Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Government changes the rules again, at the last minute.


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 10:53 AM

How many times has this happened recently? Right before someone/some other party has the opportunity to do something they are legally allowed to do, their opposition changes that rule so they can't do it. 

 

 

I'm not super savvy on stuff like this, but the jist of it is this (plz correct me if I'm in error...) - there is a rule in the House of Reps that states if there is a conflict over a bill that any House member has the right to request disposal. (So in this case, the disagreement - funding/shutdown) By the original rule, any House member can make a request, and that request is to re-open the government. 

 

So what the GOP did (I'm not really sure how...) is make a last-minute amendment to that rule, on the day of the shutdown, that only the House majority leader may request it. Coincidentally, the majority leader is GOP. 

 

 

So the GOP, at the last minute the day of the shutdown, amended the House rules to say that only they (GOP) would be able to request re-opening the government. 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note, I am not either Dem or Rep. They are both snakes, IMO. I'm just illustrating some of the bullshit that's going on, as I found it. 



#2 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:00 AM

It's slimy, but it's not unlawful.



#3 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:36 AM

It's slimy, but it's not unlawful.

Lawful and Slimy.  

 

Kinda like when OJ was aquitted.



#4 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 11:50 AM

Yeah, it's lawful. Just pointing out yet again the snakery of our dear govt. Both sides have pulled tricks like this. 

 

It's stuff like this, though, that needs to be more exposed, so that people understand really what's going on. Even if this video got more exposure, the general masses couldn't understand it. 

 

I'm pretty smart, and I had to watch it twice to figure out exactly what was going on. With laws, it's confusing as hell for most people.

 

"Paragraph C of Amendment 3.8, subsection D, point 8, reads that only small, one armed Leprechauns with a club foot may submit a Disclaimer, signed in triplicate, and filed in Section B1, part A."  :confused1:



#5 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:05 PM



#6 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:14 PM


Question: Anyone know how the new / amended rule was passed? Did it have to go to a vote of the entire house.
 

Weird / Out-of-The-Box Idea: The "rules" by which our government functions are part of the problem. From gerrymandering (where the elected pick the voters instead of the voters picking the elected) to this example above to the filibuster (where reading a cookbook out loud for 8 hours is somehow governing) it's obvious our system is fucked up, not to mention embarrassing.  The reason it's fucked up is that the same people that have to live by the rules make the rules -- so the rules are political. So, what if we had a fourth branch of government that set the rules. They set the voting districts, the rules of the house & senate, etc. The exact details of how those people are chosen/appointed/voted-in and term-limits, etc. would be setup to make the body as un-political as possible. ~ Of course this means the media would now have to be called something other that "The Fourth Estate." My suggestion for them is "The Filth Estate."



#7 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:19 PM

Even if you set up a different group, they would get involved in the same $ swindling bullshit. There would be favoritism for a party.  I don't think a fourth party would work. 

 

I don't know what would. Corruption would get in anywhere. 

 

 

 

 

And Hoagie got my reference ;)



#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:09 PM

Government is out of control! We need more government!



#9 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:27 PM

Even if you set up a different group, they would get involved in the same $ swindling bullshit. There would be favoritism for a party.  I don't think a fourth party would work. 

 

I don't know what would. Corruption would get in anywhere. 

 

I believe that if carefully crafted, the 4th branch could be non-political. Okay, maybe not 0% non-political -- very few systems are perfect. But still very non-political. And if the rules they make only go into effect at the "next" election -- they will be making rules "in the blind" -- that is, not knowing who is going to be in power. ~ I grant you crafting the exact way it runs would take thought, but to just say "it can't work" without thinking it through seems like giving up. The founders of this country came up with a system never seen before that did a good job of getting rid of the corruption they saw. It has finally met it's match in terms of technology and people figuring out ways around it (and still does an okay job) -- but they didn't just say, "Ahh, that can't work."

 

 

Government is out of control! We need more government!

 

Funny. And true -- sometimes when one finds themselves in a hole the answer is to stop digging. But sometimes the answer IS more of the same. Sometimes we fight fire with fire (literally). Sometimes when all our papers and schedules are unorganized, we buy more filing cabinets, and another paper product in the form of a daily planner. Sometimes in a technical problem the answer is to back off, but sometimes it to dig further into the problem and use more technology.

So while funny, I reject the implication that, without thought, it simply is a bad idea.



#10 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:36 PM

Why would one buy another filing cabinet when they are disorganized? That's a complete lack of efficiency. First you get organized. I'd imagine you probably have a lot of useless items bogging down the organization as opposed to keeping every piece of scrap you have and buying another filing cabinet. On top of that, if we take the anaolgy all the way, we're not buying another filing cabinet, we're borrowing the money on the brand new credit card because the others are maxed out to buy it. Or we're stealing the money from our neighbors to buy it.

 

The answer is less government in this instance, not more of it.



#11 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,245 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:40 PM

 And if the rules they make only go into effect at the "next" election -- they will be making rules "in the blind" -- that is, not knowing who is going to be in power. 

 

 

I was thinking that this would be a good rule for both the House and Senate to adopt.



#12 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

The answer is less government in this instance, not more of it.

 

 

That's exactly what I was about to put. Making more and more rules to keep other rules in check isn't going to get anywhere. as TASB pointed out, you have to unfuck the current situation, change the current mentality. 

 

When it comes to rules and regulations, we've gotten so far into it, and so deep in rules that I don't know how to get out. The problem with undoing any rule is that someone will say they are now being treated unfairly, because 'before', someone else benefited. 



#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

Unfuck the world?

 

:tumbleweed:



#14 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:02 PM

Unfuck the world?

 

:tumbleweed:

 

 

Well, start with the US gubbmint. 



#15 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:04 PM

That's exactly what I was about to put. Making more and more rules to keep other rules in check isn't going to get anywhere. as TASB pointed out, you have to unfuck the current situation, change the current mentality. 

 

When it comes to rules and regulations, we've gotten so far into it, and so deep in rules that I don't know how to get out. The problem with undoing any rule is that someone will say they are now being treated unfairly, because 'before', someone else benefited. 

 

tend to agree here.



#16 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:16 PM

   Congressional Reform Act of 2013
 
                       1. No Tenure / No Pension.
                       A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in
                       office and receives no pay when they're out of
                       office.
 
                       2. Congress (past, present & future) participates
                       in Social Security.
                       All funds in the Congressional retirement fund
                       move to the Social Security system immediately.
                       All future funds flow into the Social Security
                       system, and Congress participates with the
                       American people. It may not be used for any other
                       purpose.
 
                       3. Congress can purchase their own retirement
                       plan, just as all Americans do.
 
                       4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay
                       raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of
                       CPI or 3%.
 
                       5. Congress loses their current health care system
                       and participates in the same health care system as
                       the American people.
 
                       6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they
                       impose on the American people.
 
                       7. All contracts with past and present
                       Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/13. The
                       American people did not make this contract with
                       Congressmen/women.
 
                       Congress made all these contracts for themselves.
                       Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The
                       Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators,
                       so ours should serve their term(s), then go home
                       and back to work.
CURRENTLY:
Salary of retired US Presidents : $180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate members : .     $174,000 FOR LIFE 
Salary of Speaker of the House: $223,500 FOR LIFE 
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400 FOR LIFE 
[Average Salary of a teacher: $40,065; Average Salary of a deployed Soldier : $38,000]
Warren Buffet, in a recent interview with CNBC :
         "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."
         The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified because the people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cellphones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law ofthe land - all because of public pressure.
    


#17 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:19 PM

That's a fantastic plan, but you'd have to get THEM to vote 'yes' on it. The sad thing is, the things listed ( I think I've seen this before...) are not unrealistic. It's a job, not fucking royalty, and it's been loooong overdue for them to stop making rules/laws so they they live like royalty. 

 

At least royalty might get more done. 



#18 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:21 PM

That's a fantastic plan, but you'd have to get THEM to vote 'yes' on it. The sad thing is, the things listed ( I think I've seen this before...) are not unrealistic. It's a job, not fucking royalty, and it's been loooong overdue for them to stop making rules/laws so they they live like royalty. 

 

At least royalty might get more done. 

 

if everyone were behind it and actually participated in voting, it could DEFINITELY pass.  To use TASB's words "unless they want to get EATEN, yes EATEN (probably alive)" they will have to vote yes.  Period.



#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

Less than half of eligible voters participate.

 

It's a fun thing to think about. But thats where it ends. Remember the big to do about removing congressional ability to use insider trading information for stock market gambling? There was a big petition and then congress voted on it and made it illegal for congress to use such information for their own benefi. Yeah, that lasted all of one year and they repealed it.

 

Government is a disease on civiled society. Plain and simple.



#20 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:27 PM

Government precedes "civilized" society.  I think.



#21 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

Why would one buy another filing cabinet when they are disorganized? That's a complete lack of efficiency. First you get organized. I'd imagine you probably have a lot of useless items bogging down the organization as opposed to keeping every piece of scrap you have and buying another filing cabinet. On top of that, if we take the anaolgy all the way, we're not buying another filing cabinet, we're borrowing the money on the brand new credit card because the others are maxed out to buy it. Or we're stealing the money from our neighbors to buy it.

 

The answer is less government in this instance, not more of it.

 

The credit card analogy and how things are paid for have nothing to do with this topic. Funny maybe, but diversionary. 

 

Don't like the office analogy, fine. I'm not here to get hung up on analogies. They are not meant to be perfect or exact representations. They are meant to help another understand a relational point. Use the fire with fire one. The point is, one can not say that more of the same things is de facto and non starter. We all know and have lived cases where that is not true.
 

Lets not get hung up on the analogies. My only point is: Yes, sometimes more of the same thing is not the answer. But sometimes it is. So just out of hand rejecting the idea is not reasonable. If you want to argue the points of it, fine. But simply saying more can not be the answer, simply repeating "The answer is less government in this instance, not more of it." is not critical thinking or trying for a solution but is mindless reactivism.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I was about to put. Making more and more rules to keep other rules in check isn't going to get anywhere. as TASB pointed out, you have to unfuck the current situation, change the current mentality. 

 

When it comes to rules and regulations, we've gotten so far into it, and so deep in rules that I don't know how to get out. The problem with undoing any rule is that someone will say they are now being treated unfairly, because 'before', someone else benefited. 


You don't know how to get out of it so what you do is not even entertain an idea but rather disregard it with no critical thought. Again, that's mindless reactionism. Debate the merit, fine. But just saying and repeating " Making more and more rules to keep other rules in check isn't going to get anywhere." is not proof nor does it make your statement true. There are plenty of situations in government, business, and personal lives where more rules added to old ones have gotten people and organizations closer to their goals. 



#22 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:30 PM

Hardly. There is nothing that separates the governance of today form that of the monarchs, Kings and despots of the past and present. Human farming is a disease.



#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:31 PM

Lets not get hung up on the analogies. My only point is: Yes, sometimes more of the same thing is not the answer. But sometimes it is. So just out of hand rejecting the idea is not reasonable. If you want to argue the points of it, fine. But simply saying more can not be the answer, simply repeating "The answer is less government in this instance, not more of it." is not critical thinking or trying for a solution but is mindless reactivism.

 

Less government is the solution being offered.



#24 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:38 PM

Congressional Reform Act of 2013


I disagree with all of the parts that pay the congress less or reduce their benefits. The people we want and need in these jobs are people that could get high-paying and high-benefit jobs in a heartbeat in the private sector. Reducing the pay and benefits of the job will only make the politicians more dependent on lobbyists and other external money sources. It will only furthur corrupt the policy decisions in the balance of moneyed interests. 

 

I also disagree that contracts with past/present representatives should be voided. If the system changes, so be it. But to renege on agreements we made, even if it was under a system we now disagree with, is abominable. 



#25 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:40 PM

Don't like the office analogy, fine. I'm not here to get hung up on analogies. They are not meant to be perfect or exact representations.
 

Lets not get hung up on the analogies.

 

Hi J

 

I'm surprised to see you write this. You, several times, have addressed others ineffective use of analogy and write about the importance of using them effectively (which has prompted me to be more cautious with my own use of them). Analogies can either be an effective tool for reasoning or become a fallacy of reasoning. I only mention this, because you so often stress this.

 

(edit to say: not that I saw your analogy as fallacy, just appreciated TASB's rebuttal and was interested in reading your response to him)



#26 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:42 PM

Less government is the solution being offered.

 

Fine. Has nothing to do you you rejecting a the fourth-branch idea by simply saying, "it's not the solution." 



#27 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

Fine. Has nothing to do you you rejecting a the fourth-branch idea by simply saying, "it's not the solution." 

 

Hippieskichick laid the argument out already. You're only going to end up with yet another branch to pay for and they too will become part of the corporatist environment in washington. More rules and more over-sight of the over-seer's will do nothing except expand the problem.

 

Going back to your original analogy, which i thought was pretty good, you want to buy another filing cabinet because we're extremely disorganized. I feel i made the case for why that's an inefficient solution to tackling the problem. And more over, it actuallly doesn't solve the problem at all, it actually makes it worse. We need organization more than we need expanded room FOR organization.



#28 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:01 PM

Hi J

 

I'm surprised to see you write this. You, several times, have addressed others ineffective use of analogy and write about the importance of using them effectively (which has prompted me to be more cautious with my own use of them). Analogies can either be an effective tool for reasoning or become a fallacy of reasoning. I only mention this, because you so often stress this.


Hi Kris. Good point/question. 

 

My feelings on use of analogies are this: They are a tool to be used to convey a concept or relationship between things. When the analogy breaks down don't get hung up on it, just discard it in favor of a better way of describing the concept. Too often people get into a war about the analogy; that is not the point at all. 

The situation where analogies are best used (with the least confusion or trouble) is when the other person wants to understand you but isn't getting it. A good example is a student/teacher relationship (either formal or informal). Example: It doesn't happen so much these days but when computers were less familiar to people I'd often use analogies to explain them to people that wanted to understand them.

 

So the speed of the processor was like a bigger faster engine. More memory was like a desk that had a bigger surface for working on your projects during the day. A bigger hard drive was like a bigger filing cabinet to store things that you weren't working on at the moment. And when you shut off your computer, everything in memory would get thrown away (as if the nightly cleaning crew always threw away anything on the top of your desk) but anything on your hard drive would remain (like the things in your filing cabinets.)

Analogies are much less helpful and prone to trouble when you are trying to get a concept across to someone that does not agree with you. I have told people here on this board that using them in that case is a mistake. So, my using an analogy in my previous post was a bit of a mistake on my part. Yet I didn't know how to make the point (which I still think is a valid one) that sometimes more of the same thing doesn't work, but sometimes it does. How does one make that point without an example or analogy? I'm still not certain. 

So, when I said "Don't like the office analogy, fine. I'm not here to get hung up on analogies. They are not meant to be perfect or exact representations." -- I meant just that. I'm not here to argue about if my analogy was a good one (it wasn't).  I just want to get across the idea that it is not automatically true, not automatically a given, that more rules on top of old rules, more government on top of existing government is necessarily and automatically bad. One must explore the idea to come to any conclusion

 



#29 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:02 PM

Jab, I think what TASB and I are both saying (if I may, TASB) is the action that needs to be done is a purging of laws and rules. I don't think either one of us were saying 'do nothing'. 

 

For me, it's something like looking at everything on the table, and sort it out into piles, 'keep', 'toss', and 'maybe - talk with others'. I'm talking laws, programs, positions, people, everything. 

 

I'm Libertarian. Libertarians are not anarchists. We want a government. We just think the job can be done effectively with a lot less. To get to that 'less', making 'more' (ie more laws/branches) isn't going to get in the right direction. If you look at history, and laws that have been made, the number grows constantly. We have to keep making new laws to clarify older ones, and new ones on top of that for exemptions, and so on. You get my point. (I think.) 

 

It's not 'simply saying' for me. I'm not a huge govt person, as I've stated, but the one thing I've noticed my entire life is that there are more and more 'rules' as time goes by, and it gets muckier and muckier every stinking time. More confusing. 

 

I understand the thought process - making things fair, and sometimes original laws don't allow that. Well, instead of making 10 rules to amend the first, contemplate the necessity for the first one, in the first place. 

 

I will use an example - gay marriage. Instead of making all these exceptions and different changes, and all of this bullshit, how about the government doesn't need to have anything AT ALL to do with people getting married? Get rid of the original law. Let states decide. 

 

If I can use an example ;)



#30 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:08 PM

Again, Gary, I thought the analogy was good. I wasn't arguing over the analogy you chose, i was working my rebuttal through the analogy door you opened. And i feel I've made my position quite clear in its regard.



#31 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,297 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:22 PM

Hippieskichick laid the argument out already. You're only going to end up with yet another branch to pay for and they too will become part of the corporatist environment in washington. More rules and more over-sight of the over-seer's will do nothing except expand the problem.

 

Going back to your original analogy, which i thought was pretty good, you want to buy another filing cabinet because we're extremely disorganized. I feel i made the case for why that's an inefficient solution to tackling the problem. And more over, it actuallly doesn't solve the problem at all, it actually makes it worse. We need organization more than we need expanded room FOR organization.


Look, I do get the point that you and HSC and others are making. I agree that more government seems, at the surface, like an absurd way to reign in government. All I'm saying is: sometimes the ridiculous ideas, the ones that seem preposterous are exactly what we need. Can we simply explore the idea before we just say "that's can't work".

 

As far as analogies, if you haven't already please read what I just wrote in reply to China.

Then, my only point with the analogy was: Sometimes more of something IS the answer. Even if you don't agree that more government is the solution in this case, would you agree (without any analogies) that sometimes more of the same is helpful. 



At the peril of not taking my own advise, here are more anologies. Lets not get hung up on where they don't convey the concept that I'm trying to make, but where they do.

* As counter-intuitive as it seems, sometimes they light a fire to fight a fire.

* Before many offices had computers, they might be drowning in paperwork and information. One answer would be to reduce the paperwork and information. But many companies instead chose to buy a computer. This only only cost lots of money, but it brought into the office the need for: More books & manuals, more training, more equipment, more things to keep track of, more things to repair, sometimes an additional hired person (more paperwork) to run the machines. And often more paper and more data being tracked. ~ The answer to not being able to handle the information flow...was to get tools that themselves added to the amount of information you had to handle.

* In local government in our town they can't handle everything at the select-board level. So they create more government (separate boards) to handle what they can't. The answer to a government that could not do it's job well was...more government. 

* In a family, a rule might be made about something -- bedtime, doing the dishes, whatever. But then that rule breaks down in some situation. Someone can't do the dishes when they are supposed to because they have a big game that night. Do we throw out the rule because, obviously, rules are not working? Or do we amend the rule by adding another one that says, "unless there is a big game or a big test" that you have to attend to.

Again and for the last time (I promise -- so you can either get it or have your own last word), All I'm saying is: Rejecting the idea out of hand by assuming that it's a given that more government is not the answer -- is not a valid argument against the idea.
 



#32 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:32 PM


Look, I do get the point that you and HSC and others are making. I agree that more government seems, at the surface, like an absurd way to reign in government. All I'm saying is: sometimes the ridiculous ideas, the ones that seem preposterous are exactly what we need. Can we simply explore the idea before we just say "that's can't work".

 

As far as analogies, if you haven't already please read what I just wrote in reply to China.

Then, my only point with the analogy was: Sometimes more of something IS the answer. Even if you don't agree that more government is the solution in this case, would you agree (without any analogies) that sometimes more of the same is helpful. 



At the peril of not taking my own advise, here are more anologies. Lets not get hung up on where they don't convey the concept that I'm trying to make, but where they do.

* As counter-intuitive as it seems, sometimes they light a fire to fight a fire.

* Before many offices had computers, they might be drowning in paperwork and information. One answer would be to reduce the paperwork and information. But many companies instead chose to buy a computer. This only only cost lots of money, but it brought into the office the need for: More books & manuals, more training, more equipment, more things to keep track of, more things to repair, sometimes an additional hired person (more paperwork) to run the machines. And often more paper and more data being tracked. ~ The answer to not being able to handle the information flow...was to get tools that themselves added to the amount of information you had to handle.

* In local government in our town they can't handle everything at the select-board level. So they create more government (separate boards) to handle what they can't. The answer to a government that could not do it's job well was...more government. 

* In a family, a rule might be made about something -- bedtime, doing the dishes, whatever. But then that rule breaks down in some situation. Someone can't do the dishes when they are supposed to because they have a big game that night. Do we throw out the rule because, obviously, rules are not working? Or do we amend the rule by adding another one that says, "unless there is a big game or a big test" that you have to attend to.

Again and for the last time (I promise -- so you can either get it or have your own last word), All I'm saying is: Rejecting the idea out of hand by assuming that it's a given that more government is not the answer -- is not a valid argument against the idea.
 

 

In order to really understand how more rules may help instead of hinder, I think a real life example is needed.  Otherwise, I gotta agree with TASB and HSC here that there already are too many laws that are not even beneficial.  Example:  gay marriage laws in general should be completely tossed out.  All prohibition laws against intoxicants of any kind should also be abandoned.

 

I am curious to hear about real world examples supporting your idea of "fighting fire with fire"?



#33 grateful_1

grateful_1
  • VibeTribe
  • 119 posts
  • LocationCT

Posted 17 October 2013 - 03:39 PM

Get specific on this.

It was put in to only effect # 59....anyone else could have brought a new bill up.

 

iirc



#34 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,761 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:59 PM

599807_10152654495895260_840939339_n.jpg



#35 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 22 October 2013 - 06:30 PM

Get specific on this.

It was put in to only effect # 59....anyone else could have brought a new bill up.

 

iirc

 

 

 

Please elaborate? I'm admittedly a ding dong about this stuff.... 

 

 

599807_10152654495895260_840939339_n.jpg

 

 

 

Because..... ^^^ I don't! :lol:



#36 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:01 PM



#37 Ginger Snap

Ginger Snap
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,460 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:23 PM

The whole fucking game is fixed and until we see that and start trying to break it all apart and find comprehensive,political, and creative solutions rather than tear each other up- well gee,  i don't even want to know ya. 



#38 Ginger Snap

Ginger Snap
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,460 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 02:26 PM

What Jabadoodle is talking about is a fundamental change to the Constitution. Not just an amendment, butt a complete shift on its axis kind of redistribution of power- and I'd like to see you figure out how to do that without a revolution. 



#39 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,733 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

What Jabadoodle is talking about is a fundamental change to the Constitution. Not just an amendment, butt a complete shift on its axis kind of redistribution of power- and I'd like to see you figure out how to do that without a revolution. 

 

 

Sister, I'm all about a revolution. I've long said the thing we need most is to be 'reset'.



#40 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

What Jabadoodle is talking about is a fundamental change to the Constitution. Not just an amendment, butt a complete shift on its axis kind of redistribution of power- and I'd like to see you figure out how to do that without a revolution. 

time to bust out the ol guillotine!

 

its-not-the-guillotine.jpg



#41 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,798 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:11 PM

That's a fantastic plan, but you'd have to get THEM to vote 'yes' on it.


Not if it were structured as a Constitutional Amendment, at a Conventional called by 2/3 or more the state legislatures. :)



#42 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:17 PM

Im here for the beheading!



#43 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,798 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:26 PM

I don't think more government is the answer. I think wiser, more focused government is. Which, by definition, would be smaller, IMO.

Why buy more file cabinets and planners when you can get a computer, scan all of your documents, use Outlook (or preferably something Open Source) to keep track of your schedule, and recycle the file cabinet?

You can take a backup of all of your data offsite so that if there's a fire, you still have your stuff. You'd have more room with the file cabinets gone to use for other things...

and so forth.



#44 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:27 PM

I don't think more government is the answer. I think wiser, more focused government is. Which, by definition, would be smaller, IMO.

Why buy more file cabinets and planners when you can get a computer, scan all of your documents, use Outlook (or preferably something Open Source) to keep track of your schedule, and recycle the file cabinet?

You can take a backup of all of your data offsite so that if there's a fire, you still have your stuff. You'd have more room with the file cabinets gone to use for other things...

and so forth.

what about meteor impacts?!  



#45 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,798 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:29 PM

Meatier what? :afro:



#46 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:29 PM

Meatier what? :afro:

asteroids



#47 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,798 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:34 PM

Asteroids.jpg

 

Like I said, computers are the answer.

Even if that wasn't really what I said, cuz I was being all analogous and crap.



#48 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,245 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:37 PM

What if I don't have Outlook?



#49 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:41 PM

assroids.



#50 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,798 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 04:46 PM

What if I don't have Outlook?


Fringe-S3x12-Outlook-not-so-good.jpg