The obama list

[Wade]

pork barrel - something in a bill that helps one region or group. It can be a rider or an earmark. The Bridge to no where was an earmark to a transportation bill.

earmarks - tell an agency how to spend the money it was appropriated.

riders - is something added on, that has nothing to do with the original bill, that probably won't pass as a bill on it's own. Or it was introduced as a "poison pill" to kill the bill.

Line Item - is intended to allow the president to strike either one out. The Senate can override a line item veto. President Clinton had line item veto for a while, before Mayor Rudy Giuliani sued to put a stop to it. [Clinton versus City of New York.] Line Item was originally asked for by Reagan, but he never got it.

It is time to hit the reset button on our government.

 

[Mooseknuckle]

Wade, ain't it funny that Slick Willie gets line item power from a republican congress - then another republican helps whack that disgression because the President cut 200 million from NY.

Ruffy, whoa, slow down. I don't necessarily disagree that the current administration doesn't seem to hold the public trust as its ultimate goal, but I shudder to think if we were more "democracy" than "republic". I sorry, but just because everyone has the right to vote, doesn't me they should.

From each according to ability - to each according to need ain't no way to run a country. To me thats the direction of the current "democrats" want to go. The venerable "republicans" though, or at least the current administration want lazze-faire, because the market will solve things in the long run. Less Gov't equals more freedumb!!!!

 

[ruffryder]

O'Ruffy are you feeling alright... your a little to amiable lately.:

It was hard with the season finally ending here in June.... that and I have been working 60's for the last month or so... It is all good, I am taking my aggression out on the cagers of Washington state.

 

[ruffryder]

Ruffy, whoa, slow down. I don't necessarily disagree that the current administration doesn't seem to hold the public trust as its ultimate goal, but I shudder to think if we were more "democracy" than "republic". I sorry, but just because everyone has the right to vote, doesn't me they should.

True, you would need a way to prevent the tyranny of the majority type of stuff. It just seems that the congressmen have too much control.... and the people aren't very good at remembering political history either. Seems our only recourse to congressmen is to not re-elect them, but so many times the competition isn't any better.

Maybe we need to have FU votes for politicians every year. If they don't do a good job, we vote and give them an FU and they don't get there paychecks that year. Sounds good to me, though it would be just another system to manipulate.

Wade,
You hit that reset button yet? What are you waiting for?

 

[Ollie]

Heres an idea.
Cap any elected officials pay at the average pay for the area he is representing.
anything that would use tax money has to be a stand alone bill and voted on by all.
No more back door deals, earmarks etc,.
Any and all donations to any politician or political party is capped at 1,000 dollars including buisnesses and pac's.

Any political add that attacks another person or political entity must be correct or the person/group that put it up can be sued. All political adds put up by a person trying to be elected must be strictly on issues.

That would throw a kink in the BS.

 

[milehighassassin]

Any political add that attacks another person or political entity must be correct or the person/group that put it up can be sued.

psssss



That is already the case... It's called slander or libel depending if it is spoken or printed.

 

[Ollie]

psssss



That is already the case... It's called slander or libel depending if it is spoken or printed.

Not really.
It is almost impossible to hold anyone accoutable for the BS adds they throw out. The candidate just passes it off as one of his flunkies and that is the end of it. I am talking hold the candidate personally responcible. Make it so he CAN'T pass the buck.

 

[Wade]

Now come on, if politicians couldn't lie, they'd have no reason to move their lips.

 

[TBWdracula2003]

Now come on, if politicians couldn't lie, they'd have no reason to move their lips.

thats badass lol

 

[milehighassassin]

Not really.
It is almost impossible to hold anyone accoutable for the BS adds they throw out. The candidate just passes it off as one of his flunkies and that is the end of it. I am talking hold the candidate personally responcible. Make it so he CAN'T pass the buck.

We can't change if someone chooses to actually sue, but the law is already in place.

Much of what you see, is not the candidate speaking but the campaign.

 

[Ollie]

Much of what you see, is not the candidate speaking but the campaign.

BS, the candidate controls the campaign.
They know what is being put out and what the ramifications could be. They have an escape plan on pretty much any add they put out.

 

[milehighassassin]

Yes they have some obvious major control over it, but they hire people to run the campaign for them. The people that run these campaigns make some major money. I agree that you should be responsible for what happens, but there are already laws in place about slander and libel.

I don't really think much comes from candidates that is not true, exagerated yes, but most of it has truth. My biggest problem happens from both sides and that is the negativiity. Stop telling me how bad the other candidate is and how he screwed up. Start showing me (not telling) what you can do and how you will do it.