Came across this today, liked it, thought I’d share
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Came across this today, liked it, thought I’d share
good stuff
Unless he touched on it somewhere after the 9:00 mark, he doesn’t mention private citizens giving to organizations like the NRA, or AARP, etc.
Money talks. It always has, despite what the newest iteration of hemp-clothed, birkenstock-wearing crowd would lead you to believe. It’s not like this is a new twist in the fabric of political discourse. Ben Franklin had to go to France to beg the frog eating surrender monkeys for money.
My problem is in the numbers below:
1960 - US pop. = 179 million. Member of HOR represented about 411,500 people, on average.
2010 - US pop. = 331 million. Member of HOR represents about 761,000 people, on average.
I think that the dilution of representation due to population growth has taken the power of the vote away from the regular guy, and forces a self-perpetuating cycle of choosing the lesser of two evils every election year.
What if - like this would ever happen - we doubled the number of Senators from each state, and doubled the number of representatives? The cost would be negligible compared to the runaway spending seemingly unaccountable elected officials are currently addicted to and, at the very least, force politics to become more local.
I think crying over the fact that money talks is kinda pointless, and fosters one of the all-time greatest progressive propaganda tactic: class envy.
But I could be wrong.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Unless he touched on it somewhere after the 9:00 mark, he doesn’t mention private citizens giving to organizations like the NRA, or AARP, etc.
Money talks. It always has, despite what the newest iteration of hemp-clothed, birkenstock-wearing crowd would lead you to believe. It’s not like this is a new twist in the fabric of political discourse. Ben Franklin had to go to France to beg the frog eating surrender monkeys for money.
My problem is in the numbers below:
1960 - US pop. = 179 million. Member of HOR represented about 411,500 people, on average.
2010 - US pop. = 331 million. Member of HOR represents about 761,000 people, on average.
I think that the dilution of representation due to population growth has taken the power of the vote away from the regular guy, and forces a self-perpetuating cycle of choosing the lesser of two evils every election year.
What if - like this would ever happen - we doubled the number of Senators from each state, and doubled the number of representatives? The cost would be negligible compared to the runaway spending seemingly unaccountable elected officials are currently addicted to and, at the very least, force politics to become more local.
I think crying over the fact that money talks is kinda pointless, and fosters one of the all-time greatest progressive propaganda tactic: class envy.
But I could be wrong.
[/quote]
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same 
Hope that helps your limitations
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same Hope that helps your limitations
[/quote]
LMAO - You obviously suck at connecting dots. That’s why you make such a good little prog-tard. You can only repeat what you are told - thinking is dangerous.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Money talks. It always has…
My problem is in the numbers below:
1960 - US pop. = 179 million. Member of HOR represented about 411,500 people, on average.
2010 - US pop. = 331 million. Member of HOR represents about 761,000 people, on average.
I think that the dilution of representation due to population growth has taken the power of the vote away from the regular guy, and forces a self-perpetuating cycle of choosing the lesser of two evils every election year.
What if - like this would ever happen - we doubled the number of Senators from each state, and doubled the number of representatives? The cost would be negligible compared to the runaway spending seemingly unaccountable elected officials are currently addicted to and, at the very least, force politics to become more local.[/quote]
Proportional representation would certainly make a difference. IMO…term limits would produce a ‘big bang’ along with the elimination of ‘post elected’ benefits and a return to a proper ‘conflict of interest’ standard. I also believe the government (at all levels) having ‘spilled the banks’ of restraint has become so involved in our private lives; while the country has become so divided socially that I would favor a requirement for a 2/3 majority to pass future legislation.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same Hope that helps your limitations
[/quote]
LMAO - You obviously suck at connecting dots. That’s why you make such a good little prog-tard. You can only repeat what you are told - thinking is dangerous.
[/quote]
You like to criticize but fail to show where I have failed to connect dots . It makes it easy when all you have to do is BS everybody, Maybe you should change your name to Drunk Bullshitter
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same Hope that helps your limitations
[/quote]
LMAO - You obviously suck at connecting dots. That’s why you make such a good little prog-tard. You can only repeat what you are told - thinking is dangerous.
[/quote]
You like to criticize but fail to show where I have failed to connect dots . It makes it easy when all you have to do is BS everybody, Maybe you should change your name to Drunk Bullshitter
[/quote]
When everyone else is capable of connecting the dots you are too ignorant to pay attention to, why should I waste my time? I’m not a special ed teacher. If you can’t swim, and you can’t touch the bottom, maybe you should reconsider “swimming” in the deep end.
I’m not here to hold your hand, junior. Make an effort, or go back to the kiddie pool.
To be fair, they weren’t necessarily frog eating or exactly surrender monkeys back then.
Foster’s and perpetuates. Rather than the rich eating the poor or the poor beheading the rich, you get a complicated, expensive swirl of 501c4 organizations and the IRS.
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. Swords at dawn or pistols at high noon is simple, cheap and money/class agnostic.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
To be fair, they weren’t necessarily frog eating or exactly surrender monkeys back then.[/quote]
I’ll give you the surrender monkeys. But I think the French have been eating frogs for the better part of a millennium.
[quote]Foster’s and perpetuates. Rather than the rich eating the poor or the poor beheading the rich, you get a complicated, expensive swirl of 501c4 organizations and the IRS.
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it. Swords at dawn or pistols at high noon is simple, cheap and money/class agnostic.[/quote]
I’m on the board of a small PRCA rodeo committee. The hoops we were required to jump through just to attain a 501c3 designation were the definition of stupidity.
501(c)(4) is a little different,granted - but how in the hell did we get to the point where the IRS is now the arbiter of the 1st Amendment?
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same Hope that helps your limitations
[/quote]
LMAO - You obviously suck at connecting dots. That’s why you make such a good little prog-tard. You can only repeat what you are told - thinking is dangerous.
[/quote]
You like to criticize but fail to show where I have failed to connect dots . It makes it easy when all you have to do is BS everybody, Maybe you should change your name to Drunk Bullshitter
[/quote]
When everyone else is capable of connecting the dots you are too ignorant to pay attention to, why should I waste my time? I’m not a special ed teacher. If you can’t swim, and you can’t touch the bottom, maybe you should reconsider “swimming” in the deep end.
I’m not here to hold your hand, junior. Make an effort, or go back to the kiddie pool. [/quote]
I can connect the dots , they lead me to belive you do not have the ability to communicate
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think like always you fail to understand the obvious . It is a tale of losing control of government , from people going to money , and they are not the same Hope that helps your limitations
[/quote]
LMAO - You obviously suck at connecting dots. That’s why you make such a good little prog-tard. You can only repeat what you are told - thinking is dangerous.
[/quote]
You like to criticize but fail to show where I have failed to connect dots . It makes it easy when all you have to do is BS everybody, Maybe you should change your name to Drunk Bullshitter
[/quote]
When everyone else is capable of connecting the dots you are too ignorant to pay attention to, why should I waste my time? I’m not a special ed teacher. If you can’t swim, and you can’t touch the bottom, maybe you should reconsider “swimming” in the deep end.
I’m not here to hold your hand, junior. Make an effort, or go back to the kiddie pool. [/quote]
I can connect the dots , they lead me to belive you do not have the ability to communicate
[/quote]
I can communicate quite effectively. I merely choose not to lower my communicative skills to your level. Like I said - learn to swim in my end, or go back to the kiddie pool.
Also - learn to fucking spell.