jump the gun on like Jeff Sessions for example.
I bother to come here and bump this thread because many of the same folks were jumping the gun earlier today on the Mike Flynn news - automatically assuming the worst and that it was bad for Trump in some way. When in fact, we do not have all of the facts.
Again, a lot of FAKE NEWS out there and a lot of Freepers jumping the gun, being ALARMISTS, and not waiting on events to get the REAL STORY.
The entire MSM media is out to GET TRUMP at all costs. It's unfortunate that so many Freepers are so quick to spread the alarm before all the facts are in.
President Trump is often several moves ahead and while a lot of what he does today doesn't make sense to many of us, I have learned to wait on events because almost always, Trump is vindicated in the long run. He is not a stupid man and he seems to know exactly what he is doing.
I hear ya....I was just reporting what Laura Ingraham was saying on radio...and she has an “in”....I have mixed feelings about Tillerson and some others in his administration, BUT, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, MOST of the time.
If John Bolton cannot be confirmed, I would like him appointed to a position which doesn’t require confirmation and be allowed to clean house.
my dream the rudy would her dup a dog team investigation the clintons has certainly faded.
wow. auto spell Rudy would HEAD UP a DOJ
Great post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.