Wowak wrote: I'm with Captainzib. We had the candidate you all wanted, but you listened when the mainstream media told you he was a kook who wanted only to legalize drugs and prostitution.
I liked most of the message, just not the messenger. I still think RP is a little too wacky in the Ross Perot vein. I voted for Perot. I like to think I've matured a bit since then. 
One has to wonder if the government would be as corrupt as it is if there was a mandatory term of military service fr all men and women once they reach a certain age. Say a mandatory term in a state militia/reserves with optional terms in full service. Would the politicians be as willing to be as corrupt as they were if they knew the vast quantity of its citizens were armed? What would happen to the crime rate? Just a thought I had today.
John Brown wrote: I suggest this to help reduce spending: 1: All elected officials be paid the current median income of the area they represent, all the way up to Commander in Chief. 2: All health care for elected officials to be instituted through the current MEDICARE system. 3: All retirement funds for elected officials will be controlled by the Social Security Administration. 4: All taxes due for public officials on April 15th annually. seems pretty fair to me. I am certain the Median income will go up and the MEDICARE and SSA problems will be resolved within a month. I have spent the last 24 hours in the ER and this has been what I have been thinking.
Actually, taxes should be due the day BEFORE election day and that without any withholding so that people have to write that big check right before they vote. So do you want to vote in April or pay taxes in November?
Wowak wrote: I'm with Captainzib. We had the candidate you all wanted, but you listened when the mainstream media told you he was a kook who wanted only to legalize drugs and prostitution.
you lost all credability when this happened:
rebelgtp wrote: One has to wonder if the government would be as corrupt as it is if there was a mandatory term of military service fr all men and women once they reach a certain age. Say a mandatory term in a state militia/reserves with optional terms in full service. Would the politicians be as willing to be as corrupt as they were if they knew the vast quantity of its citizens were armed? What would happen to the crime rate? Just a thought I had today.
seems to work for isreal
I could be wrong, but I think there was a bunch of ambivalence concerning the American Revolution amongst the colonists.
You can also read probably as far back as the written word about the problems of "modern" society.
It was the same then as now. .1% of the people do something. 99.9% of the people complain about what was done, to no real effect.
Or maybe, 1% are the movers and shakers, 20% are the tongue waggers and the rest of us don't really care. 
-James
ddavidv wrote: You know what the real problem is? "We the people". There aren't enough of us that are engaged in our own government. Everyone complains about it but no one wants to put forth the effort to really do anything differently.
I'd love to agree with you, but I can't.
The US citizen today wants, expects and demands to be a coddled slave. Owned by the government, told what to do, and protected against scary things. At all costs. Liberty be damned, save me from the boogie man.
Accordingly, the government has grown in power and scope to satisfy those desires. Crushing individual freedoms in the name of safety. And the slaves rejoyce.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." is indeed accurate and telling of the US government we have today. This is what people want.
foxtrapper wrote: I'd love to agree with you, but I can't. The US citizen today wants, expects and demands to be a coddled slave. Owned by the government, told what to do, and protected against scary things. At all costs. Liberty be damned, save me from the boogie man. Accordingly, the government has grown in power and scope to satisfy those desires. Crushing individual freedoms in the name of safety. And the slaves rejoyce. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." is indeed accurate and telling of the US government we have today. This *is* what people want.
See not every citizen is the coddled slave type. In fact my estimation would be that group would be the vast minority if any at all of the people here on this board.
There are a good number of people here that would have no issues what so ever defending their own interests if required and would have no problem telling the government to bugger off.
We truly are on a slippery slope and something needs to happen before our country ends up completely in the E36 M3ter.
We get the government we (the majority) deserve. Sadly, the average person is an idiot. This morning along with all the other terrible news, people are killing, everyone will have AIDS by the end of the year, go ahead kill yourself before the criminals do, there was a story about the evil men who own the taxi cabs in NYC.
They are private owners who the city regulates and set the prices for. They want a rate increase. The made stupid points like since the last fare increase the price of fuel doubled, they are having to replace their beloved Crown Vics with hybrids and someother nonsense that doesn't matter. Then came the interviews with John and Jane Q Idiot. "They can't raise the fares, then I will have to walk more", "I'm not buying gas, I'm taking a cab. Why should gas prices effect me" and my favorite, "I am taking the cab because it's too expensive to drive myself, how can they raise cab prices now".
These people who can dress themselves and are somehow employed can not grasp why higher gas prices should lead to higher taxi prices. How can you feel that we are anything but doomed.
I think some one said it already but TERM LIMITS on all congressmen is an absolute must.
I was once told that, "a democracy works just fine, until the people figure out that they can vote themselves a pay raise."
This thread can be summed up in one word, and movie title.
But I can gaurantee that it won't take us 500 years to reach that point.
As far as Ron Paul not getting on the ballot, this is where I'm convinced that the government controls the media, (or the same lobbyists that control the government, also control the media). See, we're all pretty internet savy people. The average American becomes confused when you explain to them the concept of having intellectual discussions on the intarwebz, so feel free to feel a little bit elitist just for being here. The average American doesn't even know who Ron Paul is, because to be honest, all of the networks purposely ignored his campaign coverage. The only reason we know who he is really is the internet.
I'm willing to wager that if he got an equal amount of coverage as the other candidates, then he'd have a better chance at being our next president. But you know what, the E36 M3 he had to say went against corporate greed, and MAKE NO MISTAKE, today's government is a for-profit corporation. Forget all that bullE36 M3 about being representatives of the people.
For the people here who don't know about Ron Paul, dig up some videos of him on youtube or videosift or whatever you choose, you'll find that the promises he was making while trying to become the presidential nominee, are in tune with how he cast his votes in congress. In other words, he's not one of those candidates that would say whatever it took to win hearts and minds, he simply said what needed to be said, but the vast majority of us were too oblivious to hear him, and process his words with our minds.
Ok so far we have:
Term limits for all congressmen (or should that be all government officials period?)
Mandatory term for all men and women in state militia/reserve. All citizens are armed with stockpiled weapons. Everyone receives training including survival and marksmanship.
Elected officials get paid a median wage
Health care for all government official is provided by Medicare or revamped equivalent
All retirement funds for elected officials will be controlled by the Social Security Administration.
All taxes due for public officials on April 15th annually.
Elections are held the next day.
Increased funding for schools including colleges. Part of incentive for mandatory militia duty is reduced or free college education at public colleges. (figured I would toss this one in, we need to get more people with higher level education in this country)
What else should we be aiming for? You know while we are all dreaming.
rebelgtp wrote: What else should we be aiming for? You know while we are all dreaming.
Lobbyists should not be allowed in Washington DC. This relates back to my notion that our gov't is a for-profit corporation.
Hence the renaming of those people as "Profiticians"
You forgot Hess' Law: No politician may accept a single penney from anyone that is not directly eligible to vote for them. Death penalty for violations. For example: Can a NY resident vote for a State Representative in Ohio? No? No money. Can a CA Resident vote for a Senator from TX? No? No money. Can a corporation vote for anyone? No. No money. Can an illegal alien vote for anyone (here)? No? No money.
Also, 10 years in prison for voter fraud.
There was an interesting article in our local scandal rag the other day where they listed the top paid public employees in SC. It turns out there's something like 60 or 70 who make more than the governor but who are appointed by him or are elected to their positions by a (publicly paid) board of directors. One of them runs Santee Cooper, the biggest state owned utility, he makes $494,000.00 a year. The head coaches for both Clemson and USC make approximately 1.8 million per year, each.
The state elected politicos are resisting a change in 'earmarking', which is a way of making an end run around the budget process and sending funds directly to favored projects. Last FY, earmarks for various things totaled around 18 million, IIRC. Flat out: earmarks are for things which do nothing more than enhance re-electability.
Yet they can't find money to fix bridges. Something like 40% of SC's bridges are 'structurally deficient', meaning they are sound but are too small etc for the loads they carry.
Throw the berkeleyers out, elect a new set with term limits and put some teeth in the public ethics laws, say I. The only way this will happen is if We the People force the change. Of course, 80% of We the People just don't give two E36 M3s about politics and that's what the politicos are counting on.
rebelgtp wrote: See not every citizen is the coddled slave type. In fact my estimation would be that group would be the vast minority if any at all of the people here on this board.
I have been ripped into by members of this board for suggesting freedom might be more important than safety. Some of the most vociferous are in this thread.
Based on evidence, I disagree with your estimation.
Alright so then we have:
Hess's Law is to be added to the list.
As for the no Lobbyists in Washington thing how about we tack on mandatory yearly IRS audits for all politicians? hmmm oh and then any "extra" money found would be seized and plus fines invoked. Then all money is put directly into to reduce the national debt and to help pay for education programs.
Hess brought up illegal aliens in his post what would the stance on them be?
rebelgtp wrote: Hess brought up illegal aliens in his post what would the stance on them be?
My stance, if they're caught commiting crimes, (other than being here illegally), deport them, naked.
If they are here because they honestly are pursuing a better life for themselves, then legalize them, get them on the books, and have them pay taxes like everyone else is supposed to.
I've heard the argument, "well why don't they just go through the proper channels?"
Well, a few posts above there was some talk of how government employees are among the most useless people in the country. Newsflash, these same types of people are running the paperwork for legal immigrants.
It's not that there's a lot of paperwork to be filed, just that it moves so godawful slowly through the system.
Someone here just sent one to me that I like.
If I am required to pass a urine test to get and keep my job, and working that job pays the taxes to run the goverment and its programs would it be too much to ask to make it a requirement to pass the same drug tests to QUALIFY AND KEEP any goverment assistance.
Crack head? No help for you. Prescription drug abuser? No help for you. Addicted to speed? Everyone should be ;)
rebelgtp wrote: 2. Mandatory term for all men and women in state militia/reserve. All citizens are armed with stockpiled weapons. Everyone receives training including survival and marksmanship.
I learned Survival, Marksmanship, First Aid, and Leadership in the Boy Scouts. I will be Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn when the E36 M3 hits the fan.
jamscal wrote: I could be wrong, but I think there was a bunch of ambivalence concerning the American Revolution amongst the colonists. You can also read probably as far back as the written word about the problems of "modern" society. It was the same then as now. .1% of the people do something. 99.9% of the people complain about what was done, to no real effect. Or maybe, 1% are the movers and shakers, 20% are the tongue waggers and the rest of us don't really care. -James
I'm going to have to ask the rhetorical question... and what would that make us on this board? At best, we're tongue waggers.
As for the earlier comment about how "no one on this board is asking for their freedoms or liberty to be taken away..." Wrong. Plenty of people have come out in favor of military detention facilities, capital punishment, etc. If you are in favor of any of those things, you are in favor of a political system being able to strip away an individuals liberty. Hell, if you believe in the criminal justice system, you believe in government having the power to strip away the liberty of an individual. If you believe in vigilantism (e.g. shoot the scum sucking bastards in the head), you believe in the individual having the power to strip away the liberty of another individual.
Like all things, it's a balancing act. Absolute freedom is anarchy. Go watch the Dark Knight. Absolute control is totalitarianism. All societies set the balance point somewhere.
edit: I'm glad we don't have mandatory military service in this country. That would mean the State gets to make a major decision on how I can and can not live a significant portion of my life. I would be forced to undergo forced indoctrination and brainwashing (aka Basic Training). All that goes against the core vein of self determination that this country was founded on.
Part of the problem is that some of the things you guys are 'against' are in some cases good or at least necessary.
It's fun to blame lobbyists but consider SEMA: They are a group whose interests are important enough for them to pay to get the ear of elected officials, and that benefits our hobby and their industry greatly. They, from our POV, stand up against Stupid. Without money and organization, the car hobby could be restricted greatly.
There is no way around paying or playing to get the ear of politicians. It has been that way since the beginning, won't change, and while rules may be made to clean things up a bit, the basic premise will hold: It takes money or power to get things done.
-James
Which means those without money, power, or someone who has those things representing them, is pretty much berkeleyed.
jamscal wrote: Part of the problem is that some of the things you guys are 'against' are in some cases good or at least necessary. It's fun to blame lobbyists but consider SEMA: They are a group whose interests are important enough for them to pay to get the ear of elected officials, and that benefits our hobby and their industry greatly. They, from our POV, stand up against Stupid. Without money and organization, the car hobby could be restricted greatly. There is no way around paying or playing to get the ear of politicians. It has been that way since the beginning, won't change, and while rules may be made to clean things up a bit, the basic premise will hold: It takes money or power to get things done.
If you write a letter to a politician praising or berating them for something, or suggesting that they do something, you are lobbying them. Your currency is that you are a voter, and if one person cares about something enough to write about it, there are probably a hundred more that care but don't write.
Most "lobbyists" are that to an extreme; a group of people gives them money to go express a joint opinion to legislators. They're like letter writers who actually have the time and flexibility to meet with legislators in person.
You'll need to log in to post.
