|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Of course there is something we can do about it......vote the bastage out!!!
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
I don't like it but somebody would have to show me how they plan to fix it in a way that is in alignment with the constitution.
For what it's worth, I'm fairly convinced that the framers of the of the constitution didn't plan for anyone to be able to buy the legislative conclusions that weren't in the BEST interest of the majority of citizens.. That's just a guess on my part since I'm no constitutional expert..
Quote:
you want to pass laws, set rules, and create legislation to protect citizens from their own laziness and stupidity when it comes to electing politicians
I went back and looked at what I wrote and didn't see anything of the kind said by me.
What I did openly discuss is a "what if" and it was in regard to the pharmicutical industry..
An industry that has the ability to make drugs that are supposed to help people and in the process, they sell those drugs for a profit (as it should be)
The one problem is, if the FDA is hog tied by a loosining of laws that govern them because lobbyests bought and paid for that conclusion, then the risk is really placed with the people..
That has nothing to do with "laziness' or "stupidity' of people. The average person isn't capable of determining what drugs are safe and which aren't.
It's certainly not a skill set I possess and I bet you don't either.. ( I could be wrong cause I really don't know your background, for all I know you are a doctor) But I think you get my drift..
That's one example, but I'm sure we could come up with others..
Quote:
if a politician can do what you said and then get re-elected, then who is at fault, the politician or us?
First off, I have doubts that any politician would actually stand up and say what I mentioned.. Not openly anyway and for the very reason you mention.. it would be OUR fault for electing them or Re-Electing them depending...
This has nothing to do with Morality.. Not a thing.
Example, the DOD has a policy that taking bribes is against thier rules. I'd have to check, but I believe that it's punishable by either prison or fine or loss of contract or all three if you are a supplier.
There is also punishment if you are a government employee and you are caught accepting bribes. Not 100% sure what the punishments are, but I would suspect termination, possible fines, forfeiture of benefits, prison.... etc..
Basically, lobbying is legal, but there have been limits. Now, with no limits,, This can and will get out of control quickly...
You are right however DC,, you can't legislate ethics or morals.. won't work,, never has, never will...
But opening this up and eliminating limits,,, wow, the lobbyiests are licking thier chops right now...
Quote:
so let's enact legislation that forces them to be more moral and more ethical as it relates to elections because we just can't trust them to do the right thing...
That's not the answer and that's not what we are discussing here.. We are strictly speaking of eliminating limits that the lobbyests can spend with any given person.
I see nothing, not a thing wrong with limits..
I'll say this again,, I don't know the answer.. I'm not 100% sure of the proper position to take, But I do know that if we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always gotten...
If you don't like the result, then a way to fix it has to be found... Opening up this can of worms doesn't sound like a good way to fix it to me..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
Of course there is something we can do about it......vote the bastage out!!!
You want to vote the Surpreme Court out? 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
That's what the 2nd Ammendment is for...LOL....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
For what it's worth, I'm fairly convinced that the framers of the of the constitution didn't plan for anyone to be able to buy the legislative conclusions that weren't in the BEST interest of the majority of citizens.. That's just a guess on my part since I'm no constitutional expert..
I don't think the framers envisioned a day where somebody went to law school then rose up to congress or the senate as fast as they could and then retained that seat for 30 years and did absolutely nothing in their adult life except serve as a career politician... you want to take a bite out of this that I can get behind? Set term limits for congress and senate. If these folks were as concerned with doing the right things as they are about winning the next election, that would help immensely. Because what we are talking about isn't bribes or kickbacks or anything like that, those are already illegal, what we are talking about is CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS so if a politician isn't constantly campaigning for the next term, then they don't need them.
Quote:
Quote:
you want to pass laws, set rules, and create legislation to protect citizens from their own laziness and stupidity when it comes to electing politicians
I went back and looked at what I wrote and didn't see anything of the kind said by me.
What I did openly discuss is a "what if" and it was in regard to the pharmicutical industry..
An industry that has the ability to make drugs that are supposed to help people and in the process, they sell those drugs for a profit (as it should be)
The one problem is, if the FDA is hog tied by a loosining of laws that govern them because lobbyests bought and paid for that conclusion, then the risk is really placed with the people..
That has nothing to do with "laziness' or "stupidity' of people. The average person isn't capable of determining what drugs are safe and which aren't.
It's certainly not a skill set I possess and I bet you don't either.. ( I could be wrong cause I really don't know your background, for all I know you are a doctor) But I think you get my drift..
I'm not talking about the people being lazy and stupid because they can't test their own medications and prove it safe.. I'm talking about the lazy and stupid people that can't do enough research to know how their own representative voted on pharm. legislation and the impact it had on testing.
This is why we have a representative democracy and not a democracy.. because neither you nor I can know all we need to know about pharm companies, and foreign policy, and energy policy, and budget policy etc to make daily decisions on all of them.. so we elect people to vote on our behalf and those people are supposed to do the research and vote in our best interest, not in the interest of their own pocket or their own campaign coffers... and right now, we aren't doing a good enough job of holding them accountable for that because we keep re-electing them and we raise no fuss. I'll bet less than 10% of the people on this MB have actually called their representative or their senator in the last 5 years to actually tell them how they feel about things.. we whine and complain to each other, we lament the good ol' days over a beer but when push comes to shove the average American does NOTHING to make their grievances heard.....
Quote:
First off, I have doubts that any politician would actually stand up and say what I mentioned.. Not openly anyway and for the very reason you mention.. it would be OUR fault for electing them or Re-Electing them depending...
This has nothing to do with Morality.. Not a thing.
Example, the DOD has a policy that taking bribes is against thier rules. I'd have to check, but I believe that it's punishable by either prison or fine or loss of contract or all three if you are a supplier.
There is also punishment if you are a government employee and you are caught accepting bribes. Not 100% sure what the punishments are, but I would suspect termination, possible fines, forfeiture of benefits, prison.... etc..
Basically, lobbying is legal, but there have been limits. Now, with no limits,, This can and will get out of control quickly...
You are right however DC,, you can't legislate ethics or morals.. won't work,, never has, never will...
I happen to think we legislate morality every day, the big question always comes back to.. whose morality are we legislating.
And it is legislating morality the difference is that it's not yours or mine being legislated, it's the morality of the politician. You might be ok with that. Voting for something that is not in the best interest of the people because a lobby firm gave you millions in campaign contributions to vote that way is both immoral and unethical.. you are saying it should be legislated against.. how is that not legislating morality?
Quote:
That's not the answer and that's not what we are discussing here.. We are strictly speaking of eliminating limits that the lobbyests can spend with any given person.
I see nothing, not a thing wrong with limits..
I'll say this again,, I don't know the answer.. I'm not 100% sure of the proper position to take, But I do know that if we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always gotten...
If you don't like the result, then a way to fix it has to be found... Opening up this can of worms doesn't sound like a good way to fix it to me..
Daman, I don't want to argue because our points are really not that far apart, we both want the same thing we are just in a slight disagreement as to how best to get it.
Truth be told, I don't have a problem with limits on campaign contributions, I don't. But as they were put in place, they were not fair and the only way to make them fair, at least until a better solution could be achieved, was to eliminate them.
Is it fair that the oil and gas lobby is restricted by strict limits but the labor unions are not? Is it fair that the mainstream media, newspapers and magazines can run piece after piece, call it news, while they continuously write positive stuff about one candidate and negative stuff about the other and it doesn't really count as a campaign contribution because "it's news"? Is that not having a great impact on the electorate and none of it counts against campaign contributions and the only way for the "negative candidate" to overcome it is to raise enough money to get his/her own opinions out there...
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a perfect system. I agree that the system we have now is not ideal and I'm very interested in how we address it.. but in the end, whatever system we come up with, has to address all sides of the issue and cannot create an unfair advantage for any person or party..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
Daman, I don't want to argue because our points are really not that far apart, we both want the same thing we are just in a slight disagreement as to how best to get it.
Yup, I agree with that 100% We have the same desire and end result, but coming from two different perspectives, we don't seem to agree in the "how to achieve" portion...
Ya know, that's a pretty good start.. if you can agree on the result you want,, getting there can't be as hard to figure out..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Supreme Court Removes Limits on
Corporate, Labor Donations to
Campaigns
|
|
