Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Typically underlings and worker bees are the most knowlegable about tech than CEO's.........
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Typically underlings and worker bees are the most knowlegable about tech than CEO's.........
We don't even see many of those in Congrease. We see a lot of lawyers though.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is not adjusted for purchasing power parity. The 2005 U.S. military budget was larger than that of the next 168 biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Typically underlings and worker bees are the most knowlegable about tech than CEO's.........
We don't even see many of those in Congrease. We see a lot of lawyers though.
And once again I ask: whose fault is that? Thats right. The people who vote.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Thanks for making my point. Who's fuckin fault is THAT? Are you saying the people cant elect anyone savvy enough to keep up? You make it sound like once there always there.
The ones who can keep up are on the cutting edge. They are presidents & CEOs of companies making millions. Why would they take up a position that pays much much less?
And that brings up another problem. If someone is smart enough to get elected to Congress they could probably be making more money elsewhere. So you essentially get people who are willing to give up a lot of money for power. Nobody is more dangerous than someone willing to give up a lot of $$$ for a lot of power.
Typically underlings and worker bees are the most knowlegable about tech than CEO's.........
We don't even see many of those in Congrease. We see a lot of lawyers though.
And once again I ask: whose fault is that? Thats right. The people who vote.
It would be the people who vote if positions were open to anyone. But the two party system is broken, you either get with the program they have installed or get out. I think blaming the voter alone is too simplistic. There is too much power in too few hands my friend.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
If some joe schmoe average guy decided to run for congress, and he (or she) went up against Mr-Been-In-The-Senate-Forever-Big-Bucks, big bucks isnt a guaranteed win. Of course big bucks has an advantage he can hire people to door knock, but all you have to do is win the hearts on the constituants. The power does NOT lie in the parties themselves, nor does it lie in the hands of incumbants. It lies with the people who elect them.
Want a good example? Patty Murray.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Electing a congress that actually represents the people sounds like the best plan. Its not congress's fault for being shitty. Its ours.
Our system of government is out dated.
Its framework was laid out in a time that no longer works for the current world.
Unfortunately it will not change because of "tradition".
Look at all the debate over voting and delegates. Its time has passed, its an atiquated system, yet we hold onto it .
It time for a change, and not the one Obama is speaking of.
So enlighten us. What government model do you recommend?
I don't think their is a current model that really works.
I think thats because they are all based on models of governments that existed prior to the modern era.
Notice how basically every form of government has a leader at the top .
Why is it set up that one person should choose the direction for a country ?
Its because its all based off of times when kings decided the countries fate.
The founding fathers tried to put in protections against that, but it hasn't really worked.
There comes a point when you can't keep building off the old and should start building new.
Its like I said , their really isn't any new form of government anywhere in the world, everything is based on old ideas. I would really like to see some discussions by people of what they would do if they had a country with no government or political parties and were founding a new government.
You need to take a few poli sci classes STAT.
Theres a night and day difference between an elected president and a monarchy. Second, just so you understand, the POTUS has little power in shaping the direction of our country. It's congress who does. And guess what-the people elect ALL of them.
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Electing a congress that actually represents the people sounds like the best plan. Its not congress's fault for being shitty. Its ours.
Our system of government is out dated.
Its framework was laid out in a time that no longer works for the current world.
Unfortunately it will not change because of "tradition".
Look at all the debate over voting and delegates. Its time has passed, its an atiquated system, yet we hold onto it .
It time for a change, and not the one Obama is speaking of.
So enlighten us. What government model do you recommend?
I don't think their is a current model that really works.
I think thats because they are all based on models of governments that existed prior to the modern era.
Notice how basically every form of government has a leader at the top .
Why is it set up that one person should choose the direction for a country ?
Its because its all based off of times when kings decided the countries fate.
The founding fathers tried to put in protections against that, but it hasn't really worked.
There comes a point when you can't keep building off the old and should start building new.
Its like I said , their really isn't any new form of government anywhere in the world, everything is based on old ideas. I would really like to see some discussions by people of what they would do if they had a country with no government or political parties and were founding a new government.
You need to take a few poli sci classes STAT.
Theres a night and day difference between an elected president and a monarchy. Second, just so you understand, the POTUS has little power in shaping the direction of our country. It's congress who does. And guess what-the people elect ALL of them.
Please tell me what the POTUS is responsible for and why we need a POTUS if he is so useless? In other threads you deflect the blame of Iraq, the budget defecits, and other things to congress. But is it not the POTUS that signs that legislation to law? Can he not veto a piece of legislation that he feels isnt beneficial to the country?
You reasoning is just a conviniant method of defending Bush and his failed administration/policies over his term.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Electing a congress that actually represents the people sounds like the best plan. Its not congress's fault for being shitty. Its ours.
Our system of government is out dated.
Its framework was laid out in a time that no longer works for the current world.
Unfortunately it will not change because of "tradition".
Look at all the debate over voting and delegates. Its time has passed, its an atiquated system, yet we hold onto it .
It time for a change, and not the one Obama is speaking of.
So enlighten us. What government model do you recommend?
I don't think their is a current model that really works.
I think thats because they are all based on models of governments that existed prior to the modern era.
Notice how basically every form of government has a leader at the top .
Why is it set up that one person should choose the direction for a country ?
Its because its all based off of times when kings decided the countries fate.
The founding fathers tried to put in protections against that, but it hasn't really worked.
There comes a point when you can't keep building off the old and should start building new.
Its like I said , their really isn't any new form of government anywhere in the world, everything is based on old ideas. I would really like to see some discussions by people of what they would do if they had a country with no government or political parties and were founding a new government.
You need to take a few poli sci classes STAT.
Theres a night and day difference between an elected president and a monarchy. Second, just so you understand, the POTUS has little power in shaping the direction of our country. It's congress who does. And guess what-the people elect ALL of them.
Please tell me what the POTUS is responsible for and why we need a POTUS if he is so useless? In other threads you deflect the blame of Iraq, the budget defecits, and other things to congress. But is it not the POTUS that signs that legislation to law? Can he not veto a piece of legislation that he feels isnt beneficial to the country?
You reasoning is just a conviniant method of defending Bush and his failed administration/policies over his term.
Youre misreading what I said. "Useless" is YOUR word, not mine. Of course POTUS signs legislation...if an appropriate majority wasnt reached. And of course he can veto...if an appropriate majority wasnt reached. But the fact of the matter is, POTUS doesnt write legislation-he suggests. POTUS doesnt write budgets-he suggests. POTUS doesnt direct spending-the budget does, which he doesnt write.
The bottom line is, if senate doesnt like or want what POTUS suggests, then they collectively can flip him off and say no, or yes, and theres nothing he do about it. With an appropriate majority, of course.
See the difference?
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Electing a congress that actually represents the people sounds like the best plan. Its not congress's fault for being shitty. Its ours.
Our system of government is out dated.
Its framework was laid out in a time that no longer works for the current world.
Unfortunately it will not change because of "tradition".
Look at all the debate over voting and delegates. Its time has passed, its an atiquated system, yet we hold onto it .
It time for a change, and not the one Obama is speaking of.
So enlighten us. What government model do you recommend?
I don't think their is a current model that really works.
I think thats because they are all based on models of governments that existed prior to the modern era.
Notice how basically every form of government has a leader at the top .
Why is it set up that one person should choose the direction for a country ?
Its because its all based off of times when kings decided the countries fate.
The founding fathers tried to put in protections against that, but it hasn't really worked.
There comes a point when you can't keep building off the old and should start building new.
Its like I said , their really isn't any new form of government anywhere in the world, everything is based on old ideas. I would really like to see some discussions by people of what they would do if they had a country with no government or political parties and were founding a new government.
You need to take a few poli sci classes STAT.
Theres a night and day difference between an elected president and a monarchy. Second, just so you understand, the POTUS has little power in shaping the direction of our country. It's congress who does. And guess what-the people elect ALL of them.
Please tell me what the POTUS is responsible for and why we need a POTUS if he is so useless? In other threads you deflect the blame of Iraq, the budget defecits, and other things to congress. But is it not the POTUS that signs that legislation to law? Can he not veto a piece of legislation that he feels isnt beneficial to the country?
You reasoning is just a conviniant method of defending Bush and his failed administration/policies over his term.
Youre misreading what I said. "Useless" is YOUR word, not mine. Of course POTUS signs legislation...if an appropriate majority wasnt reached. And of course he can veto...if an appropriate majority wasnt reached. But the fact of the matter is, POTUS doesnt write legislation-he suggests. POTUS doesnt write budgets-he suggests. POTUS doesnt direct spending-the budget does, which he doesnt write.
The bottom line is, if senate doesnt like or want what POTUS suggests, then they collectively can flip him off and say no, or yes, and theres nothing he do about it. With an appropriate majority, of course.
See the difference?
What prevents the POTUS from doing the same if he cared so much for balanced budgets and ending the war?
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
Wednesday, Mar 05, 2008 - 11:11 PM Updated: 12:40 PM
By Kellie Wilson
E-mail | Biography
Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.
The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.
If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.
Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.
Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.
Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal
Wednesday, Mar 05, 2008 - 11:11 PM Updated: 12:40 PM
By Kellie Wilson
E-mail | Biography
Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.
The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.
Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.
If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.
Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.
Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.
Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.
Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.
Text
Lawmakers are real experts on the Internet, did ya know Blackangst1?
Originally posted by: jandrews
with things like this I sometimes wish there was such a thing as a king where he would say hey, we are cuttin the deficit, you may hate me but i dont give a crap because I dont have to get re elected.