"Han" wrote

I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
taxpayer or by the lobbyists?

The base pay comes from the taxpayer, but the free meals and other goodies
come from the lobbyists.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote

I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator
and the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by
the taxpayer or by the lobbyists?

The base pay comes from the taxpayer, but the free meals and other
goodies come from the lobbyists.

And disclosure is discretionary?
evil grin
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Bull. Lobbyists are experts at bending any available facts to make their
employers as rich as possible. Distortion, misrepresentation, and non
disclosure of any information not favorable to their employers are
conveniently left out, or lied away.

Congress critters can get information about legislation the same way you
would before you buy a new car. Research. Work.

Oh, that's right. Work is contrary to congress critters. Sorry, I almost
lost my head.
--
Jim in NC

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.



As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama
and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
candidacies.

Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!

The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
curtail political speech.

George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure

What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the wealthiest
individual, not the best person wins the election. Not many low income
senators these days. In addition, you have media scrutiny that makes the
purest person hesitant to step into the public eye. If you ever copped a
cheap feel of Mary Jane in the eight grade, it will be on the news the day
after you announced your candidacy for office.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.

As for money, actually not enough is spent on campaigning. Between Obama
and McCain, roughly $1 billion was raised and spent in support of their
candidacies.

Annual sales of POTATO CHIPS is more than six times that figure!

The Supreme Court has ruled (and I agree) that money equals speech.
Attempts to curtail campaign funding is simultaneously an attempt to
curtail political speech.

George Will proposed three simple rules for campaign financing:
* No cash
* No foreign contributions
* Instant disclosure

What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the wealthiest
individual, not the best person wins the election. Not many low income
senators these days. In addition, you have media scrutiny that makes the
purest person hesitant to step into the public eye. If you ever copped a
cheap feel of Mary Jane in the eight grade, it will be on the news the day
after you announced your candidacy for office.

Such small potatoes don't seem to matter much to the Rangel caucus.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.


True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 16:51:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.


True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.

You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns YFI,
is a second-class citizen.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote

True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.
Oh, and I have another suggestion for government reform. (like it will ever
happen)

Each bill stands on its own. No more adding yak fat onto the FAA
appropriation bills, and such. Too many stupid things are passed because
the bill it is added onto is too important to not pass. Then, we get yak
fat, because congress (for example) wanted planes to keep flying.

All issues should stand on their own. No more pork bills.
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 19:28:37 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote

True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.
Oh, and I have another suggestion for government reform. (like it will ever
happen)

Each bill stands on its own. No more adding yak fat onto the FAA
appropriation bills, and such. Too many stupid things are passed because
the bill it is added onto is too important to not pass. Then, we get yak
fat, because congress (for example) wanted planes to keep flying.

That's one I could go for, but other than a line-item veto I don't see how it
could be enforced.

All issues should stand on their own. No more pork bills.

Pork is another issue. If you could figure out how to do the above, pork is a
thing of the past.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Lobby Dosser" wrote in
:

As near as I can tell, a Senator's staff does all the Real Work and
the Senator merely Pontificates and enjoys the perks of the most
expensive country club in the nation. I would like to see them do
something For the country instead of To the country. All of them.

I'm not sure who directs the "Senator's staff" other than the Senator and
the lobbyists, at the moment. Is the "Senator's staff" paid by the
taxpayer or by the lobbyists?

Us.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Morgans wrote:

First step, get rid of all lobbyists. Get rid of campaign
contributions as a way to fund elections. Give them all a certain
sum of money (small) to be used on elections, and make them stick to
that amount as what they can spend on getting elected.


The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?


The lobbyists are the experts on directing public money to private use. If
the ramifications of pending legislation cannot be understood by any
reasonably intelligent taxpayer, the legislation should not be passed. We
have far too much legislation and far too little service.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals. If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information, the
critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.

Let him get in line.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What has happened though, is the best fund raisers and/or the
wealthiest individual, not the best person wins the election. Not
many low income senators these days. In addition, you have media
scrutiny that makes the purest person hesitant to step into the
public eye. If you ever copped a cheap feel of Mary Jane in the
eight grade, it will be on the news the day after you announced your
candidacy for office.

In most cases, money is a proxy for support. The more support a candidate
has, the more money he can raise.

Lobby Dosser wrote:


The lobbyists are the experts on directing public money to private
use.

True. But mostly lobbyists direct their attention to keeping the government
at bay. Resisting regulation is their main effort.

If the ramifications of pending legislation cannot be understood
by any reasonably intelligent taxpayer, the legislation should not be
passed. We have far too much legislation and far too little service.

You make a good point, but legislation is writting in "legislation language"
which is absolutely unintelligible to the lay person.

For example, once past the prologue of the recent health care act, we get
into the "meat" of the bill. To wit:

--- begin quote
(c) ELIGIBILITY.-For purposes of this section, the term ''eligible
individual'' means an individual-
(1) who-
(A) is not eligible for-
(i) benefits under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social Security Act; or
(ii) coverage under an employment-based health plan (not including coverage
under a COBRA continuation provision, as defined in section 107(d)(1)); and
(B) who-
(i) is an eligible individual under section 2741(b) of the Public Health
Service Act; or
(ii) is medically eligible for the program by virtue of being an individual
described in subsection (d) at any time during the 6-month period ending on
the date the individual applies for high-risk pool
coverage under this section;
(2) who is the spouse or dependent of an individual who is described in
paragraph (1); or
(3) who has not had health insurance coverage or coverage under an
employment-based health plan for at least the 6-month period immediately
preceding the date of the individual's application for high-risk pool
coverage under this section.

For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii), a person who is in a waiting period as
defined in section 2701(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act shall not be
considered to be eligible for coverage under an employment-based health
plan.

--- end quote

To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies. To
the uninitiated, it's gibberish.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies.
To the uninitiated, it's gibberish.


Which should be unacceptable.

On Sep 4, 9:24*pm, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...



To the government factotum, this reads like a recipe for fudge brownies..
To the uninitiated, it's gibberish.

Which should be unacceptable.

Canadian consumer groups have successfully forced lawyers to offer
legal documents (when requested) in normal English. Documents such as
real estate transactions, employment contracts, a whole host of docs.
In some circles, the bull**** is referred to as froth and there is
evidence that a lot of it is deliberate. A real estate transaction can
legally be done on a frickin' napkin. So heretherefore....

wrote

True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.

You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns
YFI,
is a second-class citizen.

I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:57:28 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote

True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the rest of
society.

You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he owns
YFI,
is a second-class citizen.

I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.

He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you* don't
believe in what he sells. Nice.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:53:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that. The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person, wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his business.

Let him get in line.

He does.

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information, the
critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.

Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:53:10 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:43:42 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are
out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control that.
The
Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
wanted
or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed" basis.

Except that mister Fat (owner of Yak Fat Industries) has every right to
let
Mr. Congresscritter know how pending legislation will affect his
business.

Let him get in line.

He does.


No, he does not. He pays bribes to get to the head of the line.

--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.

Anthony Burgess

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.


If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information,
the
critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.

Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?


Then they can Get In Line. And if Mr., fat wants to talk about his business,
he can do it himself.

--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.

Anthony Burgess

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews. com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


If a company wants to talk with a congress critter, let the CEO
get in line with everyone else. If a congress critter wants information,
the
critter should initiate the contact. ALL contacts between ALL congress
critters and anyone else should be logged and the information publicly
available. If the contact is with anyone other than a Constituent, the
purpose of the contact should be logged, taped, and publicly available.
Nothing other than full transparency is acceptable.

Why is a constituent any different than Mr. Fat? What if Mr. Fat, or his
employee who talks for Mr. Fat lives in Joe Congresscritter's district?


Then they can Get In Line. And if Mr., fat wants to talk about his business,
he can do it himself.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganews .com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


Nope.

On 9/4/2010 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote

True, but one reason legislation is pending is because Mr. Fat sent his
lobbyists to town to get something done for his own good, damn the
rest of
society.

You have exactly the same rights as Mr Fat, except that you're trying to
restrict his rights so you're essentially saying that he, because he
owns YFI,
is a second-class citizen.

I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
second class when he tried to take government money for his own private
good to the detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if
hydrogenated yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures
to ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of
hydrogenated yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.

This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
kinds.

He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.

wrote
I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to
the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.

Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.


He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
don't
believe in what he sells. Nice.

Not what I said. He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not have
the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is the
reality of most DC happenings.

Robatoy wrote:

Canadian consumer groups have successfully forced lawyers to offer
legal documents (when requested) in normal English. Documents such as
real estate transactions, employment contracts, a whole host of docs.
In some circles, the bull**** is referred to as froth and there is
evidence that a lot of it is deliberate. A real estate transaction can
legally be done on a frickin' napkin. So heretherefore....

But it's the "legalize" rendition that's official, the "normal English" is
just a translation.

There is a reason for the "legalize" version. Every word, phrase, and nuance
has been vetted by a almost a thousand years of court decisions going back
to the Magna Carta. Somebody complains that the word "warbaggle" in the
contract is ambiguous, the lawyers for the other side can point to 78
appellate court cases just within the last 500 years that show the word is
not unclear at all.

"J. Clarke" wrote
One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures to
ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of hydrogenated
yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.

This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
kinds.

The real problem is that the Feds should not be in the schools anyway.


He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.


See above. I did not get to it and I can easily make a list of things the
government should not be involved in.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giganew s.com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


Nope.

That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.

On 9/5/2010 10:24 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote
I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good
to the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if
hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.

Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.


He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
don't
believe in what he sells. Nice.

Not what I said. He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not
have the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is
the reality of most DC happenings.

Uh, to get a law enacted you have to buy 51 senators, 218
representatives, and a President. Buying one senator, assuming that you
can actually find a way to do it and not get caught and sent to jail, at
most gets you a bill introduced into one house of Congress.

Further, the bidding is competitive. Mr. Fat is going to have tough
going against the butter lobby.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:05:40 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:

snip

Wow! Over ten posts yesterday! When do you find time to do any
woodworking?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:05:40 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:

snip

Wow! Over ten posts yesterday! When do you find time to do any
woodworking?

In the time when I'm not spending an hour or so online. I'm also retired.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@gigane ws.com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications
of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


Nope.

That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.


No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:24:45 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote
I'm not saying he is second class, but Mr. Fat shows he is lower than
second
class when he tried to take government money for his own private good to
the
detriment of others. IMO, it is not up to Congress to say if hydrogenated
yak fat is allowed on the school menu anyway.

It's not up to you to decide what's good for others.

Sure, trust a congressman instead. That works well.

What "works well" is besides the point. Other than some hand-waiving,
****ing, and a little moaning, you've come up with nothing. Trashing what we
have left of the Constitution isn't a good idea.

He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So you really do believe he doesn't have rights, simply because *you*
don't
believe in what he sells. Nice.

Not what I said.

It is *exactly* what you said.

He has every right to sell what he wants. He does not have
the right to take from others because he bought a senator. That is the
reality of most DC happenings.

He has every right to _petition_ his government in any way he sees fit.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:29:19 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote
One can argue that if the Congress is going to allocate funds for school
lunches then the Congress has an obligation to take reasonable measures to
ensure that that money is being spent wisely. If the use of hydrogenated
yak fat is wise spending then it should certainly not be
discouraged--whether it should be encouraged or not is another story.

This is the real problem with Federal support for social programs of all
kinds.

The real problem is that the Feds should not be in the schools anyway.

Yup! That's the state's responsibility (usually delegated to the
communities).

He may have rights, but in 98% of the cases, he is still a self centered
lobbyist.

So is the person who got the Congress into the education business in the
first place, but I don't notice you complaining about that.


See above. I did not get to it and I can easily make a list of things the
government should not be involved in.

Now, *we're* on the same page. ;-)

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 16:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@gigan ews.com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the ramifications
of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from the
yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert, but
they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


Nope.

That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.


No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.

Not when it comes to "petitioning government", they aren't.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 16:39:15 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 00:28:25 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:08:11 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:cp768698m59atl2vkt60kvv5ud4r5aqqd1@4ax. com...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:52:27 -0700, "Lobby Dosser"

wrote:

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:uqednVwbKr7GDh_RnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@giga news.com...

"HeyBub" wrote

The lobbyists are the experts on proposed legislation. Even a
congressman
with a huge staff cannot be expected to know all the
ramifications
of
pending legislation. Do you really want a congress-critter to
determine
the railroad tariff on hydrogenated yak-fat with no input from
the
yak
industry?

Tough call. You are right that the lobbyist may be the expert,
but
they
are out to sell, not just inform. I'm not sure how you can
control
that.
The Yak Fat lobby is always trying to get the ear of a congress
person,
wanted or not. Far better would be to seek them out on an "as
needed"
basis.

Disallow any contact with legislators except that initiated by
private
individuals.

So, you would ban the Sierra Club?

I'd stop them from lobbying. Other than stated.

So you want to pitch the Constitution. Got it.


Nope.

That's *EXACTLY* what you're advocating.


No, it is not. Both the House and Senate are subject to their Own Rules.

Not when it comes to "petitioning government", they aren't.


Take a number.

--
National Socialism showed what can happen when very ordinary people get
control of a state and the merely opportunistic are regarded as
intellectuals.

Anthony Burgess

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:

snip

Take a number.

Wow again - an 81 line message to say three words. I hate to give up on
someone who posts in both woodworking and model railroading groups but it
would sure be nice if you learned to snip. Yes, I said "snip", not
"snipe", you know how to do that :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Usually the ones that keep the "troll" lists.


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Wow again - an 81 line message to say three words. I hate to give up on
someone who posts in both woodworking and model railroading groups but it
would sure be nice if you learned to snip. Yes, I said "snip", not
"snipe", you know how to do that :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:55:19 -0700, Lobby Dosser wrote:

snip

Take a number.