A Fox in the Hen House

[riverwalker76]

It appears that we now have a fox in the hen house. Do you think he could possibly be a wolf in sheep's clothing?

I'm still not certain on where I stand with this. What are your thoughts?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-24-guns24_ST_N.htm

 

[jhenry]

We have a whole nest of foxes in the national henhouse. Something like this person in this position is a smack in the face to us, but in my opinion is considered "good decision making" to the one making the appointment. The fact that it underlines what we already know to be the case, and will further alienate a portion of the public is not something the current occupant is capable of comprehending. He continually shows glimpses of his true face for folks to see, it is just that he thinks he is showing a bright smiling face, one that cares about our welfare and will happily let the Nanny take care of us. We, after all, are just too "ignernt" to know better. The current occupant has stated on many occasions, his stance on 2ND Amendment issues. That pesky Constitution and Supreme Court seem to be in the way though.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, first we'd have to do something about the elections, unless there's a way to have the election decided in the state where the right candidate's brother is governor. That's the trouble with free elections. Sometimes the wrong person gets elected.

 

[Archie]

Government

Well, first we'd have to do something about the elections...

...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

An absolute monarchy would be the most efficient. The problem is obtaining the proper monarch. The current Administration not withstanding, I have no desire to alter our form of government. It is sad to reflect it suffers from a lack of truly decent candidates - caused in part by our rather biased Main Stream Media. However, I don't think revoking the First Amendment would do well either.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think BlueTrain was advocating changing our form of government, I think he was advocating replacing the current occupant of the White House through the election process.

 

[44 AMP]

And this is a surprise, how?

Every administration puts their own picked "friends and relatives" in appointable positions. When the administration has an agenda detrimental to ours, we suffer. When they don't, we don't.

The Clintons put their people in these offices, and look at what happened during their administration. Bush put in their people. Obama is putting in his. They all do it, it is our system.

When those appointees get instructions from the top to push, they push. When they don't, they don't. Survive the next two years and we get a chance to change things again.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Kills me when "cronyism" makes the national scene every so often... like it's new and hasn't been done for generations. Stopping it would be nice, that it happens, not so amazing.

 

[hogdogs]

My question... Has there ever been an administration that has implemented the services of so many from one particular city? And if so... was the city one known for corruption on the scale of chicago? We can go back to the beginning of the nation and I bet it would be hard to find one...

I didn't think, before the presidential election, that our POTUS would ever admit, through appointments, such a connection to questionable characters...

If this were ANY OTHER forum I would have made this post far more colorful!

Brent

 

[BlueTrain]

Let me say something here about corruption. It isn't necessarily illegal.

To me, corruption is when money is what is running things. And there's plenty of money flowing into the campaign funds of congressmen and senators. It comes from corporations, who are mostly Republican oriented because they are perceived to be business friendly. It comes from the NRA. It comes from everywhere. And you know the saying, when money talks, people listen.

There's also under the table money, which is clearly illegal.

All of this happens at all levels of government, although more money goes to the places where it makes the most difference. That's just good business practice, I suppose. But it a congressman has a "safe" seat, I don't imagine he would get so much money, unless he happens to have a lot of power in congress, but most of the power in congress is with those with "safe" seats.

You might get the idea that voters don't get much of a hearing. After all, you only get to vote for one congressman and one senator, although everyone gets to vote for president. In other words, at most, only two people represent me in congress and I might not have even voted for them.

 

[highvel]

Someone once said "Character is easier kept than reclaimed."
As far as I'm concerned, the current Adminidisgusting, never had character and never will be able to reclaim it either.:barf::barf::barf:

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How is this gun related as compared to political and naively political?

Closed.