Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Would be nice if the Electoral College was made to work the way it was
intended--vote for the electors by name and let them after the fact
pick someone for the job, drafting him if necessary. Ideally anyone
who declared himself a candidate would automatically be disqualified
from consideration.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull-
3337.bay.webtv.net:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make them
president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve four
years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But while we're
on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious question, for a
change.


Ron Paul

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull-
3337.bay.webtv.net:


So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make them
president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve four
years.


Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But while we're
on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious question, for a
change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more votes than
any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the scrap heap, the
parties have to come up with new names for the runoff election, and the office
remains vacant until someone can garner more votes than "none of the above."

Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Pat Paulson: http://www.paulsen.com/
If John Ashcroft can lose to a dead man, so can the rest of them.
He'll never lie, cheat, or steal. You know where he stands on every issue:
he'll never flip-flop. He'll never have an affair with an intern.

On Dec 7, 7:38 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 7, 11:24 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:



Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass ceiling of
American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman you think
conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann Coulter
just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a man's
world of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.

I agree. Hillary's screech and cackle would scare just about anybody.
Certainly doesn't make her presidential.

Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey Hutchison
because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she is a
woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself to be
strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought you the
forthcoming economic meltdown..
(I fixed your post).

DON'T do that, I don't want that kind of stuff showing up in the archives.
I did not write the above. Listening to her speeches, particularly to the
kook fringe base, she leans very heavily socialist. Period.

Renata

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Look, somehow that bitch has been given the taste of blood in her
fangs. Some schmuck has convinced her that she can be a big as Bill.
She's running with the hope she can show up her husband.
That is what gives her life. Other than that she's dead.

We'll run the risk of nuclear war every 28 days?

Double the timing we've had with Bush?

On Dec 7, 7:34 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
henry wrote:
"And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another? "

How much was gas when the busher came in?

What did he do to increase them that Clinton and Bush I and Reagan and
Carter and Ford and Nixon and Johnson and Kennedy didn't do?
--

Started a totally unnecessary war in Iraq, and sat back and threatened
Iran?

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

Ron Paul

www.goooh.com first.

Well hell ... we can wish, can't we?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Robatoy" wrote

We'll run the risk of nuclear war every 28 days?

I'm thinking it's maybe too late for even nuclear hot flashes.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Just Wondering wrote:
Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:


So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.


Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the
scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."

So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and get
civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
And don't assume that removing the current government will result in
some kind of Libertarian paradise--there would be a period of anarchy
then some kind of government would arise or be imposed.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Smaug Ichorfang wrote:
Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Pat Paulson: http://www.paulsen.com/
If John Ashcroft can lose to a dead man, so can the rest of them.
He'll never lie, cheat, or steal. You know where he stands on every
issue: he'll never flip-flop. He'll never have an affair with an
intern.

And he never got elected when he was alive, so what makes you think he
would when he's dead?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:38 pm, Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 7, 11:24 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:



Renata wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:08:42 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote:

What, exactly, as a woman do you think she represents?

Someone who has a serious chance to break thru the glass
ceiling
of American politics as practiced by the good Old Boys Club".

Gotta be scary as the devil for them.

What a condescending thought. So just because she's a woman
you
think conservatives are afraid of her?

That is the equivalent of saying that libs are scared of Ann
Coulter just
because she is a woman who is doing well in what was formerly a
man's world of political discourse.

Being a screech owl is hardly the same as being prez.

I agree. Hillary's screech and cackle would scare just about
anybody. Certainly doesn't make her presidential.

Or for that matter that all libs would be for Kay Bailey
Hutchison because
she is a woman breaking through the glass ceiling of American
politics.

i.e, conservatives aren't concerned about Hillary because she
is
a woman,
they are concerned about Hillary because she has shown herself
to
be strongly corporatist, in bed with the same folks who brought
you the forthcoming economic meltdown..
(I fixed your post).

DON'T do that, I don't want that kind of stuff showing up in the
archives. I did not write the above. Listening to her speeches,
particularly to the kook fringe base, she leans very heavily
socialist. Period.

Renata

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Look, somehow that bitch has been given the taste of blood in her
fangs. Some schmuck has convinced her that she can be a big as
Bill.
She's running with the hope she can show up her husband.
That is what gives her life. Other than that she's dead.

We'll run the risk of nuclear war every 28 days?

Double the timing we've had with Bush?

So when during the past 8 years has there been a real risk of nuclear
war? The closest would have been the day the Towers fell and then I
recall a lot of people demanding that the Middle East be nuked into
slag and Bush being one of the voices of reason.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

And he never got elected when he was alive, so what makes you think he
would when he's dead?

Even dead he is better than most of the candidates running this time around.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 04:22:38 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:34 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
henry wrote:
"And really, when has your life changed in a major way due to the
election of one candidate or another? "

How much was gas when the busher came in?

What did he do to increase them that Clinton and Bush I and Reagan and
Carter and Ford and Nixon and Johnson and Kennedy didn't do?
--

Started a totally unnecessary war in Iraq, and sat back and threatened
Iran?

I agree, but our Oil-War President doesn't. It's an endless war
costing taxpayers a lot of $--legal Americans get ready for a tax
hike.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

And he never got elected when he was alive, so what makes you think
he would when he's dead?

Even dead he is better than most of the candidates running this time
around.

That doesn't mean that he's more electable.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Dec 8, 8:18 am, "Swingman" wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote

Ron Paul

www.goooh.comfirst.

Well hell ... we can wish, can't we?

--www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/30/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

I like that. It needs to go further: get the career politicians out of
ALL politics, whether for sheriff's office or Prez.

J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:



So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.


Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.


Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the
scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."


So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and get
civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around, certainly
enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending bill. I think the result
would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake them up and make them offer
candidates that don't make you hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two
evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting universal term
limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices (local, state, and
federal combined), with no pension or other retirement benefits.

On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on the
scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."

So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and get
civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around, certainly
enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending bill. I think the result
would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake them up and make them offer
candidates that don't make you hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two
evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting universal term
limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices (local, state, and
federal combined), with no pension or other retirement benefits.

Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and, whoops.
Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger than a
mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad idea
all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
set, match. Empty offices.

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:



So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.


Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.


Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on
the
scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."


So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and
get
civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around,
certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
bill.
I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake
them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you hold your
nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal
term limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices
(local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or other
retirement benefits.

Do it for one house, not both. The original intent was that one house
would be filled with professional career legislators and the other
with short-timers who would go back to their lives after they finished
their terms. It didn't work out that way.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make them president. And, if they do a good job they only have
to serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on
the scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for
the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."

So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and
get civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around,
certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
bill. I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties, to
shake them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you
hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal term limits of no more than 16 years total in all
elective
offices (local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or
other retirement benefits.

Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and, whoops.
Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger than
a
mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad
idea
all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
set, match. Empty offices.

Make 'em open their own damned mail so they have to wade through the
junk mail, and make them take out their own damned trash so they have
to pick out all the recyclables. And designate a team of auditors to
watch each of them 24/7 including in the bedroom--violate one statute,
just one, even if it's a ten cent fine and even if the statute has
been overturned by the Supreme Court and out they go.

Give 'em a barracks in DC to live in. No moving the family there
(well, not unless they all want to sleep in the same Army-issue bunk).
No need for them to have a car in DC either, the barracks can be an
annex to the Capitol. And feed 'em GI chow. If they need to go
somewhere besides work in DC then they can take the public transit
(wanna bet that in 5 years DC would have the best, cleanest, safest
public transit system in the world?)

Oh, and they have to recite the entire US code (or whatever body of
statute law they're liable to be adding to) verbatin and carry it in
its entirety on their persons at all times printed on 12 pound bond in
12 point type.

Rotate the sessions--don't always have them in the Capitol in DC--one
year DC, another New York, another Dallas, another Yellowstone Park
(gotta get 'em out of the damned cities sometimes) and just for fun
every decade or so put it outside the country--Congress having a
session in Riyadh or Moscow or Papeete would do wonders for their
outlook I suspect)

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal
term limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices
(local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or other
retirement benefits.

We have term limits. They are called "elections". The idea is you vote for
a different candidate when you no longer want the old one to continue in the
job. What we need is better educated electors.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal
term limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices
(local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or other
retirement benefits.

We have term limits. They are called "elections". The idea is you
vote for a different candidate when you no longer want the old one
to
continue in the job. What we need is better educated electors.

Formalizing it means that there wouldn't be even the hope of being a
career politician.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Formalizing it means that there wouldn't be even the hope of being a
career politician.


So we get the career politicians to make a law that says they will be out of
a job in some number or years. Sure, that'll pass. That should have been
written in by 1776 or so.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

Formalizing it means that there wouldn't be even the hope of being
a
career politician.


So we get the career politicians to make a law that says they will
be
out of a job in some number or years. Sure, that'll pass. That
should have been written in by 1776 or so.

Well therein lies the problem. The politicians shouldn't be allowed
to write the laws that govern the politicians.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90 days a
year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the district
they represent and they have to talk to the people in that district.
They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The president would
have the power to call them to session at times of emergency.

Make all PAC's and organizations like them illegal. No contributions
from any organizations at all. Just from citizens, and put a limit on
that too. Need to get the government back in the hands of the people.

Take every lobbyists and stick a huge pole up their ass and then display
them in front of the congressional headquarters buildings. Hopefully
they won't actually like it.

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne

NoOne N Particular wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90
days a year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the
district they represent and they have to talk to the people in that
district. They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The
president would have the power to call them to session at times of
emergency.

Make all PAC's and organizations like them illegal. No
contributions
from any organizations at all. Just from citizens, and put a limit
on
that too. Need to get the government back in the hands of the
people.

I'm not sure that banning PACs would be a good thing. They're similar
in nature to a labor union--collective bargaining for the voters.

Take every lobbyists and stick a huge pole up their ass and then
display them in front of the congressional headquarters buildings.
Hopefully they won't actually like it.

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

So the day one retires one becomes disenfranchised? Poor people don't
get a say? The people who _employ_ those workers don't get a vote?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make them president. And, if they do a good job they only have
to serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on
the scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for
the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."

So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and
get civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around,
certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
bill. I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties, to
shake them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you
hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal term limits of no more than 16 years total in all
elective
offices (local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or
other retirement benefits.

Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and, whoops.
Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger than
a
mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad
idea
all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
set, match. Empty offices.


Make 'em open their own damned mail so they have to wade through the
junk mail, and make them take out their own damned trash so they have
to pick out all the recyclables. And designate a team of auditors to
watch each of them 24/7 including in the bedroom--violate one statute,
just one, even if it's a ten cent fine and even if the statute has
been overturned by the Supreme Court and out they go.

Give 'em a barracks in DC to live in. No moving the family there
(well, not unless they all want to sleep in the same Army-issue bunk).
No need for them to have a car in DC either, the barracks can be an
annex to the Capitol. And feed 'em GI chow. If they need to go
somewhere besides work in DC then they can take the public transit
(wanna bet that in 5 years DC would have the best, cleanest, safest
public transit system in the world?)

Oh, and they have to recite the entire US code (or whatever body of
statute law they're liable to be adding to) verbatin and carry it in
its entirety on their persons at all times printed on 12 pound bond in
12 point type.


I like the sentiment, but this one's not realistic. The U.S. Code, and all of
the states' statutes, are too massive for anyone to memorize. How 'bout this
instead? Any legislator who wants to pass a bill has to submit it to a
committee of its opponents, who will prepare a test on its important points.
Anyone who wants to vote for the bill has to take and pass the test first.



Rotate the sessions--don't always have them in the Capitol in DC--one
year DC, another New York, another Dallas, another Yellowstone Park
(gotta get 'em out of the damned cities sometimes) and just for fun
every decade or so put it outside the country--Congress having a
session in Riyadh or Moscow or Papeete would do wonders for their
outlook I suspect)

NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90 days a
year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the district
they represent and they have to talk to the people in that district.
They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The president would
have the power to call them to session at times of emergency.


Some states have part-time legislatures. The rest of the year the lawmakers
have to get out and make a living in the real world. Seems to work OK.

How about requiring, every legislative session, every lawmaker to take a
rigorous oral examination on the U.S. Constitution, with special emphasis on the
Bill of Rights, and allow them to vote only if they pass with flying colors?


Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne


Sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:

On Dec 8, 4:10 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

Han wrote:

(J T) wrote in
:

So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make them president. And, if they do a good job they only
have
to serve
four years.

Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a
serious
question, for a change.

Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go
on
the scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for
the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can
garner
more
votes than "none of the above."

So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps
the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing
and
get civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?

Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first
go-around,
certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
bill. I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties,
to
shake them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you
hold your nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.

Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal term limits of no more than 16 years total in all
elective
offices (local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or
other retirement benefits.

Kill even half the benefits and most of today's group wouldn't run
again, anyway. Put the federal politicos on the same sort of
retirement plan Joe Average gets down at the distillery and,
whoops.
Do the same for medical care coverage. Make them drive their own
damned cars, at what, 37 cents a mile? Allow no vehicle larger
than
a
mid-size sedan for any person who doesn't need a pick-up truck or
isn't in the military. Outlaw SUVs, black or otherwise (not a bad
idea
all around, anyway). Allow NO gifts, not even a 39 cent pen. Game,
set, match. Empty offices.


Make 'em open their own damned mail so they have to wade through
the
junk mail, and make them take out their own damned trash so they
have
to pick out all the recyclables. And designate a team of auditors
to
watch each of them 24/7 including in the bedroom--violate one
statute, just one, even if it's a ten cent fine and even if the
statute has been overturned by the Supreme Court and out they go.

Give 'em a barracks in DC to live in. No moving the family there
(well, not unless they all want to sleep in the same Army-issue
bunk). No need for them to have a car in DC either, the barracks
can
be an annex to the Capitol. And feed 'em GI chow. If they need to
go
somewhere besides work in DC then they can take the public transit
(wanna bet that in 5 years DC would have the best, cleanest, safest
public transit system in the world?)

Oh, and they have to recite the entire US code (or whatever body of
statute law they're liable to be adding to) verbatin and carry it
in
its entirety on their persons at all times printed on 12 pound bond
in 12 point type.


I like the sentiment, but this one's not realistic. The U.S. Code,
and all of the states' statutes, are too massive for anyone to
memorize.

Precisely. If they have to memorize it then they'll have an incentive
to cut it down to a reasonable size. It's also too massive for anyone
to carry around. If ignorance of the law is no excuse then the law
should be compact enough that one has a reasonable hope of actually
knowing all of it.

How 'bout this instead? Any legislator who wants to pass
a bill has to submit it to a committee of its opponents, who will
prepare a test on its important points. Anyone who wants to vote for
the bill has to take and pass the test first.

Nope. Doesn't require an awareness of existing laws.

Rotate the sessions--don't always have them in the Capitol in
DC--one
year DC, another New York, another Dallas, another Yellowstone Park
(gotta get 'em out of the damned cities sometimes) and just for fun
every decade or so put it outside the country--Congress having a
session in Riyadh or Moscow or Papeete would do wonders for their
outlook I suspect)

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Just Wondering wrote:

I like the sentiment, but this one's not realistic. The U.S. Code, and
all of the states' statutes, are too massive for anyone to memorize.
How 'bout this instead? Any legislator who wants to pass a bill has to
submit it to a committee of its opponents, who will prepare a test on
its important points. Anyone who wants to vote for the bill has to take
and pass the test first.


Any new bill has to identify two existing bills it's going to replace.
If it passes, the two old ones are repealed.

Just Wondering wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90
days a year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the
district they represent and they have to talk to the people in that
district. They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The
president would have the power to call them to session at times of
emergency.


Some states have part-time legislatures. The rest of the year the
lawmakers have to get out and make a living in the real world.
Seems
to work OK.

How about requiring, every legislative session, every lawmaker to
take a rigorous oral examination on the U.S. Constitution, with
special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and allow them to vote only
if they pass with flying colors?

So they memorize the answers to an exam. So what? Knowing the
Constitution doesn't mean that one will obey it.

Hold them personally accountable if the Supreme Court knocks down on
Constitutional grounds any piece of legislation that they enacted.

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne


Sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."

Nope. In the Starship Troopers system anybody could get the vote--all
he had to do was complete a term of government service. There was no
means test on government service--they _had_ to take you if you
applied, but they were under no obligation to make it easy or pleasant
for you and if you quit, which you could do at any time, you never got
another chance.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

NoOne N Particular wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:


Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90
days a year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the
district they represent and they have to talk to the people in that
district. They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The
president would have the power to call them to session at times of
emergency.


Some states have part-time legislatures. The rest of the year the
lawmakers have to get out and make a living in the real world.
Seems
to work OK.

How about requiring, every legislative session, every lawmaker to
take a rigorous oral examination on the U.S. Constitution, with
special emphasis on the Bill of Rights, and allow them to vote only
if they pass with flying colors?


So they memorize the answers to an exam. So what? Knowing the
Constitution doesn't mean that one will obey it.

Hold them personally accountable if the Supreme Court knocks down on
Constitutional grounds any piece of legislation that they enacted.


Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne


Sounds kinda like Heinlein's "Starship Troopers."


Nope. In the Starship Troopers system anybody could get the vote--all
he had to do was complete a term of government service. There was no
means test on government service--they _had_ to take you if you
applied, but they were under no obligation to make it easy or pleasant
for you and if you quit, which you could do at any time, you never got
another chance.

Which is a more rigorous and soul-searching requirement than just having a
middle-class income.

J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

Precisely. If they have to memorize it then they'll have an incentive
to cut it down to a reasonable size. It's also too massive for anyone
to carry around. If ignorance of the law is no excuse then the law
should be compact enough that one has a reasonable hope of actually
knowing all of it.


How 'bout this instead? Any legislator who wants to pass
a bill has to submit it to a committee of its opponents, who will
prepare a test on its important points. Anyone who wants to vote for
the bill has to take and pass the test first.


Nope. Doesn't require an awareness of existing laws.

But it would force them to know exactly what they are voting for, from the
perspective of people who don't like it. I rather suspect that most legislators
don't even read many of the bills they vote on, and don't really know more than
what the sponsors themselves tell them about a few vague high points of most bills.

NoOne N Particular wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90 days a
year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the district
they represent and they have to talk to the people in that district.
They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The president would
have the power to call them to session at times of emergency.

Make all PAC's and organizations like them illegal. No contributions
from any organizations at all. Just from citizens, and put a limit on
that too. Need to get the government back in the hands of the people.

Take every lobbyists and stick a huge pole up their ass and then display
them in front of the congressional headquarters buildings. Hopefully
they won't actually like it.

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more freeloaders
and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne


Step One
--------

How about *two* houses of Congress one to pass, and one to repeal laws.
In each case, one passes laws but requires a 2/3 majority to do so.
The other corresponding house only has the power to *repeal* laws
requiring only a simple majority. Require that all laws
automatically sunset after 5 years and must go through legislation
again to remain in law. Any law deemed to be so important that
it should be permanent (i.e., override the sunset) should require
100% consent of both houses and a Presidential signature.

Step Two
--------

Instead of salaries, allocate the current amount spent + 50% for
legislative compensation. Each member of the legislative bodies
gets a minimal "base salary". They collect a "bonus" quarterly based
on how much the government remains in the black and how many laws
they manage to pass (and do not later get repealed) or, correspondingly,
on how many laws they repeal. Repealers get a 2:1 incentive compared
to law passers. Law passers have a term limit of one, six year term.
Repealers get two such terms. No one gets any money if the government
runs a debt that quarter.

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional Amendment
that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

I'm not sure that banning PACs would be a good thing. They're similar
in nature to a labor union--collective bargaining for the voters.

Correct in theory, but don't most of them still get their power from money?
The question is, where does the money come from? I know the early PACs
were to counteract big business and their lobby, but not all have maintained
the original positions. Of course, anything having to do with politics will
be corrupted at some point.

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

Precisely. If they have to memorize it then they'll have an
incentive
to cut it down to a reasonable size. It's also too massive for
anyone to carry around. If ignorance of the law is no excuse then
the law should be compact enough that one has a reasonable hope of
actually knowing all of it.


How 'bout this instead? Any legislator who wants to pass
a bill has to submit it to a committee of its opponents, who will
prepare a test on its important points. Anyone who wants to vote
for
the bill has to take and pass the test first.


Nope. Doesn't require an awareness of existing laws.

But it would force them to know exactly what they are voting for,
from the
perspective of people who don't like it. I rather suspect that most
legislators
don't even read many of the bills they vote on, and don't really
know
more than
what the sponsors themselves tell them about a few vague high points
of most bills.

That would be useful in addition to requiring them to know the
existing body of the law.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:


How about just making congress a part time organization of say 90
days a year? The rest of the year they have to be actually IN the
district they represent and they have to talk to the people in that
district. They have too much time to screw us as it is now. The
president would have the power to call them to session at times of
emergency.

Make all PAC's and organizations like them illegal. No
contributions
from any organizations at all. Just from citizens, and put a limit
on that too. Need to get the government back in the hands of the
people.

Take every lobbyists and stick a huge pole up their ass and then
display them in front of the congressional headquarters buildings.
Hopefully they won't actually like it.

Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average joe".

Wayne


Step One
--------

How about *two* houses of Congress one to pass, and one to repeal
laws. In each case, one passes laws but requires a 2/3 majority to
do
so.
The other corresponding house only has the power to *repeal* laws
requiring only a simple majority. Require that all laws
automatically sunset after 5 years and must go through legislation
again to remain in law. Any law deemed to be so important that
it should be permanent (i.e., override the sunset) should require
100% consent of both houses and a Presidential signature.

Step Two
--------

Instead of salaries, allocate the current amount spent + 50% for
legislative compensation. Each member of the legislative bodies
gets a minimal "base salary". They collect a "bonus" quarterly
based
on how much the government remains in the black and how many laws
they manage to pass (and do not later get repealed) or,

No. No incentives for passing laws. Go down to the library and
_look_ at the US Code on the shelf. Seeing it online doesn't have the
same impact. One problem with this country is that there are so many
damned laws that not even the lawyers can know them all.

correspondingly, on how many laws they repeal. Repealers get a 2:1
incentive compared to law passers. Law passers have a term limit of
one, six year term. Repealers get two such terms. No one gets any
money if the government runs a debt that quarter.

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of tax.

So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries do
enact such tariffs? The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

I'm not sure that banning PACs would be a good thing. They're
similar in nature to a labor union--collective bargaining for the
voters.

Correct in theory, but don't most of them still get their power from
money? The question is, where does the money come from? I know the
early PACs were to counteract big business and their lobby, but not
all have maintained the original positions. Of course, anything
having to do with politics will be corrupted at some point.

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.


....or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.


...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

Already has - quite a while ago :-(