What more can I say then I REALLY like this idea and it would not be hard to implement?
I could be missing some kinks and snags but IMO greater transparency of govt and greater accountability by my representatives is something I feel we need more of.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*whistles* I'm just finished listening to his Podcast as well, put a lil' energy in his voice and he will make an awesome president for you people. Any clues what his opinion of Canadian relations are?
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Well, he's no Mao...
Seriously, though, I like Barack, and would recommend his first book, Dreams from My Father, to anyone.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I just can't wait to see the arguments some politician will have against this plan. Should be interesting. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lemme try...
"It would be far to hasty a decision to be taken during our present state of emergancy. And Mr Obama is obviously overreacting to a problem that isnt as bad as the electorate makes it seem, infact **** the electorate we don't need them, we will lord over them as always."
Hmm I think I went overboard...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
or how bout this:
"How can we trust a man who experimented with drugs in high school??? What? What's that? Sorry, I can't hear you. Something about the president...no...i have no idea what you're talking about. Next question please."
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
Better to just reduce the power of government and lower the incentive for lobbying.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Better to just reduce the power of government and lower the incentive for lobbying.
Seconded.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The incentive for lobbying will always be there, even if you 'reduce the power of government' (somehow, magically, you manage to hardwire it into the US Constitution, because that's the only 'permanent' means of making it happen-a hazard of a serially changing government).
Why? Because if that bit of legislative judo is ever accomplished, the incentive will still be there to lobby for its undoing.
It seems to me that looking to federal-government initiatives to reduce its own power is doomed to failure. That's going from the top down. Bottom up is a better, more effective, but less rapid and flashy way of doing things. Even small-government Republicans in Congress try to do things from the bottom up in a remarkably top-down way.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Better to just reduce the power of government and lower the incentive for lobbying.
What about the EPA or the FDA? Lobbyists are a fact of a constitutional democracy. I don't know if they can be eradicated without stepping on anyone's freedom of speech.
I don't know how much I agree with the wisdom of putting together panel ofex-congressman and judges-- wouldn't they bring their biases with them?-- but I don't see how it could hurt. _____ Edit:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)