US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search

[mtnbkr]

Disagreement with the collective hivemind isn't trolling.  It's dissent.

What are you dissenting against?  This isn't a Bush or Clinton thing, it's a govt thing.  Everyone you've voted for since the Internet came into being is part of this.  The particulars change, but the concept and intent haven't changed in over a decade.

Chris

[Paddy]

Fair enough.  I'll stop it. 

[Paddy]

Fair enough. It isnt' about Bush, it's about how the entire gov is outta control.  There is no rational defense for either party IMO.  They're both filled with self serving career politicians none of whom care about anything but maintaining their own positions of power.   That's why this constant partisanship is so stupid.  "It's all the Democrat's fault" as if that's the end of the story, is empty headed nonsense.  It's both party's fault and what's more it's our fault for putting and keeping them there.

Wake up!  we're all losing our liberties and rights as this so-called 'two party' system grabs more and more power. 
This 'two party system' has a helluva lot more in common than in differences.  Hold them ALL responsible. None of them are good guys.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Fair enough. It isnt' about Bush, it's about how the entire gov is outta control.  There is no rational defense for either party IMO.  They're both filled with self serving career politicians none of whom care about anything but maintaining their own positions of power.   That's why this constant partisanship is so stupid.  "It's all the Democrat's fault" as if that's the end of the story, is empty headed nonsense.  It's both party's fault and what's more it's our fault for putting and keeping them there.

Wake up!  we're all losing our liberties and rights as this so-called 'two party' system grabs more and more power. 
This 'two party system' has a helluva lot more in common than in differences.  Hold them ALL responsible. None of them are good guys.

There.  Now you and I agree.  Wasn't that easy?

[Finch]

Riley, can you post links to a political thread where you posted and didn't mention Bush? 

It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.

[MechAg94]

First, you have to admit to yourself that Bush is not the root of all evil.  Once you do that, you might begin to understand. 

So if you think "Career Politicians" are the problem, how do we stop that? 

Term limits only keep them from keeping the same job.  It doesn't stop them from working in D.C. all their lives as aides, campaign workers, lobbyists, various elective positions, etc....   How do we get smart professionals to actually run for Congress who are not full time politicians? 

I'd like to see a law/amendment forcing Congress to only meet in session no more than 6 months out of the year (including committees), and all Congressmen must spend at least 4 months of the year living in their home district.  At least when Congress is not in session, I know they aren't passing new laws. 

How about 100% financial transparency for personal and campaign finances reported quarterly throughout campaigning and time in office out to two year after holding office.  The only way around it would be assets put in trust at some specified point before the election.  This would include spouses and dependents.

Congressmen, spouses and immediately family members would be barred from serving as lobbyists during the term and 5 years after leaving office. 

Not sure if this stuff would help or hurt.  The parties would probably have to go out and recruit people to run. 

[Boomhauer]

Congressmen, spouses and immediately family members would be barred from serving as lobbyists during the term and 5 years after leaving office.

Bar them from serving as lobbyists at all.

Two term limit for senators, three term limit for representatives.

Bills have to be plain language and nothing can be attached to them- i.e.- pork barrel projects, completely unrelated to the issue that the original bill addresses.

How about 100% financial transparency for personal and campaign finances reported quarterly throughout campaigning and time in office out to two year after holding office.  The only way around it would be assets put in trust at some specified point before the election.  This would include spouses and dependents.

Yep. Also, stop paying them so much and stop them from granting themselves pay raises.

Kick everyone out of Washington D.C. D.C. Was meant to be the seat of the federal government, not a city to live in. And politicians were meant to be people who didn't live in the D.C. area- instead, representatives were supposed to come home and go back to work after the business in Washington was concluded.

[Paddy]

MechAg94- All your suggestions are good, especially requiring financial transparency.  Unfortunately, the bastiches make the laws governing themselves and work every loophole to the max to keep us from knowing what they're doing.

I would bar private contributions of any kind and finance campaigns with public funds.  The lobbying/revolving door between government and business has to be closed and locked.  You 'serve' in public office, you don't work for any company who does business with government for five years.  Of course, that doesn't keep those businesses from sending you a big check every quarter for your favors while in office.

I don't know what the answer is.  I don't know how you enforce ethics, a sense of stewardship and service to the American people.  I just know we've let it go on too long and the time is overdue to let them know we're in charge and they work for us, not the other way around.

[drewtam]

Anybody ever read the book Freakonomics?

The authors do a statistical analysis of the impact of money on politics. It turns out that the conventional wisdom dramatically overrates the power of campaign money to garner votes. The hidden truth is that correlation does not equal causation. It should be obvious that the candidate that is electable can easily raise more money than the long shot. So the long shot gets neither; and voila- the correlation without causation.

[Boomhauer]

I would bar private contributions of any kind and finance campaigns with public funds

Eh, I don't want the Hildabeast and other undesirables campaigning off of MY TAX DOLLARS. If a business wants to contribute money, it's their matter. I don't have to do business with that company that contributes to certain candidates if I don't want to. I don't have an option if the government bankrolls the campaigns.

[Tuco]

Hell, it's fine with me.  The only thing that matters is the DOW index, anyhow. 

I think it's high time to revise the constitution.  To protect economic interests of individuals AND corporations, because, after all, so long as we think were wealthy, we wont be rioting in the streets.

And despots.  That little item in the D of I regarding despots.  That should be rewritten "TERRORISTS".  What's a despot anyway?

 

Rant off.

[MechAg94]

One additional thing I would do is eliminate almost all campaign finance reform laws.  I remember one of the radio guys years ago pointed out that turnover of Congressmen in D.C. was higher before campaign finance reform laws were enacted.  I thought he referenced back to some law from the 60's.  The only campaign finance law I would be for complete transparency of all funding and expenditures by the campaign.  Failure means they get kicked out of the election or kicked out of office. 

In all honesty, if there was no limit on campaign contributions or services to campaigns or what campaigns could use the money for.  You would have less need for all the hide-the-money fronts to fund campaigns or funneling money through a bunch of people to stay under contribution limits.  I think it would be more transparent overall and simpler. 

Outlawing foreign contributions is about the only contribution I can see limiting. 

[MechAg94]

I would be really really concerned with any effort to change the constitution.  It is not that I wouldn't mind some key edits, it is just that I don't trust that anyone else would agree with me and stop with just a few changes.  If it happened, we would probably end up with an 942 page constitution full of crap. 

I don't know the answer either, but I do like talking about real solutions.  If we actually push for some of this, we might eventually get some of it. 

[MechAg94]

 
I just got through watching Shooter with Mark Walberg.  That movie can give you some bad ideas on this topic. 

[GigaBuist]

If you're looking to stop the federal government from seizing more power with regards to your own life I see little sense in granting them even more power over our elected representatives.

Those that enforce the rules upon the elected officials will be selected by those officials.  Guess where their loyalty will lie?

The solution to that is to elect those that would watch over the federal government which puts us right back at the real solution:  Stop electing the wrong people.

As far as campaign finance reform goes, the only way it'll ever actually produce meaningful results is if the media campaigns are reduced so severly that voters aren't even aware that an election is coming up unless they're able to compute the date based on written law.

[Tecumseh]

And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.   

I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Pointing out that such intrusion is not unique to the current administration is not the same thing as saying such intrusion is OK.

FDR encouraged the FBI to monitor phones w/o warrants, and even had secret tribunals that sentenced unlawful combatants to death. Not much new here.

Do you have any links to prove this claim about FDR?

[seeker_two]

I don't know what the answer is.  I don't know how you enforce ethics, a sense of stewardship and service to the American people.  I just know we've let it go on too long and the time is overdue to let them know we're in charge and they work for us, not the other way around.

Them's dangerous words, Riley......if Bush sees this, you may get a free Cuban vacation on my dime.... 

[ilbob]

And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.   

I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Pointing out that such intrusion is not unique to the current administration is not the same thing as saying such intrusion is OK.

FDR encouraged the FBI to monitor phones w/o warrants, and even had secret tribunals that sentenced unlawful combatants to death. Not much new here.

Do you have any links to prove this claim about FDR?

A simple googling turned up a number of references.

here is just one.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13234&keywords=wiretap

here is an interesting congressional report on such things.

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIe.htm

[ilbob]

I would point out a couple of things.

I am not thrilled with Bush over a number of issues. That said, I have a hard time blaming him for what has been going on since before any of us were even born. Do you think that spies for either side during the war of northern aggression got wire taps to listen in on telegraph lines?

If you want to blame some people, blame one side of the aisle that has used these issues mostly as a political tool. There have been all kinds of chances to end the war. They control both houses of congress. If they don't vote the funds to continue the war, it will end very quickly. The reason they don't do so is because they know in their own heart of hearts that there is little choice but to continue the battle and win it. They are extreme hypocrites on this issue, and I can't even tell you how little I think of scum that would publicly rant against the war, while voting to continue it dozens of times.

A few years back there was a nonbinding vote on a mild resolution calling on the war to be ended. I think all of 5 congressman TOTAL voted for it. Tells you how sincere their convictions about the war really are.

As for the Patriot Act, warrant less electronic surveillance, etc., their party controls the purse strings. Even if they don't have the votes to repeal the Patriot Act, they don't need to repeal it to not appropriate any funds to enable it. Not a one of them has even attempted to do so. That tells you where they really are.

[Tallpine]

It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.

Yeah, but Clinton was the worst president we've ever had.  And I didn't much like her husband either 

[ilbob]

It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.

Yeah, but Clinton was the worst president we've ever had.  And I didn't much like her husband either 

I am not sure how to rate best and worst presidents. We have had a fair number of bad ones from various points of view, and virtually no good ones from some points of view.

[Tallpine]

I think you missed the point ...

[ilbob]

I think you missed the point ...

yes i did.