PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on April 06, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
-
I think former military aircraft should count under 2A for the "spirit" of the law. I'll take an F-15 please.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/07/local/me-jets7
-
The government hates us having the ability to defend ourselves with anything.
-
If you can afford to purchase and operate an F-15, why shouldn't you have one.
Oh wait, if you can afford to purchase and operate one, that would make you one of the 1%ers. Give all your money to the government so they can piss it away on failed programs.
-
Reminds me of the recently posted Ayn Rand quote about the point where government can do anything it wants, "while the citizens may act only by permission".
-
I think former military aircraft should count under 2A for the "spirit" of the law. I'll take an F-15 please.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/07/local/me-jets7
Actually it's the right to "bear" not right to "wear" which is what I think you would do with a fighter.
Still, $4,000 for an F-14? I'll take two, please.
-
Reminds me of the recently posted Ayn Rand quote about the point where government can do anything it wants, "while the citizens may act only by permission".
What happened to a citizen controlled government? Of the people, by the people, for the people.
-
What happened to a citizen controlled government? Of the people, by the people, for the people.
The 16th Amendment (income tax), the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators), and the 22nd Amendment's failure to include term limits for Congress along with term limits for the President. Every year an incumbent gets reelected moves him farther and farther from THE PEOPLE.
-
The 16th Amendment (income tax), the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators), and the 22nd Amendment's failure to include term limits for Congress along with term limits for the President. Every year an incumbent gets reelected moves him farther and farther from THE PEOPLE.
And the constant attacks by the LEFT on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
-
And the constant attacks by the LEFT on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments.
Yea, but I'll bet we can get a majority of us to agree with the 3rd Amendment!
-
Yea, but I'll bet we can get a majority of us to agree with the 3rd Amendment!
I hope so. And we all know what the British soldiers did with the colonist wives while they were living in their homes. That was the reason for the amendment. Nobody will come into our homes now. That was another reason for the 2nd.
-
The 16th Amendment (income tax), the 17th Amendment (popular election of Senators), and the 22nd Amendment's failure to include term limits for Congress along with term limits for the President. Every year an incumbent gets reelected moves him farther and farther from THE PEOPLE.
Yet it's the people who are doing the reelecting. Unless the purpose of the constitution is to protect the people from themselves by imposing term limits, the people are getting the government that they choose. And perhaps also what they deserve.
-
Yet it's the people who are doing the reelecting. Unless the purpose of the constitution is to protect the people from themselves by imposing term limits, the people are getting the government that they choose. And perhaps also what they deserve.
The Founders were brilliant in devising the bicameral-type of legislative branch. The House was popularly elected, and thus had 2-year terms.
The Senate, on the other hand, was designed to represent the States, under the theory that the States form the Union, and thus should have a major say in its government. The People are also closest to their States' legislatures, under the theory that all politics are local.
Now after the 17th Amendment, we have TWO popularly-elected bodies in Congress, with the only difference being the number of them, and their terms. This makes little sense, but has embedded more power in the Federal government and devolved power away from the States. Not good IMO.
-
Yet it's the people who are doing the reelecting. Unless the purpose of the constitution is to protect the people from themselves by imposing term limits, the people are getting the government that they choose. And perhaps also what they deserve.
To some extent that is true. But the advantage of incumbency is too difficult to ignore. I'm good with politicians serving multiple terms. Just not unlimited consecutive terms. Even if not required to resign to run again, they should at least be prevented from fund raising and campaigning while holding office.
-
To some extent that is true. But the advantage of incumbency is too difficult to ignore. I'm good with politicians serving multiple terms. Just not unlimited consecutive terms. Even if not required to resign to run again, they should at least be prevented from fund raising and campaigning while holding office.
Term limits are great to get the bum you hate out of office when everyone else is too stupid to not reelect him. However, they are really bad if you like the bum in office. The advantage of incumbency is there only if the people are too stupid to really pay attention to what each candidate stands for. Which, unfortunately, is most everyone.
The solution may be to limit campaigning to just one month before the election. All other time is spent on doing the job the people elected the bum to do. Everyone gets the same dollar amount to do the campaign and no more. I'd hate to use public funds for this but it's a good way to keep it fair.
-
The solution may be to limit campaigning to just one month before the election.
Probably First Amendment issues with that, don't you think?
-
Probably First Amendment issues with that, don't you think?
Huge ones. Limiting campaigning to one month also increases the incumbency advantage exponentially.
I still like the severe term limits idea of "no running for office while you hold office."
-
Term limits is not the answer. Restricting free speech or campaign spending is not the answer.
The answer is: make it easier for challengers to enter the race. Look at and possibly change the way they can qualify for the ballot. Support them in more ways including making it easier to contribute to their campaigns. Tighten up the way incumbents can fund-raise whlie on the govt payroll.
-
Probably First Amendment issues with that, don't you think?
There are already laws on the books that curtail the 1A rights of certain people, Federal Employees for example.
-
There are already laws on the books that curtail the 1A rights of certain people, Federal Employees for example.
How are non military government employees 1A rights curtailed?
-
There are already laws on the books that curtail the 1A rights of certain people, Federal Employees for example.
"What are you in for?"
"I was a senator, and I gave a speech just over a month before the election cycle began. I said I hoped I was doing a good job and could count on people's support. The DA thought that was campaigning, and I was arrested, then later convicted. Bum rap if you ask me!"
-
I think former military aircraft should count under 2A for the "spirit" of the law. I'll take an F-15 please.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/07/local/me-jets7
You might get it cheap, but the upkeep will kill you.
-
What happened to a citizen controlled government? Of the people, by the people, for the people.
Last time I checked, the Constitution began with the words "We the People", not "We the Career Politicians and Government Bureaucrats."
-
Term limits are great to get the bum you hate out of office when everyone else is too stupid to not reelect him. However, they are really bad if you like the bum in office. The advantage of incumbency is there only if the people are too stupid to really pay attention to what each candidate stands for. Which, unfortunately, is most everyone.
The solution may be to limit campaigning to just one month before the election. All other time is spent on doing the job the people elected the bum to do. Everyone gets the same dollar amount to do the campaign and no more. I'd hate to use public funds for this but it's a good way to keep it fair.
I think of campaign finance reform as if it were a boat. Your boat has about 100 holes in it leaking water but you only have 50 plugs, so you plug up the 50 biggest holes. Then the other 50 holes start spewing more water faster, so you move some of the plugs from the big holes to the little hole, but of course, that doesn't work either. So you then carve a few more plugs out of the hull to patch the other holes, buy you create even more holes.
The point is that our election system is broken and doesn't need tinkering. It needs major changes.
And trying to "make it fair" by giving every candidate equal amounts of public money just turns my stomach. I don't want to give "the other guy" my money. I want to be allowed to support my favorite candidate.
Incumbents should NOT be allowed to conduct any fund-raising while in office. That creates way too much incentive to buy your favorite politician, IF you can afford it. It also consumes the majority of time our elected officials could be using to actually do their job, (their job is/should NOT just be to get re-elected).
If you are going to allow them to run for re-election while in office, (and I don't think we should) then they have to be allowed to campaign. So your idea of one month of campaigning before the election may be a good idea. But I"d rather have term limits, or a single, but longer term, with easier "recall" abilities for the real bums.
-
They should treat being in congress like an actual job. There should be a required number of days that you have to show up for work in DC, in either the House, or the Senate and be physically present. They should have to stay there for the duration of the work day. If you fail to show up the required number of days, you're fired and you get replaced by whoever was number two in the election in your state. You could give the congress folks a month's worth of free days to do what they please, including campaigning.
In this scheme, the tax payer gets what they pay for, people showing up for work and nobody's first amendment rights are restricted. People can campaign all year long on behalf of an elected official, so their message gets out there, but they would only have a month to do it in person. This might put them at a disadvantage to an outside challenger, but I think that's a good thing. Make them have to work for re-election and maybe since they would actually be doing work in congress, they could point to their accomplishments at their job as a reason to re-elect them.
Of course we can all fantasize about how it should be, but it's been proven over and over that the folks in congress basically vote in their own self interest, so there will be no change to the status quo.
-
They should treat being in congress like an actual job. There should be a required number of days that you have to show up for work in DC, in either the House, or the Senate and be physically present. They should have to stay there for the duration of the work day. If you fail to show up the required number of days, you're fired and you get replaced by whoever was number two in the election in your state. You could give the congress folks a month's worth of free days to do what they please, including campaigning.
In this scheme, the tax payer gets what they pay for, people showing up for work and nobody's first amendment rights are restricted. People can campaign all year long on behalf of an elected official, so their message gets out there, but they would only have a month to do it in person. This might put them at a disadvantage to an outside challenger, but I think that's a good thing. Make them have to work for re-election and maybe since they would actually be doing work in congress, they could point to their accomplishments at their job as a reason to re-elect them.
Of course we can all fantasize about how it should be, but it's been proven over and over that the folks in congress basically vote in their own self interest, so there will be no change to the status quo.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
-
They should treat being in congress like an actual job. There should be a required number of days that you have to show up for work in DC, in either the House, or the Senate and be physically present. They should have to stay there for the duration of the work day. If you fail to show up the required number of days, you're fired and you get replaced by whoever was number two in the election in your state. You could give the congress folks a month's worth of free days to do what they please, including campaigning.
I would say the opposite.
They should put Senators and Congresscritters on a per diem. Say $500/day that they are in session and present. But the kicker, make it $750 for a day they're in session, but absent, and $1,000/day when they are out of session.
“No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”― Mark Twain (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1244.Mark_Twain)
-
How are non military government employees 1A rights curtailed?
The Hatch Act is one example. And since they can't seems to curtail it enough, they revise it ever so often.
-
The boat example was interesting but flawed. I think voters are broken and need fixing...starting with a good education. Entirely different problem, but if you don't understand the basis upon which the country and the laws are founded, can you realistically be qualified to elect law makers? Note qualified vs legally empowered.
-
The boat example was interesting but flawed. I think voters are broken and need fixing...starting with a good education. Entirely different problem, but if you don't understand the basis upon which the country and the laws are founded, can you realistically be qualified to elect law makers? Note qualified vs legally empowered.
We have received the government we deserve.
-
Boat example?