Re: OT:Fox news is allowed to lie.

Page 2 of 5  
"J. Clarke" wrote

Target practice??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lee Michaels wrote:

LMAO!!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bryan and I were having a discussion about morals and government this morning. I thought a solution could be to pass a new law that forbids any government office holders, or decision makers from drawing a salary of any kind. Their work would be charity work much like we citizens provide charity work when participating in jury duty. While we do get paid for participating, perhaps we could also allow a government official $6 per day for his contribution. Really and truly when you actually see what public officials do, a week out of their year should be adequate to handle government business. Public officials should be considered "Public Servants", hummm, what an idea. Obviously public officials would have a regular job like the rest of us for his or her financial needs. Public Officials taking bribes or being directly compensated for his or her decision making would be sentenced to life in prison. Special interest groups would be illegal.
Further, ALL laws have to originate by a suggestion of the people and then a vote by the people would decide as to whether they pass or not. Suggestions by the people would be collected by a minimum of 3, 3rd party public companies and the most popular suggestions from each would be compared and published publicly for the people to vote on.
The government will operate on fixed budget and cannot over spend. This absolutely should not be a problem once our government officials realize that under the table donations and lobbyist would no longer be a reason to stay in office.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Ah, a career path for HOA officers.

But if you do away with special interests, you have to do away with people voting.
Special interests are the foil to the madness of crowds. Sometimes the special interests win, sometimes the mob wins. Most often they cancel each other.
There is no BEST solution, but a better one is a monarchy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Similar except they would be under scruteny of th epublic and governed by the public's paws.

Special interest groups wold be banned from governmant interaction.

Which is a problem in itself, lots of spending and accomplishing nothing. We need no groups trying to decide what is best for you and me. Needless to say there would be no need for a "Party System".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

And a better one than that is to, once again, allow only property owners to vote.
The "right" to vote of "everyman" is what is ultimately going to lead to the downfall of this republic.
Think about it ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wouldn't that run the risk of Property Owners trying to control who is allowed to own property and who isn't? Not a smart-ass question, a serious one. It happens, you know..;-}
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

In my state, we used to have a rule that only property owners could vote on bond proposals - those guaranteed by property taxes. Courts struck it down.
We also used to require voter registration in January for elections to be held in November. Courts struck it down.
We used to have a "Poll Tax" of $1.25 (with provisions for indigencies). Courts struck it down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote:

Can't imagine why.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When Texas succeeds from the Union, and you and Leon run it, I'll be sneaking across the border, tri-square in hand, hammer and sickle left at the border.
Jack
Swingman wrote:

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jack Stein wrote:

In many areas, Texas has already succeeded.
But come on in... We have a special place for those who can say: "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If you do succeed at seceding, we'll be right on over. My wife was born in Texas, so should have the "right of return". ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:44:43 -0500, Leon wrote:

But who defines what would constitute a special interest group?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those that approach government officials/decision makers directly would be illegal.
There is no reason to make direct contact with the government Officials/Public Servants. The "legal" special interest groups can approach the public to suggest items that may be submitted by the people and voted on by the people for popular suggestions to be passed into law. And then of course the public will vote to pass or fail the new suggested law. Public officials/Public Servants would simply implement the new laws created by the people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

Precisely why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
The founders did not trust the people to make good decisions.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:13:53 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"

The founders made a good decision. Direct democracy has too much flavor of tyranny by the majority.
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, and that worked for a long time. Now, that has all changed, we cannot trust public officials with our money or to make good decisions. We need new laws to protect us from our elected officials.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

How about we go back to the system that worked--candidates selected in smoke filled back rooms instead of by popular vote, senators selected by state legislators, and that sort of thing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

Like it or not the country operates on a strong federal government.
Seems among other things we fought a war to prove it, but still have folks trying to promote states rights, but face it, it's never going to happen.
From time to time, the federal gogernment does a few things you don't like, but that's life.
Might as well enjoy the ride..
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely, We are here to observe and learn. Life is one big class room.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.