PDA

View Full Version : Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona



Rentafence
January 8th, 2011, 02:34 PM
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/08/132764367/congresswoman-shot-in-arizona

On a side note, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

PlasbianX
January 8th, 2011, 03:06 PM
Now, I don't think you can make a connection to Palin until there's more people removed from that list :p

Rentafence
January 8th, 2011, 03:09 PM
Well, no. But it's an interesting coincidence.

ThePlague
January 8th, 2011, 03:50 PM
Saw it on the news, Tucson is a weird area...

paladin
January 8th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Its pathetic to connect this guy with anything political.

Sad...

Rentafence
January 8th, 2011, 04:03 PM
Here's the guy's youtube channel. He's completely fucking insane.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10


Its pathetic to connect this guy with anything political.

Well shit, it's not like he assassinated a politician or anything.

paladin
January 8th, 2011, 04:10 PM
Here's the guy's youtube channel. He's completely fucking insane.
Well shit, it's not like he assassinated a politician or anything.

Thats not what I meant. I meant its pathetic to say this guy was a tea partier, or communist. He was insane.

Rentafence
January 8th, 2011, 04:13 PM
Thats not what I meant. I meant its pathetic to say this guy was a tea partier, or communist. He was insane.

Oh, my bad. I thought you were taking a swing at me.

paladin
January 8th, 2011, 04:32 PM
Ha, no :P

Kornman00
January 8th, 2011, 05:35 PM
She was shot at a Safeway, of all places :-/

In other news, Palin is, and always has been, a cunt (e: @ her whole "targetting" nonsense, not about any relation to this event).

RedBaron
January 8th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Someone should post on her wall post something along the lines of:

What a great theme you've chosen for PAC here!

(link to assassination story)

paladin
January 8th, 2011, 08:00 PM
She has nothing to do with this... why would you bring her into the conversation. Her role is purely juxtaposed.

From tweets of former friends (http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/parker-tweets.jpg) and his youtube page, I would hardly call him a Palin supporter. Among his favorite readings: Hilter's autobiography and the Communist manifesto. (http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY)

But regardless, if you try to bring political motives into this, you are fucking stupid. The man was insane.

Aerowyn
January 8th, 2011, 10:05 PM
The guy was insane, and probably a part of the radical left (or so claims the apparent friend of his, who I personally think is just attention whoring, but that's beside the point).

However, that doesn't change the fact that the political atmosphere in this country has become much more unsettling and violent in the past year. No one can deny that.

From Sarah Palin's crosshaired map (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html), to the "let's shoot some M16's and take Giffords out..... OF OFFICE!" (http://www.alan.com/2011/01/08/giffords-opponent-held-june-rally-to-shoot-a-fully-automatic-m16-and-remove-gabrielle-giffords/) event that her opponent held, to "Second Amendment Remedies" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003.html), to "Don't retreat--reload!", to "If ballots don't work, bullets will." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUff0SR6Yiw)... just ignore keyboard cat. XD I'm not even going to bother mentioning the constant spew of vitriol (http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/11/10/fox-news-the-no-1-name-in-murder-fantasies/) by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others who frequently call for violence against those who do not share their political views.

But I'm trying to make the point that the "right vs. left" and "us vs. them" rhetoric has escalated to an absolutely insane level. And for mentally unstable people, like Mr. Loughner, these words can very easily be made into their mantras. We use this heated talk to try and incite people, but fail to take responsibility when some nutjob takes it seriously and kills someone. Then we say, "Oh, what we said was taken out of context, we didn't really want anyone to shoot someone." But by then it's too late--it's already been said, you can't take it back, you can't just wash your hands of it or delete it from your website (http://www.open.salon.com/blog/rogerf1953/2011/01/08/palin_scrubs_website_of_poster_that_targeted_giffo rds) and expect it to exonerate you.

This attack on the congresswoman may NOT have been politically motivated, but it is a testament for how much more frequently this COULD happen if we let this overwhelming hatred and intolerance consume us.

People don't blame Palin for this directly, but she has contributed to an atmosphere of hate and bigotry that has gone on for far too long in this country.

Bodzilla
January 8th, 2011, 11:26 PM
well said.

Warsaw
January 9th, 2011, 12:26 AM
"Us versus them" is exactly what parties want. It makes us stupid. Don't give it to them.

CN3089
January 9th, 2011, 12:41 AM
Among his favorite readings: Hilter's autobiography and the Communist manifesto. (http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/0/7uRjwPWaxiY)

Yeah I'm not sure how somebody can call both of these some of his favourite readings without some serious cognitive dissonance or a heaping helping of insanity

ThePlague
January 9th, 2011, 01:23 AM
It's funny how much the news here is milking this story :\

Rentafence
January 9th, 2011, 09:07 AM
It's funny how much the news here is milking this story :\

What the fuck are you on about?

Kornman00
January 9th, 2011, 11:13 AM
My guess is that reporters milk cows while presenting the news here he lives

leorimolo
January 9th, 2011, 12:26 PM
"Us versus them" is exactly what parties want. It makes us stupid. Don't give it to them.
Hello america wake up. I have never had a worse time in my life than discussing politics with americans. They bring up like 4 topics, health care, iraq, abortion, and gay marriage, and all that divided between 2 parties that clearly don't have a fuck all good intention while managing the government. I swear, this whole democrats vs republican thing is all bullshit, it paves the way for ignorance.

I am not criticizing you guys, since I enjoy every once in a while the discussions held here, but frankly im sharing my experiences of americans that I talk to in person where I live (costa rica)

Aerowyn
January 9th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Breaking story out of Alaska:
Sarah Palin's "crosshaired" map weren't crosshairs at all! They were..... surveyor's symbols? really? (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/blogs/palin-watch/8205-palin-staffer-calls-using-tragedy-to-score-political-points-qobsceneq-)

Smells like bullshit, considering you can't "reload" surveyor's symbols. And Palin herself tweeted about the map:

"Remember months ago 'bullseye' icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)"

Sarah herself said it was a bullseye, a crosshair, a target. And if she knew her graphic was innocent, then why was she in such a hurry to scrub it from the face of the internet?

The harder she tries to backpedal the more she implicates herself in this situation. I think Sarah Palin needs to sink quietly into the background for a little while.

ThePlague
January 9th, 2011, 12:37 PM
What the fuck are you on about?
I live in AZ, and for the past few days they've been showing this story a lot.

And silly Kornman00, there are no cows in Arizona.

Aerowyn
January 9th, 2011, 12:40 PM
I live in AZ, and for the past few days they've been showing this story a lot.

And silly Kornman00, there are no cows in Arizona.

The past few days? It happened yesterday.

Warsaw
January 9th, 2011, 01:00 PM
Hello america wake up. I have never had a worse time in my life than discussing politics with americans. They bring up like 4 topics, health care, iraq, abortion, and gay marriage, and all that divided between 2 parties that clearly don't have a fuck all good intention while managing the government. I swear, this whole democrats vs republican thing is all bullshit, it paves the way for ignorance.

I am not criticizing you guys, since I enjoy every once in a while the discussions held here, but frankly im sharing my experiences of americans that I talk to in person where I live (costa rica)


Shit man, criticize all you want. I agree with you on all counts. Discussing it doesn't get anything done, anyways. Neither does voting. The only way we can influence is in which corporations we decide to give our money to, and even that is becoming a vain effort. The alternative is violence, and I don't condone violent methods of affecting government change.

Aerowyn
January 9th, 2011, 01:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2
This is Giffords's youtube page.

Go down to her subscriptions.

She's subscribed to her assassin.

leorimolo
January 9th, 2011, 01:12 PM
Shit man, criticize all you want. I agree with you on all counts. Discussing it doesn't get anything done, anyways. Neither does voting. The only way we can influence is in which corporations we decide to give our money to, and even that is becoming a vain effort. The alternative is violence, and I don't condone violent methods of affecting government change.
In my country, we had the same bilateral system. Basically they discovered both parties were fucking us in ass, all the politicians were corrupt. Everything got exposed. Shit this guy that I fixed iphones (unlocked them and maintance, paid very well) for stole 2m dollars from our gov't, by overcharging for medical equip. After that, not one but 2 other popular parties emerged that had a shot at taking the presidency. One of the bilateral parties basically collapsed, the other is actually in power right now, but even then it paved the way for new non traditional parties.

So actually the alternative in the democracy is to actually vote for people who share your beliefs, right now the only hope I give for the american government is wikileaks, even then people seem to be ignoring the evidence there is of how much exactly you are being lied to.

The fact I brought this up is that I personally think the government is collapsing, or about to. Wikileaks, climate, disclosure.

Warsaw
January 9th, 2011, 02:00 PM
There is nobody in government who shares my beliefs and if there is, he/she is silent or overruled 100% of the time. Did/does your country (which one is that, actually?) have a winner-take-all system of voting? We have room for new parties, the problem is that all the non-traditional parties in this country have their platforms based on issues as opposed to a broad set of ideals to strive for. Issues are fickle and temporary at best, so building a party around one is like building a house in a swamp: it will fall over and sink. As soon as the issue is solved or made irrelevant, that party gets absorbed back into the traditional party from which it sprang.

My theory is that every representative form of government eventually irreversibly corrupts itself into mob rule (corporate and political interests govern as opposed to the people). It will require an upstart to get everyone back in-line. That upstart can either be mass revolution (fat chance, I know, but more likely here than in any other developed country because the citizenry can own guns and not just straight-pulls and bolt-actions.), a new party that becomes as popular as the other two combined, or a dictator. An economic crisis obviously didn't do anything except give the current parties excuses to further this agenda over that agenda, etc., etc.


This all makes me want to write my own party platform, a sort of "Manifesto of the American Citizenry."

Dwood
January 9th, 2011, 03:25 PM
Hello America wake up. I have never had a worse time in my life than discussing politics with americans. They bring up like 4 topics, health care, iraq, abortion, and gay marriage, and all that divided between 2 parties that clearly don't have a all good intention while managing the government. I swear, this whole democrats vs republican thing is all bullshit, it paves the way for ignorance.

I am not criticizing you guys, since I enjoy every once in a while the discussions held here, but frankly im sharing my experiences of americans that I talk to in person where I live (costa rica)


Hello Modacity wake up. I have never had a worse time in my life than discussing politics with Modacity. They bring up like 4 topics, health care, war, abortion, and gay marriage, and all that divided between 2 groups that clearly don't give a crap while debating topics about the government. I swear, this whole America vs World thing is all bullshit, it paves the way for ignorance.

I am not criticizing you guys, since I enjoy every once in a while the discussions held here, but frankly im sharing my experiences of Modacity.

Bodzilla
January 9th, 2011, 05:14 PM
we arnt america vs the world. we agree with some things that you do, and we dont with other things you do.

the reason why we take such an active interest in your politics is because your strange looney system effects world policy.
you guys may not realise but you have a massive responsibility to not just yourselves but the world as a whole, yet we continue to see bullshit excuse's for non-issues or people blindly parroting ideas they've copy pasted from places without any true discussion taking place. And your no exception Dwood.

i'm not perfect yet i dont buy into the whole got mine fuck you mentality, or homophobia, or the whole global climate change denial bullshit. I care less about myself then i do for where we are going as a whole and where i live i actually do participate and e-mail my leaders, get on board campaigns, and support the overturning of abortion being a CRIMINAL act in places like queensland due to legislation written 100 years ago by superstitious retards.
sitting on your ass accomplish's nothing, but we cannont afford americas complacency on key issues of world politics, which is why we hold you accountable.

Warsaw
January 10th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Eh, Bod, that statement opens up a hole other can of worms regarding the notion of "holding the US accountable." Just because the US can single-handedly influence world policy doesn't mean all other countries are allowed to stop trying, too.

Amit
January 10th, 2011, 01:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/giffords2
This is Giffords's youtube page.

Go down to her subscriptions.

She's subscribed to her assassin.

Jesus fuck. What is going on?

Warsaw
January 10th, 2011, 02:06 AM
She met him a few years ago at a similar occasion to the one she recently got shot in. He gave her a question, and she didn't answer. My guess is she wanted to see what his ideas were (because he was probably the only person there that didn't simply kiss government ass) and so she subscribed to his YouTube. It wouldn't surprise me if she forgot about it as soon as she concluded that he is a nut.

Aerowyn
January 10th, 2011, 06:39 AM
She met him a few years ago at a similar occasion to the one she recently got shot in. He gave her a question, and she didn't answer. My guess is she wanted to see what his ideas were (because he was probably the only person there that didn't simply kiss government ass) and so she subscribed to his YouTube. It wouldn't surprise me if she forgot about it as soon as she concluded that he is a nut.

According to a cache that someone accessed from Bing, she was not subscribed to him 2 weeks ago.

She was, however, subscribed to him at least 2 days before the shooting.

THE PLOT THICKENS.

sleepy1212
January 10th, 2011, 07:41 AM
He gave her a question, and she didn't answer.

I just heard on the radio it was something like, "do words have meaning?"

Oh and if we just censored Glenn Beck the Democrats would win and this would never happen ever.

paladin
January 10th, 2011, 12:33 PM
I just heard on the radio it was something like, "do words have meaning?"

Oh and if we just censored Glenn Beck the Democrats would win and this would never happen ever.

i know, because there aren't people on the left openly calling for violent revolutions.

sleepy1212
January 10th, 2011, 12:59 PM
i know, because there aren't people on the left openly calling for violent revolutions.

Exactly and it's as easy as putting Jesse Jackson in charge of the FCC. No more Beck, Limbaugh, or LOTR. I'd call it a victory for peace on earth!

I'll bet Mayor Bloomberg creams his pants every time the story is rerun.

Warsaw
January 10th, 2011, 03:15 PM
Exactly and it's as easy as putting Jesse Jackson in charge of the FCC. No more Beck, Limbaugh, or LOTR. I'd call it a victory for peace on earth!

I'll bet Mayor Bloomberg creams his pants every time the story is rerun.

Whatchu have against the Lord of the Rings? :raise:

Aerowyn
January 10th, 2011, 03:38 PM
Exactly and it's as easy as putting Jesse Jackson in charge of the FCC. No more Beck, Limbaugh, or LOTR. I'd call it a victory for peace on earth!

I'll bet Mayor Bloomberg creams his pants every time the story is rerun.

Jesse Jackson is too easily offended to be head of the FCC. :P



Whatchu have against the Lord of the Rings? :raise:
I second this notion.

Dwood
January 10th, 2011, 09:53 PM
nHoaZaLbqB4

TBH if he pulled out the mind control stuff he would sound like a tea-partier. I think I would enjoy talking with this guy.

n00b1n8R
January 11th, 2011, 01:08 AM
Sounded like he was making a pretentious statement in the form of a bad Haiku.

Bodzilla
January 11th, 2011, 01:23 AM
i literally cant understand him.

CN3089
January 11th, 2011, 01:52 AM
That's because your mind is trapped by the Government-controlled standards of grammar.

sleepy1212
January 11th, 2011, 12:57 PM
Whatchu have against the Lord of the Rings? :raise:

Jesse Jackson said it was racist

Bodzilla
January 11th, 2011, 07:00 PM
That's because your mind is trapped by the Government-controlled standards of grammar.
oh god no!

Limited
January 13th, 2011, 04:41 PM
So I just found out the 9 year old girl that died and had the funeral today was born 11th September 2001. That made it really sink in how young she was, I remember that day like it was yesterday.

Also anyone else read about the comments he posted online? Really messed up stuff even some bout cannibalism.

Patssj6
January 14th, 2011, 09:32 AM
There is nobody in government who shares my beliefs and if there is, he/she is silent or overruled 100% of the time. Did/does your country (which one is that, actually?) have a winner-take-all system of voting? We have room for new parties, the problem is that all the non-traditional parties in this country have their platforms based on issues as opposed to a broad set of ideals to strive for.

Actually the problem is that your democratic government is not that democratic which is enforced by the fact that I bet 99% of the American think that they have the most liberal and democratic system there is.

Also one shouldn't talk about left vs right in America because there is no left.

Warsaw
January 14th, 2011, 11:50 AM
We aren't a democracy. We are a republic. Too many people forget that. We also have one of the most conservative systems, created by the social elite because they thought that the everyman was unfit to govern himself. And that is not a biased opinion, that is fact, since it is plainly stated in the Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents.

Patssj6
January 14th, 2011, 12:07 PM
created by the social elite because they thought that the everyman was unfit to govern himself.

Well that is one of the primary reasons for every country to have a government. ^^ Germany is a Federal Republic...there is really not much social structure difference (States etc.) just the governments are totally different.

Warsaw
January 14th, 2011, 12:17 PM
But that's different. Governments is theoretically just there to protect the well-being of the group of people under its domain. When it becomes wrong is when the greater good goes out the window and it is now the people for government as opposed to government for people. Our Constitution is inherently designed to maintain the status quo. Unless our social elite see it in their interests to amend the Constitution, they won't do so. That is why we can't get it fixed for modern times, where everyone now has the ability to educate himself on current issues and can physically cast a ballot (yay networked digital devices!)

The biggest defining point in our government is our winner-take-all system. That makes it extremely hard for us to have a multi-party system like Germany and other European governments. The other problem is that most of our third parties (read: those that are not Dem or Rep) are focused on a single set of issues instead of ideals and indeed most of them are actually offshoots of the two big ones. They can't stand the test of time. Germany has a representative legislature. The parties that don't win their district still get a number of seats proportional to the number of voters that supported them. This promotes multi-party prosperity and also leads to coalitions.

Patssj6
January 14th, 2011, 12:31 PM
I totally agree with you and I am glad that you know much about other governments (I had 4 years of American Studies in school educated by an American teacher). The purpose of a government truly is to protect the governed and to substitute the lack of proper judgment of the own good for the people (that's why there is obviously no nationwide voting on laws that gets passed).

I highly dislike the American government because it is strongly controlled by capitalist motivations and in the end results in a winner-takes-all system. The system (escorted by the media) makes it impossible for political changes to happen in America. Every decision which goes against capitalist thinking is controlled by the demagogue opposition and media.

A multi-party system in America is also not possible because of the lack in education about different political wings. For many Americans it would be shocking to know that the Republicans have very similar political objectives as the right-winged ex-Hitler party. We do not even have to get started on left-winged parties...the word itself and communism is the sum of all bad (at least that is my impression). Which is no wonder in a world controlled by the industry. I am not speaking in favor of communism but excluding everything that has a hint of left to it is not a liberal (and therefor democratic) system to me.

Shame on you Warsaw, wrong thread.

Dwood
January 14th, 2011, 12:35 PM
It's more like today's politicians are more corrupt than ever. That's why we can't get anything done- Lobbying and the fact that as a congressman when you're guaranteed to be up there for (usually) 2 or more terms making ~140k a year, no one actually cares other than to stay in office and cash in from the lobbyists.

I actually remember the "social elite" who published the federalist papers also argued against congressmen making any money while they're in office so those just trying to make a buck wouldn't be as tempted.

sleepy1212
January 14th, 2011, 02:41 PM
It's more like today's politicians are more corrupt than ever. That's why we can't get anything done- Lobbying and the fact that as a congressman when you're guaranteed to be up there for (usually) 2 or more terms making ~140k a year, no one actually cares other than to stay in office and cash in from the lobbyists.

there's nothing wrong with lobbying. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire ", you can find that in the federalist papers. It means lobbying is essential. In a republic it's almost the only way to get an opinion heard by a representative and it's wildly successful.


I actually remember the "social elite" who published the federalist papers also argued against congressmen making any money while they're in office so those just trying to make a buck wouldn't be as tempted.

That's completely wrong, and the reason they do earn salaries is to remove the temptation of bribery by properly compensating them.

Patssj6
January 14th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Well sleepy it's only partially true.

First problem is that lobbying in America has no limit...that means any amount of money can be transfered to individuals which is the second problem that the money does not reach a political group but individuals. Lobbying is NOT paying money to get an opinion across though in todays politics it usually works like that.

They earn salaries to remove the temptation of bribery?? Read that sentence again.

Dwood
January 14th, 2011, 04:43 PM
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

If the federalist papers were written by the hoity toity social elite, then I guess my definition of social elite is mixed up. From paper #51


In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

I think Warsaw was referring to how the constitution doesn't fit the way it is now via the current system's winner-take all system. An analysis of paper #51 by "The Father of the Constitution"- would show that the original makers were trying to keep that from ever happening, trying to defend the smaller factions from "mob rule" by doing two things originally-

In separating the legislative into two branches, the house and congress. The original intent was to have the state (or, the governor and the accompanying state legislature) elect 2 members to represent them, and the representatives of the people, also known as the "House of Representatives" - under this system one group wouldn't be able to pound on the other via nationwide legislation.


Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

End point that the problem isn't with the constitution as it was previously formulated (At least, in its descriptions of how government was supposed to operate) because it was meant to allow means for many different factions in government, and to play them off one of another.

The biggest detractor from the constitution which encroaches the security of the (or rather, any) minority group today is the idea that a congressman/woman is not to be put into office by the state legislature/governor. One may as well consolidate the two into one body at this point tbh.

Warsaw
January 14th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Shame on you Warsaw, wrong thread.

Heh, not just the wrong thread, but the wrong sub-forum too.

At any rate, you are incorrect about the whole education thing being part the reason we can't have multi-party. The reason it isn't taught is because it doesn't exist here, and that's because we've had a two-party system entrenched for so long.

Dwood, the bicameral legislature was actually made to appease the states and had nothing to do with the people. They made the Senate so small states could get the same representation as large states, and they made the Representatives so the big states could enjoy their population advantage. In theory, this means that the majority of people would get their ultimate say, but in practise it's just another way for states to flaunt. Also in practise, the majority has no say except when we're talking about presidential elections, and even then it's a farce.

Sleepy: Maybe. But since most of the politicians have investments in companies, they look out for that first. I do agree that there is nothing wrong with lobbying. Where it breaks down is the part of the Constitution that fails to set term limits for Congressmen.

sleepy1212
January 15th, 2011, 12:38 PM
First problem is that lobbying in America has no limit...that means any amount of money can be transfered to individuals which is the second problem that the money does not reach a political group but individuals. Lobbying is NOT paying money to get an opinion across though in todays politics it usually works like that.

Lobbying is simply campaigning on behalf of a special interest. Yes there is money involved because a group cannot lobby full time without it. They're not handing out bags of money to buy votes.

The biggest problem many people have with lobbying is that they view special interest groups as people who all disagree with them. They might be pro-gun rights and there's literally hundreds of groups who actively lobby for gun control so they oppose lobbying without realizing the NRA is there as well.


Sleepy: Maybe. But since most of the politicians have investments in companies, they look out for that first. I do agree that there is nothing wrong with lobbying. Where it breaks down is the part of the Constitution that fails to set term limits for Congressmen.

If you don't pay them, and they have to rely on their "day job" then they most certainly will act on behalf of their wallets. The fact that many do now is proof of that because many of them are from the private sector in the first place (see: Dept. of Agriculture, USDA, Monsanto, etc..). To be fair that's not specifically a pay issue but still a conflict of interest and I think we are missing some key regulations to keep future/former CEO's from taking public offices that have regulatory oversight over those same companies.

The other issue here is competence and motivation. People perform better and are more innovative when the "issue of money is off the table"
see: RSA Animate
(http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/04/08/rsa-animate-drive/)

Warsaw
January 15th, 2011, 04:32 PM
Exactly. But let's look at it: most politicians are already very well off and set for life. Money should not be an issue at all. Yet they want more. Broken? I think so. Can it be fixed? Easily. Will it be? No, because it's broken.

TVTyrant
January 18th, 2011, 05:36 PM
And I think that's the heart f the problem. I don't think our government per-say is at fault. I think its the fact that we have so many people who are involved in congress because they are looking to make a buck off of special interests. What we really need to do is push the lobbying system out of our government, and keep it that way. This is really the subject that I feel strongly about with our government.

Dwood
January 18th, 2011, 05:39 PM
I don't even care that much about the lobby system if it gets taxed just the same as, say, competitions/lotteries get taxed.

I think the biggest flaw at this point and time is the lack of term-limits for all people in "public service".

paladin
January 18th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Looks like she could be unseated if shes out for more than 3 months...

Warsaw
January 18th, 2011, 07:18 PM
And I think that's the heart f the problem. I don't think our government per-say is at fault. I think its the fact that we have so many people who are involved in congress because they are looking to make a buck off of special interests. What we really need to do is push the lobbying system out of our government, and keep it that way. This is really the subject that I feel strongly about with our government.

Lobbying is fine and if we didn't have it, certain groups with legitimate needs would go completely unrepresented. What we really need is A.) a purge of all congressmen, B.) Congressional term limits so lobbyists can't perpetually rely on the same guy to side with them every time, C.) allow probes into corruption of congressmen.

The only problem is part C, which can be abused by the executive to remove those who do not support him and his policies. There would have to be some sort of Judicial check against that, which in turn would be checked by Congress.

I really need to write up a platform for a new political party, or at the very least a manifesto detailing the American spirit.

TVTyrant
January 19th, 2011, 12:50 AM
I think they tried C once, and it got Charlie Wilson kicked out of office when he was awesome :(

Warsaw
January 19th, 2011, 12:51 AM
They've been trying it recently, too. However, our courts have so far ruled it unconstitutional.

TVTyrant
January 19th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Well, as with then, I am sure they would end up busting the wrong guys. Our government is stupid that way.