Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

About that 'not one smidgen of corruption' More

About that 'not one smidgen of corruption'

Comments Filter:
  • I'm not familiar with the

    not one smidgen of corruption

    Line from the title of your JE here. A google search on it is inconclusive the way you wrote it. Is someone being paraphrased or is this a new line from someone else?

    • Obama's precise quote was: "Not even a smidgen of corruption [dailycaller.com]"
      FWIW, I don't think that the IRS scandal is any more corrupt than the rest of the administration.

      • Obama's precise quote was: "Not even a smidgen of corruption"

        Thank you for the clarification. If the accusations levied by certain conservatives of all democrats being hard-core devout Obama worshipers was true then I would expect that close variations of the line would have come from other democrats at other times, so I wanted to make sure I knew who you were talking about.

        FWIW, I don't think that the IRS scandal is any more corrupt than the rest of the administration.

        So then you want to spend billions of dollars worth of time and money on investigating this in hopes of ending the administration early as well?

        • Hard to tell. It seems as though our entire Constitutional order is kind of ending with a dull 'plop'. What difference, at this point, does it make?
          • That defeatist attitude does not make sense in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

            It also does not make sense in light of the fact that you are determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the c

            • . . .in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

              Can you please elaborate upon this famous 'fact'. I'm curious which 'conservatives' you mean, and precisely what they have 'asked for'. I think that Americans have been idiots for several generations, and may be reaping what they've sown, but's that's not quite the same thing.

              . . .determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place?

              I don't think reform-minded Americans have spent even a fraction of the boodle that's been senselessly blown on General Motors, the Stimulus, or ObamaCare, to name three major Obama disasters. I actually agree with you, to a point: the

              • . . .in light of the fact that the conservatives in the federal government have gotten the vast overwhelming majority of everything they have asked for from the federal government.

                Can you please elaborate upon this famous 'fact'

                Conservatives wanted lower income taxes for the wealthy, and Obama signed off on bigger tax cuts than any that Reagan ever dared propose.

                Conservatives resisted health care reform, so Obama signed off on a giant corporate give-away to the lobby that owns more senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle than any others.

                Conservatives resisted closing Guantanamo, so it hasn't happened.

                Conservatives resisted ending the war in Afghanistan, so we are still there.

                Conservatives resisted doing an

                • Conservatives wanted lower income taxes for the wealthy, and Obama signed off on bigger tax cuts than any that Reagan ever dared propose.

                  Maybe we can agree, irrespective of the IRS scandal, that the existing tax system is a wash, and we need something shorter & clearer. The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich [cbsnews.com], while pumping the loopholes like mad. But that's the sort of prevarication one expects from our neo-aristocracy.

                  Conservatives resisted health care reform, so Obama signed off on a giant corporate give-away to the lobby that owns more senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle than any others.

                  I mean, your Orwellian claptrap is ruin. What sane person wants your ruin?

                  Conservatives resisted closing Guantanamo, so it hasn't happened.

                  I'm sorry, have elections had consequences?

                  Conservatives resisted ending the war in Afghanistan, so we are still there.

                  Hey, didn't the no-talent rodeo clown campaign on

                  • I've been arguing the unlikelihood of impeachment for a long time

                    Really? I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

                    and actively against it for the last few weeks

                    Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment. I haven't seen it but I don't read every single comment you write here. I have seen a vast number of comments from you over the past 7 or so years where you have been rabidly in favor of impeaching Oba

                    • I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

                      Um, truth?

                      Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment.

                      I'm really more "pro reform [slashdot.org]". To your point, I've never explicitly said I am "actively against" impeachment. I figure, after this November's GOP wave, there is going to be some sort of circus, which the Democrats will try to turn away from the truth and into some manufactured raaaaacism screed. They need such a move to regain the tempo in advance of Her Majesty's coronation in 2016.
                      None of which is meant to proclaim Obama's innocence of anything.

                    • One refinement: I wasn't able to find, in the last three months, a /. reply where I'd pointed out the futility of impeachment.
                      I've made the point on other blogs and Twitter, though. They're just outside the scope of this conversation.

                    • I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

                      Um, truth?

                      Based on your writings, you seem to have a very specific idea of what "truth" means. It appears that for you, truth is only fulfilled when a conclusion is 110% damning towards a democrat. You have rejected investigations that came back 90% damning and insisted on spending more federal resources on new investigations into "truth".

                      But really, if all you want is truth, then what's the hurry? You are trying to get all these investigations through while Obama is still in office, which further supports th

                    • One refinement: I wasn't able to find, in the last three months, a /. reply where I'd pointed out the futility of impeachment.

                      If I may be extra verbose, then, I would like to ask a follow up question (or two).

                      Are you, at this time - and for the duration of the Obama administration - against starting impeachment?

                      In other words, if Boehner were to brief the press this afternoon stating that he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

                      I'm not trying to be pedantic here (even if it may look otherwise). I just want to get a read on your actual feelings on the matter. I do not read you

                    • Truth is God, and connecting the phrase "proclaim Obama's innocence of anything" with anything other than his stated Christian faith is completely on you.

                    • Are you, at this time - and for the duration of the Obama administration - against starting impeachment?

                      I should think Obama's record the best answer for this question. Do you think there is evidence that he has deviated from his oath of office?
                      For my part, I'm emotionally past the question. If you yourself think that BHO was born in Kenya, then maybe you should demand his ouster. I'm not wasting my breath.

                      he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

                      For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you thin

                    • he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

                      For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you think worthy.

                      What I think is not important to this question at all. I am asking what you think. I just want to know, are you truly against impeachment, or are you waffling about? You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

                      Up until today every comment I have seen from you that has regarded impeachment in any way has indicated your enthusiastic support of it.

                      I suppose I was enthusiastic until the 2012 election. However, think of that election as a quasi-referendum on the topic; the fact that Obama won re-election* pretty well indicates that not enough Americans felt strongly enough to deliver his ouster. Now I'm ambivalent.

                      Your own comments do not support that. You were championing impeachment well after the 2012 election. Furthermore, impeachment does not inherently reflect the wishes of the American public, as congress has the right to bring about impeachment. Whether it reflects the wishes of

                    • You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

                      I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable. Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration. THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright? The simple truth is that I care as much about an impeachment proceeding as I do the question of the lat/long of his mother at his birth--What. Difference. Does/Would. It. Make?
                      Does it offend you if I'm kind of past caring?

                    • You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

                      I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable.

                      Justice for what, exactly? How would a trial of Obama in any way be capable of bringing justice? You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways. If an impeachment trial on your first favorite conspiracy theory came back not guilty, would you then start by claiming that it was somehow wrong and warrants a redo (in spite of traditional interpretations of double jeopardy), or would you jump straight to your next favorite conspiracy theory ad nauseum?

                      Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration.

                      I can't imagine a situat

                    • You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways.

                      I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

                      I can't imagine a situation where you would ever accept the possibility of him being "innocent"

                      I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

                      THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright?

                      You keep trying to get me to call you a racist.

                      The ski jump logic got wild there. I am pretty sure I'm NOT the GOP, and this is a hypothetical future case where somebody else would be disagreeing with Obama (the definition of racism [senate.gov], to some). How, exactly, that amounts to YOU calling anyone racist is unclear. Though, admittedly, in keeping with your style.

                      unless of course you mean you are past caring about the protections of this country's justice system.

                      The justice system, too will

                    • You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways.

                      I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

                      One, it is impossible for you to credibly deny the independence of investigations that you refuse to read. Your understanding of the investigations to date is no better than your understanding of the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

                      Two, if you arbitrarily discard investigations whose results you haven't read by claiming they are not "independent" - apparently based only on the fact that the blog posts you read about them indicate that they do not agree with all of your favorite assu

                    • I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

                      Your writings support the notion that there is no situation in which you would be willing to accept him being innocent. The fact that you refuse to describe how he could be proven innocent

                      Help me understand how a man who is actually innocent could ever be guilty. Sure, there will always be liars who hurl accusations (see, for example, statements on this website by people you know) but innocence is an absolute state. It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty, and you're more interested in gaming the system, as with unreliable investigations, than you are in proving innocence and providing justice for the slain.

                      You have made a great number of attempts over the years to get me to call you that. I have not once done so.

                      I have not once done so. Let me double down. I have nev

                    • innocence is an absolute state

                      So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence? You don't seem to be the least bit concerned about double jeopardy anymore, amongst other things. Furthermore our justice system has never required the charged to prove innocence. Why do you feel that your conspiracy theories justify discarding this pillar of our system?

                      It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty

                      I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories. If you had any

                    • So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence?

                      How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

                      I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories.

                      Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

                      How can you possibly call an investigation unreliable when you haven't bothered to read the results?

                      One obvious way is to note that, were any of the previous whitewashings, in fact, adequate, there would not be further investigations.

                      Again, why must innocence suddenly be proven? Such a criteria has never been part of our justice system before.

                      Our political system has never seen the likes of the IRS suppression of dissent, and the Benghazi suppression of truth that have, unfortunately, clouded the outcome of the 2012 election. Precedent must b

                    • So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence?

                      How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

                      Considering the fairy tale circumstances that are included in your allegations against him - and the impossibility of disproving them - there is no way for the POTUS to prove innocence. Your allegations are 100% faith based, and proving them to be false is no easier than proving there to be no deity.

                      I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories.

                      Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

                      Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence when charged with a crime. You are advocating for up-ending that for this case. You certainly do not know the president to be guilty of anything,

                    • Your allegations are 100% faith based, and proving them to be false is no easier than proving there to be no deity.

                      Can you relate your assertion to the timeline, please? The claims of demonstrations, the video, the jailing of Nakula Nakula, all belie everything you're saying. It is simply the case that the public amnesia upon which a fourth-rate banana republic regime like that of Obama relies to retain power is not working in this case. The overwhelming suspicion that good men were callously left to die in combat is going to require a thorough, detailed, non-Duranty-Award-Winning [pjmedia.com] investigation.
                      Interestingly, the one

                    • I'm really more "pro reform [slashdot.org]"

                      Oh, what's this, the Jim Carney game? You are not "pro reform [slashdot.org]" You may now return to your regularly scheduled circle-jerk... I am no longer aroused...

                    • Meh
                    • The word count of your reply suggests that you put some thought in to it, so I wanted to wait to have time to reply to it. Then I looked at it a few times and realized the word count is just creating an illusion of thoughtfulness; you are a pretty good illusionist that way.

                      Basically everything boils down to your fantasy about

                      good men were callously left to die in combat

                      The word "callously", in particular, is a huge problem in your argument that you have absolutely no way to address. You are trying to dream up some way to put emotions on trial.

                    • Starting from the top:

                      Basically everything boils down to your fantasy about

                      good men were callously left to die in combat

                      The word "callously", in particular, is a huge problem in your argument that you have absolutely no way to address. You are trying to dream up some way to put emotions on trial

                      I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".
                      The line you hacked without even hint of ellipsis was:

                      The overwhelming suspicion that good men were callously left to die in combat is going to require a thorough, detailed, non-Duranty-Award-Winning investigation.

                      Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion". I did not use the f-word at all; it is by no means a "fact" that Obama approached a butchered Ambassador and three Americans in less that a heroic fashion, as long as you ignore, well a reasonable take on the record & stuff. Bu

                    • I was wondering when you would feign insult in this discussion, you answered my question. I have noticed that you have adopted that as one of your favorite ways to distract attention from the fallacies of your arguments.

                      I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".

                      It is noted that you still did not address your huge problem. You instead opted for another of your favorite tactics in trying to create facts out of nothing but repetition.

                      Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion".

                      A sparing dose of CYA, there? You have in previous calls for extralegal removal not bothered to bring up suspicion

                    • I was wondering when you would feign insult in this discussion, you answered my question. I have noticed that you have adopted that as one of your favorite ways to distract attention from the fallacies of your arguments.

                      I do find your penchant for falsehood insulting, and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

                      I guess you might benefit from some reading assistance, as it might alleviate the "huge problem" that I have "absolutely no way to address".

                      It is noted that you still did not address your huge problem. You instead opted for another of your favorite tactics in trying to create facts out of nothing but repetition.

                      Thus, "callously" is tightly bound to "overwhelming suspicion".

                      A sparing dose of CYA, there? You have in previous calls for extralegal removal not bothered to bring up suspicion. Have you come to realize - perhaps if only on a subcons cious level - that your argument actually is fact-free and does not have the merit that it needs in order to lead towards even something that could potentially warrant a committee to discuss having a meeting about considering calling witnesses for a hearing towards a discussion for grand jury subpoenas?

                      We might be helped here by freeing ourselves from your spaghetti logic. I'm baffled by what seems to be an attempted Jedi mind trick where you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration.

                    • and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

                      That statement makes sense only if

                      • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
                        • or
                      • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

                      you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

                      Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

                      My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course.

                      And if the investigator does not find enough evidence to call a grand j

                    • and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

                      That statement makes sense only if

                      • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
                      • or
                      • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

                      OR, you're full of crap.

                      you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

                      Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

                      There you go, begging the question. AGAIN. How can you possibly know "your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?"
                      I suppose you're going to tell me that, for example, Santa Clause stole the two years worth of IRS email. Not to shift the topic from the legitimate concerns about the President and Benghazi, but after a five year pattern of systemic malfeasance, I'm like Paul Ryan to your IRS Chief: "No on believes you."

                      My suggestion is that Grand Jury run its course.

                      And if the investigator does not find enough evidence to call a grand jury? I presume you will just find another investigator at that time? You certainly have not given any reason to believe that you are aware of any evidence of an impeachable offense having occurred.

                      Let Gowdy do his job, say I.

                      You seem superficially convinced that BHO will be exhonerated.

                      You are the one who wants to commit billions of dollars and ghastly amounts of time to this witch hunt. You are the one who is certain that the POTUS is a criminal simply because of the consonant after his name.

                      Ye

                    • and can't think of any fallacy you've ever legitimately pointed out in any of my points.

                      That statement makes sense only if

                      • You haven't been reading what I write (an easy argument to support based on what you have written)
                      • or
                      • You realize you haven't made any points as your arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based

                      OR, you're full of crap.

                      If that is your belief then why do you continue in this discussion at all? I don't believe you to be full of crap; I believe you to be stating your opinion without concern for the fact that you have no facts to support said opinion.

                      you want to make the question of the President's actions on the night of 11Sep2011 about me, instead of him and his administration

                      Wrong. I don't know why you feel the need to try to level accusations at me out of thin air - perhaps this is you acknowledging that your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?

                      There you go, begging the question. AGAIN. How can you possibly know "your accusations against the POTUS are to date entirely without merit?"

                      Becaus

                    • It sounds as though we've run our course.

                      why do you continue in this discussion at all?"

                      I happen to have enough time to support this Argument Clinic. When it's gone, it's gone.

                      Because you have never given ANY facts to support your undying screams for impeachment.

                      We have the events of September-November 2011 as probably cause for suspicion. Or does your calendar just have a gaping hole there?

                      When pajamas tells you that his results are somehow wrong - based on the fact that he won't find reason to call a grand jury for impeachment - what will you do then?

                      How do you know this will happen? Were you not just hammering ME about a supposed lack of facts?

                      You have repeatedly called for the removal of the POTUS simply for being a democrat.

                      That's a lie, but I'll call it hyperbole because I'm such a swell guy of the sort who would never call for the removal of a figure simply for membership in

                    • Because you have never given ANY facts to support your undying screams for impeachment.

                      We have the events of September-November 2011 as probably cause for suspicion. Or does your calendar just have a gaping hole there?

                      The Benghazi attacks that are a key part of your favorite (by comment volume) conspiracy theory occurred on September 11, 2012. If there is something critical to them that happened the year prior, please share that in more specific terms.

                      When pajamas tells you that his results are somehow wrong - based on the fact that he won't find reason to call a grand jury for impeachment - what will you do then?

                      How do you know this will happen?

                      I can confidently state that this will happen because the attacks have already been investigated independently. Your blatant and proud refusal to read the reports that came from those investigations only makes your argument look that much sillier.

                      You have repeatedly called for the removal of the POTUS simply for being a democrat.

                      That's a lie

                      None of your conspirac

                    • W: America’s Longest-Serving President [pjmedia.com]
                      George W. Bush really should step down after six terms in office.

                      I'm afraid you've been out-hooeyed.
                    • That's just silly. You are again painting me with the same broad strokes that you love to apply to anyone who is less conservative than yourself. I don't blame GWB for the new problems that have come to our country since the inauguration of Obama. When you go for your labeling initiatives you make yourself look just as sill as you do when you run around trying to get people to call you a racist for not supporting Obama.

                      But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people w

                    • But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people who have opinions that don't match your own - then why do you post on them here?

                      Because. . .I feel like it?
                      I actually enjoy discussing issues; the tendency for discussions with you devolve into an Argument Clinic is not representative.

                    • But if you don't want to actually discuss issues - or, at least, not with people who have opinions that don't match your own - then why do you post on them here?

                      Because. . .I feel like it?

                      That is a perfectly valid reason to post. What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

                      I actually enjoy discussing issues

                      It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you. It's also true that your argument likely won't improve from it, and you likely won't learn anything from the experience either.

                      I'm sorry that you find yourself personally insulted when I challenge you to think.

                      the tendency for discussions with you devolve into an Argument Clinic is not representative.

                      When one of

                    • What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

                      Are you confusing your brow-beatings with actual discussion?

                      It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you.

                      That's actually not the case. Don't we belie that Right. In. This. Very. Thread. for heaven's sake? Or does "discussion" mean "succumbing to your worldview" in d_r speak?

                      the discussion doesn't have much hope of being lasting or valuable.

                      Discussion with you is always valuable as a research endeavor into Intermediate Commie Browbeating Techniques.

                    • What it doesn't explain though is why you don't just post them "comments disabled", as you don't want to discuss issues with people who disagree with you anymore.

                      Are you confusing your brow-beatings with actual discussion?

                      I'm sorry that my questions leave you feeling such a victim. This still leaves one to wonder why you bother posting your JEs with comments enabled for all however, when it seems you don't actually want comments from anyone who doesn't share your opinion. Or at the very least, you don't seem to welcome topical questions from anyone who does not agree with you.

                      It's true that you can have a discussion with only people who agree with you.

                      That's actually not the case. Don't we belie that Right. In. This. Very. Thread.

                      I haven't seen you actually discuss anything in this thread with anyone who held a different opinion from your own. Granted I am not interested in

                  • The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich [cbsnews.com], while pumping the loopholes like mad.

                    Just an FYI, even though it seems hypocritical to us, it's not really, because to collectivists, it doesn't do squat unless (almost) everyone is in it. For the same reason why Warren Buffet won't just send in a bunch more of his money to the government, but would gladly do it if officially demanded by the government of all rich pukes. I.e. it's not personal integrity that's important to Lefties, it's the gloriousness of large, far-reaching schemes forcing what they want for the system. It's about what th

                    • Our tax code is pretty much a joke perpetrated against honest people.
                      Make it fit on one side of one page in a legible font.
                      Cap the people administering it at five years or so before forcing them out.

                    • But no one ever agrees on a simpler tax code. A good portion of the Right are bastards who want that "fair tax" thing. I'm for a single tax rate for everyone, no deductions, but most people would scream bloody murder at no mortgage or charity deductions. (It's illegal (and immoral) for the govt. to financially incentivize certain life choices, and thereby penalize those who choose otherwise.)

                      But your idea of term limits for federal employees beyond just politicians is brilliant. In a way the unelected a

                    • The important question to me is the feedback loop that stabilizes the system.
                      My tax system would treat the 50 states as subscribers. The knife fight would be about how the budget is apportioned to the 50 states; population, economic activity, so forth.
                      The budget is capped at the receipts from the previous year at the Treasury.
                      States that fail to meet their number have a makeup sales tax assessed against them. This incentivizes the states to keep the budget minimal.
                      Strike the 16th Amendment. The Federal

                    • More concentrated brilliance from yourself. I've thought the tax system should be a strict chain up the hierarchy, with higher-up levels of government with no power to directly address in taxation anything but its next lower level. No doubt influenced by MH42's thinking and posting on concentric levels of governance and less power over the individual as you get less local.

                      So I would pay taxes only to my city, for what it needs to operate plus whatever its share is to the county, which would be determined by

                    • Looks great on screen; getting it implemented's another issue.

                    • Part of the problem is that our Founding Fathers were onto something, but didn't take it far enough. A lot more decentralization is required to stave off tyranny. And that's not what the American system has been, so change is probably limited to only restoring the limited amount of checks and balances that were originally designed in.

                    • They took it as far as they could in the time they had. Now, in the Information Age, we have to try and pick up the torch again and even advance it.

                    • You have the optimism necessary in a politician. I wish people who had their good sense intact would run for public office. Except for the clergy, what could be a more important job in times like these where America is in shambles and Americanism is crumpling fast.

                    • I have an optimism born of faith, but the same faith breeds a disdain for wielding power over others.

                    • How odd. I suspect a lot of my pessimism comes from my faith, from knowing why things are the way they are, and that they could only be that way, and that they're supposed to be that way.

                      And you would have a problem casting Right-wing votes if you ran on that and won a majority in your area of representation? That's not tyranny, that's representative democracy. Very odd.

                    • If I ran on the social conservative platform representing what I actually believe, the only vote I should win is for crucifixion. But I'm not a martyr.
                      The challenge we have, and I think we'll see this borne out after November, is that even if victorious, the Republican Party is going to fight a tremendous amount of inertia trying to put teeth in the "elections have consequences" meme.
                      My gut is with the Convention of States [conventionofstates.com] for delivering any real improvement; while our individual change comes by faith thr

                    • If I ran on the social conservative platform representing what I actually believe, the only vote I should win is for crucifixion.

                      MH42 said something similar recently, that with his social positions he couldn't get elected to a water board. So anyone who's socially Conservative shouldn't bother running for office/we should only have the morally misfiring to choose from?

                      (And you disdain wielding power over people, but you'd do it to enforce your social views? That's not much disdain then.)

                    • Oh, I'm pretty sure we'll all get water-boarded soon enough. :-)
                      Two points about elective office:
                      (1) It would take some clear direction from God, and a mood shift on my wife's part, to make it tenable.
                      (2) One of my quirks is that I do not equate morality and ethics [theothermccain.com]. Public office is an ethical matter. You enforce the law of the land as-is, not as-personally-desired.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close