oldmanfan

Ok I had my date wrong by a day. Why come here? To discuss. But discussions should have some logical framework, and to claim a kid won't make it before he has even set foot on the field is inherently illogical. People keep throwing this completion percentage out there like it's manna from heaven. But if you do the math if he completed something like 10 more passes, or say he had 10 less drops, he magically hits the 60% mark and butterflies and unicorns arrive. It just gets ridiculous. Let the kid get on the field and then see what he does. Don't get all insane if he misses a pass or two in camp, don't get all insane if he looks like the second coming of Peyton with a pass or two in camp.

Just a quick question for some here. Would it be OK with you if we actually, you know, let the kid play and see how he does? Would that be all right with you? Or should we just boo him off the field the moment he sets foot on the practice field today?

Every thread like this about Allen, all I can think of is Remember the Titans and Coach Boone: Let the boys play!!!!!!

As I said my view is admittedly idealistic. But what's wrong with a little idealism? What's wrong with wanting our country to be out above political interests? Reading what I've read here my opinion is now that clearances should just be, well, cleared, when you leave with an old administration. But you should be called back on an ad hoc basis if your input would provide value. If that was the routine he politics are taken out of it.

Because they're using him to get further evidence I would suppose. Prosecutors do that all the time.

As I said above perhaps just make it a rule of law that all clearances are revoked upon leaving a federal job, but that clearance can be reinstated on an ad hoc basis.

How do you address the folks in the campaign like Flynn who have admitted guilt? Let him complete his investigation. Then we'll know.

I think it should be done on a non-partisan basis because I think our national security should be above partisan politics. Idealistic, I know.

No. If there was no collusion there shouldn't be ann issue when the investigation is completed. I am old enough to remember Watergate, and if they had stopped at the same point in the process we would have never had an idea what Nixon did. Let the investigation play out.

What you are saying here makes no sense. Way back when the situation came up - why do they need clearance after they leave their job. All I did was respond that based on my readings it had to do with continuity. I then went on to state I am not an expert in intelligence matters. When joesixpack said he had high clearance and he saw no reason for it I said: fine by me. Because I defer to someone with expertise in the field. And somehow from this you get that I am blindly accepting things, and on and on? Right. Check yourself.

New administrations bring in their own people. If there is an advantage to the maintenance of clearance it's to assure continuity in fact one would resume. Perhaps the best way to do this is simply take away clearance day one of a new administration of anyone no longer in the government, but then grant it back on an ad hoc basis as needed. I do not blindly believe people. Quit making things up. I read to try and get perspective.

When they come out yesterday and make the announcement and don't take the time to realize that 2 of the 6 people already had lost their clearance, yes that makes it partisan politics. Those stories cut both ways. Fake news is an oxymoron. I believe strongly in our constitution. And the first thing in the Billnif arights iscfreedom of the press. Doesn't mean they get it right every time. We should all be happy she is not president.

So you in your smug manner can assume all this. I stated simply that some people I read indicated there may be a reason for continuity. I also in a dialog with Joe six pack indicated I don't have experience in the intelligence field. He said he did and did not see a reason for this. My response? Fair enough. I will defer to the experts in the field in this and there may be a difference of opinion. What does concern me is that it should not be done simply as a partisan political thing. If this had been done with the last president would some here saying it is right now had been saying it was wrong then? I suspectvso. Yesterday seems to have started because Senator Paul had the president's ear. I think control of our intelligence information merits more serious reflection that that.

My stance is simple; those who know more than I do about the situation whom I read indicated there may be an advantage to having that kind of continuity. Fine by me. and also if they are going to discontinue it, that the decision should be made based on other concerns that politics. That's why you're a child, because you refuse to rad and have an intelligent dialog.

Does it give you some kind of childish delight to call people around here idiots? Were you picked on as a child or something? Grow up. I take no stance on the importance of continuity; that is what I have read is the supposed advantage. Would you say the same if the parties were reversed and it were a Democratic president? That's my point. This kind of decision should be based on necessity and merit and not because of political concerns.

Not in the slightest

It's 238 pages long. Can you be more specific?

And my understanding is Comey no longer has clearance nor McCabe. I think that's FBI policy. Fair enough.

I don't know the answer to that. I indicated my understanding is that continuity is important. I am not a member of the intelligence agencies. Neither are you.

It's crrtainly based on presumptions; that's all we have right now. As for the schedule, things are never what they seem. Guys get hurt, teams progress and regress, etc, etc.

Again take politics out of it. You have to have a suitable transition between administrations and you have to maintain clearance to do so. Any president can take it away but should do so only for really good reason otherwise intelligence efforts could suffer. take your partisan blinded off.

Because you could lose good people for stupid political or other reasons. Regardless of political persuasion.

One of the best movies ever I understand government better than most. Presidents are not kings. They work for the Executive branch, but should be safe from the whims of a chief executive unless for cause

Ridiculous. The president is not a king.

For sure they should not be kept or removed just for political reasons.