cj001f Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Unfortunately, higher turnover of electeds = more power for staff and lobbyists. There is virtually no way for a single person to read 500 page bills, do research on intended and unintended impacts, check in with constituents and do what it takes to get re-elected. Staff end up driving decisions, with helpful advice from lobbyists "stakeholders." The elected just ends up asking people he trusts whether the bill is good or not. You are quite correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Speaking of reform, we need to get rid of lobbyists. All of them. This is a knee jerk suggestion from someone who obviously has little experience working with any organization with a national footprint. Lobbyists are essential for a non-governmental to know what is happening in the legislature and represent their constituents effectively. They are an important way for the members of any organization to stay in touch with what their legislators are up to, which, in my book, is a very good thing. They help achieve the 'transparency' people like you so loudly call for. If you wanted the environment protected, who would you give money to: Earth First! (no lobbyists, jailed activists, virtually no public support, little money, kno real legislative action network) Ducks Unlimited or the Sierra Club (Lobbyists, broad public support, lots of money, effective legislative action networks). Sure, there are corrupt lobbyists, just like there are corrupt legislators. The solution is not to get rid of lobbyists, which are such an important part of being heard in government, but to implement strict rules against corruption, whether by lobbyists, legislators, or anyone else. what was that about taking things "literal" as a refuge for the simple minded, Trashie? you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Unfortunately, higher turnover of electeds = more power for staff and lobbyists. There is virtually no way for a single person to read 500 page bills, do research on intended and unintended impacts, check in with constituents and do what it takes to get re-elected. Staff end up driving decisions, with helpful advice from lobbyists "stakeholders." The elected just ends up asking people he trusts whether the bill is good or not. You are quite correct. Many worthless pieces of crap are reelected term after term just because they have a D or R by their name... and tenure. Once one of these lucky saps gets in, and gets relected once or twice, they are golden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think they just got that point yesterday loud and clear. I'm against term limits because they limit my right to vote for who I want. If someone's doing a great job, I want the choice of voting to keep them in that job. 1) I'm afraid that they did not get *that* point. There are plenty of representatives that are in "secure" districts who would have to f*** up really bad to even have a chance of losing. Did you see the election results for McDermott? He could rape horses in Enumclaw and still get elected. Ditto for quite a few "safe" Rep districts. The majority of them in fact. Apparently, the President got the intended message from voters loud and clear. As for McDermott, I know him and am not aware of his penchant for equestrian sports. 2) nobody said anything about legislative term limits - just voter initiated ones (for a while) Sort of like a voluntary boycott? Repeat after me: "We shall ov-ver-co-o-ome. We shall o-ver-co-o-ome. We shall..."* *I know a guy who'll do the T shirts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Apparently, the President got the intended message from voters loud and clear. Newsflash: Bush is not running for office in two years. I think they've wanted to ditch Rummy for some time now, but just didn't have the balls - it would look "bad" - you know conceding that you made mistakes and all. Now it is "safe" to toss him. In this case they miscalculated - kind of like trying to shoot the moon in hearts and taking 25 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We this sounds a bit cyclical to me. Of course the majority of voters support not allowing blacks or women to vote when the majority of voters (all the voters as a matter of fact) are neither black nor female. It is not "us" when the "us" pool was that limited. Are you saying that blacks and women deserved to remain in servitude because they didn't have the right attitude? Of course not. None of these policies went by the wayside, they were battled out for years. Rights are never granted, they are only taken. Slavery ended because most voters (in the North) supported its abolition. Women got the vote when most voters (men and women) supported it. The Equal Rights Amendment passed because most voters (black and white) supported it. Yes, there were long struggles before the public adopted these positions. My point is that voters often don't realize how much power they wield...if they choose to. Voters also do not realize that most of the wounds against civil liberties are self inflicted...they were popular among voters until voters changed their minds. Welcome to the USA. Edited November 9, 2006 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 no, i think it is because bush is finally coming out of the closet. he is secretly a lib that was brainwashed by the neocons, and pelosi has sprinkled her magic s.f. pixy dust and brought him to. next up are implemented the socialist agenda and raising taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yes, and the discussion keeps bringing up rights and Constitution. I am agreeing with you. I just think it's easy for folks (not you personally) to forget the their rights are outlined in a different document. What document is that? The bill of rights? I believe that IS part of the Constitution of the United States. Do you mean the Declaration of Independence? It does proclaim certain rights, but it's not an acting legal document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 my agenda is hidden in a different document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 a manifesto! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 a bill of wrongs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) a manifesto! Beware of Olybomber! Edited November 9, 2006 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government. I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government. I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. You've captured the gist of my manifesto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recycled Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Agreed. Machine 2-party politics is the problem - whether it's the demos or repubs. We in the US tend to be pretty smug about having the best type of governance system, but I suspect a parliamentary system yields a more functional democracy. It tends to shake it up a bit and require partnerships between parties to maintain a majority government. However, I don't have know how the balance of power between parties, individual elected officials, lobbyists and staff actually works out under that system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 you damn well know who/what I mean by "lobbyists" whose influence corrupts our government. I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. May the clue bird take a dump in your vicinity. (Hint: McCain, campaign-finance reform, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think they've wanted to ditch Rummy for some time now, but just didn't have the balls - it would look "bad" - you know conceding that you made mistakes and all. Wow. Your rapier political insight is incredible. I would have never thought of that, indeed, none of us would have. How do you do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Agreed. Machine 2-party politics is the problem - whether it's the demos or repubs. We in the US tend to be pretty smug about having the best type of governance system, but I suspect a parliamentary system yields a more functional democracy. It tends to shake it up a bit and require partnerships between parties to maintain a majority government. However, I don't have know how the balance of power between parties, individual elected officials, lobbyists and staff actually works out under that system. I like that we elect the president - otherwise you'd have the legislature picking your executive. But I'd like to see a third and fourth party at least. The mood in the country is ripe for this right now. Unfortunately, there are huge barriers to entry in setting up viable, competitive alternatives; the D's and R's hold a monopoly right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 but I suspect a parliamentary system yields a more functional democracy. You've apparently never seen the House of Lords on camera... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think they've wanted to ditch Rummy for some time now, but just didn't have the balls - it would look "bad" - you know conceding that you made mistakes and all. Wow. Your rapier political insight is incredible. I would have never thought of that, indeed, none of us would have. How do you do it? Your logic is underwhelming. You claimed that Bush and the R's "got the message" of the election, implying that that is why he tossed Rummy. I counter that he wanted to do that all along, election or not. You're such a worthless windbag. Time to add you to the ignore flag. Bugger off, dickhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I have no idea what you meant and, apparently, neither do you. You've captured the gist of my manifesto. If that is so, then we are all co-conspirators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Time to add you to the ignore flag. Thank you, Lord...for the second time today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 but I suspect a parliamentary system yields a more functional democracy. You've apparently never seen the House of Lords on camera... There's a reason the House of Lords isn't televised much - they don't bloody matter! The House of Commons is rather raucous - I prefer that debate style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The House of Commons is rather raucous - I prefer that debate style. "Will the Gentleman From Nebraska please shut his cake hole before I thrust a kielbasa..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control. And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken. They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control. And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document. And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve. Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them. But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document. This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers. This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.