Text 13271, 129 rader
Skriven 2010-05-10 18:21:24 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 13265 av DAVE DRUM (1:261/1381)
Ärende: Ideas
=============
On 05/10/2010 03:39 AM, DAVE DRUM -> ED HULETT wrote:
 -=>> Ed Hulett wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

 RS>>> Today's GOP is obstructing EVERYTHING.

 EH>>> No, they had their own plans, but the Democrats didn't want to even
 EH>>> consider them.

 DD>> Oh, they considered them. And snickered. Rightly so, IMO.

 EH>> So, in your narrow world view, only Democrats have good ideas? Got it.

 DD> Hardly. You're trying to leap that chasm in your logic in two bounds
again.
 DD> But, Democrats and Moderates do have a sense of the absurd and a sense of
 DD> humour ... something that the extremes of both left and right seem to
lack.

That's it, don't address the issue, instead, try to marginalize your opponent.
You accuse the GOP of being far right and then claim only "Democrats and
Moderates" have a sense of humor. What does this "sense of humor" have to do
with reaching across the aisle? It is not a "sense of humor" to ridicule anyone
and everyone you disagree with. It is not a "sense of humor" to reject input
from the GOP. It is not a "sense of humor" to force partisan bills through
simply because they have a partisan majority.

 DD>> The problem is that BOTH the elephants and the jackasses are
 DD> manoeuvring
 DD>> for
 DD>> political advantage in a non zero sum game instead of doing the
 DD> people's
 DD>> business which is what they were ostensibly sent to Washington to do.
 DD>> Fuck 'em
 DD>> all, the long, the short, and the tall.

 DD>> No incumbents in 2010 is my cry!

 EH>> Which means you support a Republican majority for the next 2 years. How
 EH>> does that square with your narrow world view?

 DD> Not fucking hardly, sport.

I'm not your sport and I don't appreciate your use of gutter language when
addressing me.

 DD> You, like many, are stuck into the narrow two party political view of
politics.

You, like some, think that somehow a viable third party will miraculously form
out of thin air.

 DD> I merely meant that the electorate should rise up
 DD> and throw the bums out.

I agree, but I'm also a realist and understand that there is no viable third
party to choose from.

 DD> Then install a different set of bums pledged to do the
 DD> business of the people who sent them there instead of spending all their
 DD> time playing politics and building a cozy little sinecure and trying to
make
 DD> a two (or four, or six) year term into a lifetime job.

Until things change, all you'll get is a new set of career congress critters.

 EH>> I'm a supporter of term limits for all elected offices. That would get
 EH>> rid of these career congress critters who gain wealth off the backs of
 EH>> the people.

 DD> I posted just such a proposal in these precincts not long ago. Where
 DD> were you?

I did see it. I have been a supporter of term limits for a very long time.

 EH>> I also support a 60% reduction in pay for Congress and the
 EH>> President and VP. If a private citizen has to live off of $100,000 or
 EH>> less a year, so should our elected representatives. Plus, government
 EH>> bureaucrats should be paid the same as the private sector pays and they
 EH>> should be easily fired if they don't do their job right. As it stands,
 EH>> they can sit and browse through porn all day and still keep their jobs.

 DD> I don't support pay reductions for the president - especially if you
 DD> want to pay bureaucraps the same as the private sector pays for similar
jobs.
 DD> Put that way the Prez would get an immediate and obscenely large pay raise
-
 DD> along with unearned bonuses for accomplishing very little or nothing. Pay
him, say,
 DD> like Lloyd Blankfein over at Goldman-Sachs (who the pundits like to tie
the
 DD> current prez to) and he'll get over 10 million bucks as opposed to the
current
 DD> presidential pay of 400 grand (not counting perks like Air Force One and
 DD> the huge security apparatus).

GS contributed over $1million to candidate Obama in 2008.

 DD> Congresscritters pay should come from and be set by their home district.
Or
 DD> their own pocket - except that would open a whole new keg of nails as
 DD> only the uber-rich would be able to afford to be a congress critter. And
we all know
 DD> what sort of oligarchy that leads to, don't we?

I think there should be some pay for elected officials, but it needs to be
limited to their support while in session. I think it obscene that someone can
enter elective office poor and after a number of years leave with millions in
wealth.

Ed

-- 
"For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the
people
are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the
possession of those [toward] whom they entertain the least suspicion."
--Alexander Hamilton

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com | http://woodcaringnsuch.wordpress.com
http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://wwwfacebook.com/ed.hulett | Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/yaesu

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderb
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)