Take it back

2009-07-17 18:35:06

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6936|Global Command

In this time of financial stress, political chaos and uncertainty it is easy to become discouraged and apathetic.

This OP primarily deals with California, one of the few states with a full time legislator.

The meat comes 20 seconds in. Apparently California is a " nation state " too big and important to have anything less than a full time body of government workers.

I provide a few bullet points, after the video and a link or two.

We actually can effect change in politics by ringing the phone off the hook of your Representative, participating in sensible grass roots reforms. until further notice, there remains a semblance of rule of law and they have to conform to legally crafted ballot measures and initiatives. Californians should download the petition and follow the rules to the letter and sign up everybody you know.

Our full-time Legislature has failed the people of California. The result is a Legislature dominated by career politicians beholden to special interests. A part-time Legislature will replace professional politicians with citizen legislators and break the stranglehold of these special interests.

Full-time politicians are completely out of touch with the people they represent.

Compare the tax rate of 1966, adjusted for inflation and population to today.
We have the worst business climate in the nation.

As one of the worlds largest economies the actions of We The People of California affect the entire world, obviously.

This is legal revolution that can work. It can be applied eventually to a nationwide movement, and our very survival as a nation depends on it.

http://www.reformcal.com/cms/

petition for Californians; http://www.reformcal.com/petition.html

2009-07-17 18:45:04

#2

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7123

the key= they all want to get re-elected and they will sell their souls to do it.
The phone in campaigns are working and they need to continue...
We need to vote out all incumbents in 2010 and go from there...
Hard to believe it would be worse with a new group of leaders...?
It's worth a shot.

Love is the answer

2009-07-17 19:49:37

#3

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6812|North Carolina

California should probably split into 2 states. The question is where the split should be.

2009-07-17 19:59:32

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6936|Global Command

Why would we do that?!?

What about a PART TIME LEGISLATOR like the website is advocating.

2009-07-17 20:01:46

#5

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6812|North Carolina

ATG wrote:
Why would we do that?!?

What about a PART TIME LEGISLATOR like the website is advocating.

Spending less time in charge isn't going to help much. Dividing the workload among more people is generally more effective.

Division of labor, etc.

2009-07-17 22:19:10

#6

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6875

California is the place where popular referendums made it all but impossible to raise taxes while at the same time making putting in tons of health and unemployment benefits.

Cali proves why we can't have nice things.

2009-07-17 22:22:02

#7

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5992

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
California is the place where popular referendums made it all but impossible to raise taxes while at the same time making putting in tons of health and unemployment benefits.

Democracy sucks sometimes.

2009-07-17 22:23:08

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7007|132 and Bush

Macbeth wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
California is the place where popular referendums made it all but impossible to raise taxes while at the same time making putting in tons of health and unemployment benefits.
Democracy sucks sometimes.

Referendums are the closest we get to a true democracy.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-07-17 22:27:53

#9

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6875

Kmarion wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
California is the place where popular referendums made it all but impossible to raise taxes while at the same time making putting in tons of health and unemployment benefits.
Democracy sucks sometimes.
Referendums are the closest we get to a true democracy.

Exactly, direct democracy sucks on a large scale. The founders knew this which is why they put so many anti-Democratic stuff into the constitution (Electoral College, appointment of Senators), because people are too dumb to handle direct democracy. And while the system they had was probably too undemocratic, the one we have today is, at a national level, democratic enough without letting the average dumb-ass permanently fuck things.

2009-07-17 23:06:48

#10

OxenBreeder: Member; +46|6172|KTRI

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
the key= they all want to get re-elected and they will sell their souls to do it.
We need to vote out all incumbents in 2010 and go from there...

2009-07-17 23:30:09

#11

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6925|Montucky

Montana has a part-time legislature, most of the representatives are Ranchers, Farmers, Small Business owners and former Military.

It works just fine.

side note: the only reason our unemployment is up is due to the logging industry has slowed way the fuck down due to two things, A) nation wide construction loans are down and B) the hippie faggots that have migrated here don't like the fact that we cut down trees and then plant trees were we've had a nice juicy clear cut. Don't get me started on Logging and For rests, its what I deal with every goddamn day and building, fixing roads.

Last edited by S3v3N (2009-07-17 23:30:38)

2009-07-17 23:38:26

#12

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6875

OxenBreeder wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
the key= they all want to get re-elected and they will sell their souls to do it.
We need to vote out all incumbents in 2010 and go from there...

But what will that solve? You're just going to have different people doing the same stuff. None of what's going on now is new. In fact historically speaking there is much less underhanded shit now then there was. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Getting new people will just mean that different people will be exploiting the system.

2009-07-18 01:00:25

#13

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7123

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
OxenBreeder wrote:
[TUF]Catbox wrote:
the key= they all want to get re-elected and they will sell their souls to do it.
We need to vote out all incumbents in 2010 and go from there...
But what will that solve? You're just going to have different people doing the same stuff. None of what's going on now is new. In fact historically speaking there is much less underhanded shit now then there was. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Getting new people will just mean that different people will be exploiting the system.

Term limits would help... 6-10 years max...
There are people in the govt that have been in for so long that they have little fear of being voted out and because they have been in so long they are above it all.

Notice that it's the people who might have a chance at losing in an upcoming election that suddenly hear what the people want...

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-07-18 01:01:34)

Love is the answer

2009-07-18 01:37:16

#14

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7081|Canberra, AUS

6 year term limit for a regular Senator or Congressman?

Hmm......

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-07-18 01:49:06

#15

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6731|New Haven, CT

I think 2 year terms, with a maximum of 3-5 terms served in their career, is his proposed fix to the problem.

2009-07-18 11:53:34

#16

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6812|North Carolina

DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Macbeth wrote:

Democracy sucks sometimes.
Referendums are the closest we get to a true democracy.
Exactly, direct democracy sucks on a large scale. The founders knew this which is why they put so many anti-Democratic stuff into the constitution (Electoral College, appointment of Senators), because people are too dumb to handle direct democracy. And while the system they had was probably too undemocratic, the one we have today is, at a national level, democratic enough without letting the average dumb-ass permanently fuck things.

Direct democracy is fine when it comes to electing people.

Direct democracy usually works with social policy as well.

But when it comes to foreign policy and economic policy, it's best to let elected officials make the calls.

2009-07-18 11:54:39

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6812|North Carolina

[TUF]Catbox wrote:
DoctaStrangelove wrote:
OxenBreeder wrote:
But what will that solve? You're just going to have different people doing the same stuff. None of what's going on now is new. In fact historically speaking there is much less underhanded shit now then there was. The problem is not the people, it's the system. Getting new people will just mean that different people will be exploiting the system.
Term limits would help... 6-10 years max...
There are people in the govt that have been in for so long that they have little fear of being voted out and because they have been in so long they are above it all.

Notice that it's the people who might have a chance at losing in an upcoming election that suddenly hear what the people want...

I'm all for term limits as well.

2009-07-18 11:59:57

#18

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6975|Mountains of NC

Turquoise wrote:
California should probably split into 2 states. The question is where the split should be.

along the fault line ............. just let it float out to sea

Neveda ... beachside property

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

BF2S Forums Take it back

ATG wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

OxenBreeder wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

OxenBreeder wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

OxenBreeder wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer