Ford Gives Finger to America and American Employees

On 2008-06-04, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> In message >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-06-04, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>> In message >, Brent P
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2008-06-03, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Funny you should use that example. Most of the scientists and
>>>>> engineers I know and work with are NOT unionized, yet are quite well
>>>>> paid. Gosh, how did they manage to pull that off without a union, I
>>>>> wonder?
>>>>
>>>>Engineering pay has not even kept up with inflation since 1913.
>>>
>>> So what did a typical software engineer make in 1913?
>>
>>Computing was a division of mechanical engineering in 1913... later it
>>became a division of electrical engineering after the demise of
>>mechanical computers.
>>
>>A mechanical engineer made $5000, no speciality was attached to the
>>figure. Adjusted for inflation, that $5000 is $108K today according to:
>>http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
>
> So you've just disproved your own point. My Engineer's pay is well
> ahead of inflation.

Not in the state you live in. In chicago the pay is well behind for
mechanicals.

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:33 -0700, Clave wrote:

> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:41:56 -0700, Clave wrote:
>>
>>> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
>>> news
>
> <...>
>
>>>> Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the Seattle Times for
>>>> software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.
>>>
>>> Are you kidding? That was market forces. The ads didn't disappear, they
>>> moved online and multiplied.
>>>
>>> With monster.com and its like around then, what kind of software talent
>>> was going to rely on local print for job leads?
>>
>> Nope. It was indicative of the crash in tech stuff.
> ^
> correlative

I am not real sure what you are trying to do with all this. There was a
much advertised and ballyhooed "dot.com" bust, and a zillion H1B's from
India. That isn't really debatable. It just _IS_.

>> I did monster at some point also. I finally said to hell with it and went
>> to see the country. It was cool. I liked it.
>
> So you're generalizing from your own experience.

No. I'm saying what happened and what I did. My "own experience" had
nothing to do with the dot.com bust and the H1B's except that I
"experienced" the results of those REALITIES. AHHH!!! YES!!! You are
trying to say that I am the only person that was negatively impacted by
this; that it is due to some inadequacy on my part that I was not able to
kick the ass of a zillion H1B's and the stupid bean counting nincompoops
that hired them. That I somehow caused the run up in FAKE technology and
the ensuing bust. I get it now.. Yer a Republican fascist that is just
"right" and everyone else is therefore wrong and EEEEVVIIIILEEEE.

I got news for ya. Republicans CAUSED the problem just as they caused the
Housing bubble. That's what Republicans do. They blow bubbles.

>> in 1999 the H1B quotas were raised to the moon.
>
> So?
>
> Anyway, software dev unions might have been able to prevent that.
>
> Jim
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>>
>>HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>AS IT SEES FIT.

> In the US the government is you and your neighbors.

No it is not. It never really has been and hasn't even been close since
1932 at the latest... one could easily argue 1913 or 1861-1865 as well.

The founders knew that government as an institution was
not a friend of the people and cared more for itself than anything else.
The systems they put in to place were designed to keep government in
check. That has slowly failed as many of them predicted.

> But the concept of
> community, cooperation and responsibility continue to confound you.

The USA was founded on the principles of individual liberty. You get
community, cooperation and responsibility with property rights and
respecting the rights, the liberty of your neighbors in a free market
economy.

You can't get "community, cooperation and responsibility" by coercion
and theft of property. In fact, you get the opposite (theft,
leaching, fighting over resources, and blaming society) rather
frequently. But that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:26:17 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:24:12 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>>>>>><<<Massive brain fart deleted.>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another arrogant trucker. Surprise surprise.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the typical left-right nonsense is being employed here, I'll put
>>>>>>> it all of you this way. Imagine that all the power of a nationalized
>>>>>>> health care system ends up in the hands of the group you're not one of.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine that you actually had the intelligence to go to the link in my
>>>>>> signature and absorb what it says. It resolves this strawman crap of
>>>>>> yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine you had the brain to do something for a living besides trucking?
>>>>
>>>> I'm retired, moron.
>>>
>>> Same difference, tard.
>>
>> I was a software developer when you were in rompers. And how bout IQ's at
>> 50 paces?
>
> Lol. You'll lose.
>
>>>>> You want to put even greater power in the hands of government. Before
>>>>> you do that you should think of what happens when government is
>>>>> controlled by people who don't agree with you. If you don't like that
>>>>> outcome you need to reconsider giving government that power.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said: You are incapable of absorbing what is at the link below.
>>>
>>> The link is bull****. Let me tell you why it's bull****. Because you
>>> don't understand the problem. It's not about district size, it's that
>>> the federal government is unaccountable to the state governments.
>
>> The government is really supposed to be accountable to the people. Screw
>> the states.
>
> *sigh* you're ignorant. The concept is that the people can control the
> government that is closest to them. PLUS by giving state government
> power in the federal government, it prevents the federal government from
> stomping on the state governments.

Like I said. You are simply not able to absorb what I have written or you
would not be taking the path you are taking.

>>> Direct
>>> election of senators is what decoupled the federal government and made
>>> it so that it could blackmail the states and increase its power.
>
>> It may come as a shock to you, pal, but I too would be very pleased with
>> a repeal of the 17th amendment. The reason is EXACTLY the same. It puts
>> control CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE. I care not about the friggin states.
>
> See above.

So the disagreement here is that you want to have more states rights and
less economies of scale. That is rather stupid, but it seems a malady
shared by many.

>>>>> HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>>>> ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>>>> AS IT SEES FIT. (just look how it treats people in the military, its
>>>>> history of experiments on the people, including bioweapon research such
>>>>> as releases in the NYC subway)
>>>
>>>> Like I said: Incapable of absorbing the data at the link.
>>>
>>> Hey dufus, your link doesn't change the nature of government or the
>>> nature of central control.
>
>> And denial is a river in Africa.
>
> It doesn't change the nature of government and you have no reason why it
> would. You'll have more unaccountable leaches living at taxpayer expense
> that will be part of the same absurd two party system. Just more people,
> same control system in place.

It actually kicks the parties in the balls. The idea is to make the
representatives truly representative of and accountable to their
constituents. I see no rationale of reason from you that refutes that.
What I see is steel headed in ignorant opinion.

>>> Increasing the number of congress critters by
>>> 1300 doesn't fix a damn thing, it just increases the number of offices.
>
>> That is incorrect as it stands according to most political philosophers
>> and political scientists and it is also false anecdotally. Yet the
>> proposal also speaks of relocating the representatives OUT OF THE BELTWAY
>> into the states they represent. What is interesting here is that you
>> support repeal of the 17th to put more control closer to the people, yet
>> you don't seem to recognize that principle when it is proposed in a way
>> that does not require Constitutional revision.
>
> Having 1300 more people doesn't make them listen or care. You want more
> representive government you have to destroy the two party system. The
> system that locks just about every office to tweedle dee and tweedle
> dumb. Where the special interests as they are called simply buy the two
> from the two parties and no matter who is elected they win.

That is essentially what the proposal does. It disenfranchises power
centers and empowers LOCAL people who are better known to the
constituents and more accountable to them. What is plain here is that you
recognize this facility when applied to the Senate (but the Senate
adjustment has other problems), but not when applied in the House. I am
pretty sure that you are a strict authoritarian that is looking to
ensconce authority at the state level in order to withdraw from the larger
society. It is a Libertarian thing; this feudal system mentality.

>>> Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
>>> kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
>>> is today.
>
>> Why would I want more Rons and Dennises? I want more "representative"
>> people in those seats. You really do seem to miss the essential nature of
>> what the proposed reorganization achieves.
>
> Then you want a congress full of more CFR members... that doesn't
> change a damn thing.

CFR is a distraction. It has been done several times and each time it id
done it enhances the incumbency rate. A lollipop for the moonbats.

>>> District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
>>> in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
>>> congressman is now.
>
>> The duties are not the same in the two roles. Nothing is the same in what
>> you propose as an analogy.
>
> Your idea is about the smaller district being more representive, the
> office holder more accountable. There is no reason to believe that would
> occur. Plus the smaller districts will be just as rigged as the ones
> today.

That is a horrendous misconception and/or an outright lie. There is
_EVERY_ reason to expect such a gain in the representative nature of the
elected representative. It is axiomatic that the smaller the group being
represented, the more representative the chosen person _MUST_ be or that
person will be ousted in the next election. At a salary of $160K per year
or so there will be a whole bunch of contenders watching the current
representative like a hawk, lusting after that job. And, BTW, the
smaller the group the more difficult it is to "rig" anything.

This stuff is like "water is wet".

>>> Central government is the problem. Trying to make central government
>>> accountable is like trying to make a pig fly.
>
>> The proposal is a Constitutionally appropriate decentralization.
>
> It won't change anything. All the present problems remain, you just add
> offices.

And denial is a river in Africa. Just keep repeating the mantra.

> And how can you be for de-centralization when you want to put so much
> power in the hands of a central government? It makes no sense. You're
> running a smoke and mirrors game. You're talking central control and
> trying to mask it. More representives doesn't change things, it will
> just be more men in office that do as the special interests that own
> them see fit.

http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php#fed10 --------------

Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a
consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is
always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose
concurrence is necessary.
-----------------------------------------------
I don't think it possible to get an "earmark" through this proposed
and perfectly Constitutional reorganization.


--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:49:08 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>>> But the concept of
>>> community, cooperation and responsibility continue to confound you.
>>
>>The USA was founded on the principles of individual liberty. You get
>>community, cooperation and responsibility with property rights and
>>respecting the rights, the liberty of your neighbors in a free market
>>economy.
>>
>>You can't get "community, cooperation and responsibility" by coercion
>>and theft of property. In fact, you get the opposite (theft,
>>leaching, fighting over resources, and blaming society) rather
>>frequently. But that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying.
>
>
> Ah, libertoon rant. Moron alert. Plonk.

Another open minded individual heard from... lol.

On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:

>> *sigh* you're ignorant. The concept is that the people can control the
>> government that is closest to them. PLUS by giving state government
>> power in the federal government, it prevents the federal government from
>> stomping on the state governments.

> Like I said. You are simply not able to absorb what I have written or you
> would not be taking the path you are taking.

Oh you wrote that idiotic plan of adding 1300 congress critters?

> So the disagreement here is that you want to have more states rights and
> less economies of scale. That is rather stupid, but it seems a malady
> shared by many.

Less economies of scale? Economy of scale, is that you are calling
central control now? Is that how you rationalize having a central
authority in washington DC decide the most important personal individual
decisons there are for us?

>> It doesn't change the nature of government and you have no reason why it
>> would. You'll have more unaccountable leaches living at taxpayer expense
>> that will be part of the same absurd two party system. Just more people,
>> same control system in place.

> It actually kicks the parties in the balls. The idea is to make the
> representatives truly representative of and accountable to their
> constituents. I see no rationale of reason from you that refutes that.
> What I see is steel headed in ignorant opinion.

You show no mechanism to make them accountable. The Ds and Rs will still
control election law they will control the boundries of the districts.
It will be the same game, just more of it. Simply having a smaller
district does not make an elected offic holder more accountable. There
is ample evidence of this in local elections. You need to prove your
case and you simply don't.

For more representives to work, it requires breaking the two party hold
on the process. Districts drawn specifically to elect libertarians,
greens, and others. Without doing that, it fails. It becomes simply more
of the same.

>> Having 1300 more people doesn't make them listen or care. You want more
>> representive government you have to destroy the two party system. The
>> system that locks just about every office to tweedle dee and tweedle
>> dumb. Where the special interests as they are called simply buy the two
>> from the two parties and no matter who is elected they win.

> That is essentially what the proposal does. It disenfranchises power
> centers and empowers LOCAL people who are better known to the
> constituents and more accountable to them.

You don't understand that the Ds and the Rs draw the districts! They
control the election laws too. Your smaller districts don't mean squat
when they are drawn to lock areas to Ds or Rs. Plus the election laws
will still keep 3rd parties and independents off the ballots. That must
be fixed first.

> What is plain here is that you
> recognize this facility when applied to the Senate (but the Senate
> adjustment has other problems), but not when applied in the House. I am
> pretty sure that you are a strict authoritarian that is looking to
> ensconce authority at the state level in order to withdraw from the larger
> society. It is a Libertarian thing; this feudal system mentality.

LOL. Damn you're fing clueless. You don't have a clue about libertarian
'things'. But I do love usenet where I am acused of being an anarchist
one day and an authoritarian the next.

The point of state chosen senators is it keeps governments FIGHTING with
each other. Since the direct election of senators the federal government
has been able to run over the state government for the most part. That's
central control. Government fighting amugst themselves works to preserve
liberty for the people. That's what you do not understand.

If you understood that, you'd know why your proposal is worthless. It
doesn't create any more 'fight' inside government because it uses the
same methods to elect representives and draw districts. You just have
more people. 1300 more representives would be great _IF_ and _ONLY IF_
the two party hold was broken _BEFORE_ implementing it. Otherwise, it's
just the same old thing with more people.

>>>> Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
>>>> kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
>>>> is today.

>>> Why would I want more Rons and Dennises? I want more "representative"
>>> people in those seats. You really do seem to miss the essential nature of
>>> what the proposed reorganization achieves.
>>
>> Then you want a congress full of more CFR members... that doesn't
>> change a damn thing.

> CFR is a distraction. It has been done several times and each time it id
> done it enhances the incumbency rate. A lollipop for the moonbats.

I figured you'd have that response. You don't want the people
represented, you want your brand of control freaks in charge. If you
really wanted more representive, more accountable elected office
holders, you'd want more Rons and Dennises. You'd want more people who
were elected with fundamentally different view points. That's better
representation of the mix of people in the nation, the good thing that
can be achieved through smaller districts. Your responses demonstrate
why your proposal is a sham. Just more illusion over the same old crap.

>>>> District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
>>>> in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
>>>> congressman is now.
>>
>>> The duties are not the same in the two roles. Nothing is the same in what
>>> you propose as an analogy.

>> Your idea is about the smaller district being more representive, the
>> office holder more accountable. There is no reason to believe that would
>> occur. Plus the smaller districts will be just as rigged as the ones
>> today.

> That is a horrendous misconception and/or an outright lie. There is
> _EVERY_ reason to expect such a gain in the representative nature of the
> elected representative. It is axiomatic that the smaller the group being
> represented, the more representative the chosen person _MUST_ be or that
> person will be ousted in the next election. At a salary of $160K per year
> or so there will be a whole bunch of contenders watching the current
> representative like a hawk, lusting after that job. And, BTW, the
> smaller the group the more difficult it is to "rig" anything.

> This stuff is like "water is wet".

You don't understand the whole thing or you just want to achieve some
other goal. I vote for both. BTW, you neglect the cost of getting
elected. The pay is negative unless you start doing someone else's
bidding. That is yet another reason you'll get more people doing the
same old thing.

>> It won't change anything. All the present problems remain, you just add
>> offices.

> And denial is a river in Africa. Just keep repeating the mantra.

You refuse to show any way you just wouldn't get more Ds and Rs that
servants to the same forces the present ones are for the most part.

> I don't think it possible to get an "earmark" through this proposed
> and perfectly Constitutional reorganization.

You don't understand what an earmark is either... figures.

An 'earmark' simply puts the decision of where to spend already
appropiated money in the hands of the congress. No earmarks means the
beuracrats in the individual departments have all the decision making
power on the money. What needs to be eliminated is the appropiations,
earmarks are just after the fact.

In article >,
> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>>
>>HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>AS IT SEES FIT.
>
>
>In the US the government is you and your neighbors.

ROTFL. Nobody's really that naive, are they?

>But the concept of community, cooperation and responsibility continue
>to confound you.

Where "community" = paying taxes, "cooperation" = obedience to the
dictates of government and "responsibility" = paying taxes again.



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:03:41 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>
>>> *sigh* you're ignorant. The concept is that the people can control the
>>> government that is closest to them. PLUS by giving state government
>>> power in the federal government, it prevents the federal government from
>>> stomping on the state governments.
>
>> Like I said. You are simply not able to absorb what I have written or you
>> would not be taking the path you are taking.
>
> Oh you wrote that idiotic plan of adding 1300 congress critters?

I Wrote every word of it.

>> So the disagreement here is that you want to have more states rights and
>> less economies of scale. That is rather stupid, but it seems a malady
>> shared by many.
>
> Less economies of scale? Economy of scale, is that you are calling
> central control now? Is that how you rationalize having a central
> authority in washington DC decide the most important personal individual
> decisons there are for us?

There are definite benefits for economies of scale. Your abject ignorance
is showing.

>>> It doesn't change the nature of government and you have no reason why it
>>> would. You'll have more unaccountable leaches living at taxpayer expense
>>> that will be part of the same absurd two party system. Just more people,
>>> same control system in place.
>
>> It actually kicks the parties in the balls. The idea is to make the
>> representatives truly representative of and accountable to their
>> constituents. I see no rationale of reason from you that refutes that.
>> What I see is steel headed in ignorant opinion.
>
> You show no mechanism to make them accountable.

Lie.

> The Ds and Rs will still
> control election law they will control the boundries of the districts.

Take it to the limit, ignoramus: Let us have representative districts of
10 people (or one people). You think you can gerrymander that? Good
luck. The more populous the districts the more easy it is to gerrymander.
You lose again.

> It will be the same game, just more of it. Simply having a smaller
> district does not make an elected offic holder more accountable.

Let us reduce the size of the represented constituency to 10 (or one).
Are you telling us that you would "represent" some alien force other than
yourself?
You lose again.

> There
> is ample evidence of this in local elections. You need to prove your
> case and you simply don't.
I need to prove that water is wet? I admit that such a thing is difficult.
I is not possible to prove an axiom.

> For more representives to work, it requires breaking the two party hold
> on the process. Districts drawn specifically to elect libertarians,
> greens, and others. Without doing that, it fails. It becomes simply more
> of the same.

Glad you mentioned the Libertarians and the Greens and the like. Because
we would actually see a LOT more 3rd party affiliated persons in the House
of Representatives. I said this would bust the duopoly and I was dead
serious.

>>> Having 1300 more people doesn't make them listen or care. You want more
>>> representive government you have to destroy the two party system. The
>>> system that locks just about every office to tweedle dee and tweedle
>>> dumb. Where the special interests as they are called simply buy the two
>>> from the two parties and no matter who is elected they win.
>
>> That is essentially what the proposal does. It disenfranchises power
>> centers and empowers LOCAL people who are better known to the
>> constituents and more accountable to them.
>
> You don't understand that the Ds and the Rs draw the districts!

You don't seem to understand that the smaller the districts the more
difficult it is to gerrymander them. You gonna gerrymander a 100 person
district?
You lose again.

> They
> control the election laws too.

So your answer is to throw up your hands and let them stick it up yer ass?

> Your smaller districts don't mean squat
> when they are drawn to lock areas to Ds or Rs.

You are just too damned steel helmeted to let yourself _KNOW_ the facts.

> Plus the election laws
> will still keep 3rd parties and independents off the ballots. That must
> be fixed first.

That is like hoisting yourself over a fence by grabbing yer own underwear.
It is like the CFR distraction lollipop. Gee... We could have some ham
and eggs if we had some ham.

>> What is plain here is that you
>> recognize this facility when applied to the Senate (but the Senate
>> adjustment has other problems), but not when applied in the House. I am
>> pretty sure that you are a strict authoritarian that is looking to
>> ensconce authority at the state level in order to withdraw from the larger
>> society. It is a Libertarian thing; this feudal system mentality.
>
> LOL. Damn you're fing clueless. You don't have a clue about libertarian
> 'things'. But I do love usenet where I am acused of being an anarchist
> one day and an authoritarian the next.

"Anarchist" is defined in context and has no global definition. Most
Libertarians end up as authoritarian or anarchists or both. They are
illogical.

> The point of state chosen senators is it keeps governments FIGHTING with
> each other. Since the direct election of senators the federal government
> has been able to run over the state government for the most part. That's
> central control. Government fighting amugst themselves works to preserve
> liberty for the people. That's what you do not understand.

Like I said: Feudalism.

> If you understood that, you'd know why your proposal is worthless. It
> doesn't create any more 'fight' inside government because it uses the
> same methods to elect representives and draw districts. You just have
> more people. 1300 more representives would be great _IF_ and _ONLY IF_
> the two party hold was broken _BEFORE_ implementing it. Otherwise, it's
> just the same old thing with more people.

There is _NO_ logic or reason for that claim. It is simply an article of
your religious faith. I have given what I believe to be irrefutable logic
as to why you are wrong. I see nothing from you but the repetition of a
mantra.

>>>>> Sure, maybe you'd get a few more Ron Paul's or Dennis
>>>>> kuninich(sp?)es in office, but their effect would be no greater than it
>>>>> is today.
>
>>>> Why would I want more Rons and Dennises? I want more "representative"
>>>> people in those seats. You really do seem to miss the essential nature of
>>>> what the proposed reorganization achieves.
>>>
>>> Then you want a congress full of more CFR members... that doesn't
>>> change a damn thing.
>
>> CFR is a distraction. It has been done several times and each time it id
>> done it enhances the incumbency rate. A lollipop for the moonbats.
>
> I figured you'd have that response. You don't want the people
> represented, you want your brand of control freaks in charge.

I can't believe you can arrive at that position based on logic or reason.
I will admit to having a religious fixation regarding representative
government. There us no way that I can prove that representative
government is "good" any more than I can prove there is a supreme being.
All ideologies are religious and there is no proof of "good". But once
past that particular religious position I can see that my recommendations
enhance the representative nature of our government. All of your
arguments are based on ignorance or on your desire to thwart
representative government.

Why do you hate democracy?

> If you
> really wanted more representive, more accountable elected office
> holders, you'd want more Rons and Dennises. You'd want more people who
> were elected with fundamentally different view points. That's better
> representation of the mix of people in the nation, the good thing that
> can be achieved through smaller districts.

Thank you.

> Your responses demonstrate
> why your proposal is a sham. Just more illusion over the same old crap.

Your criticisms are self defeating as in the case of Rons and Dennises.
The Rons and Dennises are actually 3rd parties and they will have a seat
at the table. I don't see how the Democrats or the Republicans can
prevent this. The TwoParty would be crushed by democracy in the House.
The limitation to 435 members was a move by the TwoParty to entrench their
own power and the power of incumbency.

>>>>> District size doesn't change a thing either... An alderman
>>>>> in big city has a tiny district and can be as unaccountable as a
>>>>> congressman is now.
>>>
>>>> The duties are not the same in the two roles. Nothing is the same in what
>>>> you propose as an analogy.
>
>>> Your idea is about the smaller district being more representive, the
>>> office holder more accountable. There is no reason to believe that would
>>> occur. Plus the smaller districts will be just as rigged as the ones
>>> today.
>
>> That is a horrendous misconception and/or an outright lie. There is
>> _EVERY_ reason to expect such a gain in the representative nature of the
>> elected representative. It is axiomatic that the smaller the group being
>> represented, the more representative the chosen person _MUST_ be or that
>> person will be ousted in the next election. At a salary of $160K per year
>> or so there will be a whole bunch of contenders watching the current
>> representative like a hawk, lusting after that job. And, BTW, the
>> smaller the group the more difficult it is to "rig" anything.
>
>> This stuff is like "water is wet".
>
> You don't understand the whole thing or you just want to achieve some
> other goal. I vote for both.

Then illustrate it as opposed to just stamping your feet and repeating a
mantra. So far you have come up dry.

> BTW, you neglect the cost of getting
> elected. The pay is negative unless you start doing someone else's
> bidding. That is yet another reason you'll get more people doing the
> same old thing.

The reduction in district size dramatically reduces the "war chest" need
to gain elected office.
You lose again.

>>> It won't change anything. All the present problems remain, you just add
>>> offices.
>
>> And denial is a river in Africa. Just keep repeating the mantra.
>
> You refuse to show any way you just wouldn't get more Ds and Rs that
> servants to the same forces the present ones are for the most part.

I have actually demonstrated why that will not happen and you have
actually agreed with it. See Rons and Dennises above. You let the steel
helmet slip and some actual knowledge managed to penetrate. Lets see if
we can expand on that.

>> I don't think it possible to get an "earmark" through this proposed
>> and perfectly Constitutional reorganization.
>
> You don't understand what an earmark is either... figures.
>
> An 'earmark' simply puts the decision of where to spend already
> appropiated money in the hands of the congress. No earmarks means the
> beuracrats in the individual departments have all the decision making
> power on the money. What needs to be eliminated is the appropiations,
> earmarks are just after the fact.

They are not AFTER THE FACT. The Congress passes legislation with the
earmarks already in the legislation. And the Congress, most especially
the House, is Constitutionally authorized to appropriate and direct the
expenditures. That's their job.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
> I Wrote every word of it.

citing yourself is so.....

>> Less economies of scale? Economy of scale, is that you are calling
>> central control now? Is that how you rationalize having a central
>> authority in washington DC decide the most important personal individual
>> decisons there are for us?
>
> There are definite benefits for economies of scale. Your abject ignorance
> is showing.

Just hand your life over to beuracrats in DC!

>> You show no mechanism to make them accountable.
> Lie.

You don't know what a lie is. Where's your mechanism then?

>> The Ds and Rs will still
>> control election law they will control the boundries of the districts.
>
> Take it to the limit, ignoramus: Let us have representative districts of
> 10 people (or one people). You think you can gerrymander that? Good
> luck. The more populous the districts the more easy it is to gerrymander.
> You lose again.

LOL. now that you've admitted the failure of your proposal you want to
go to direct democracy, aka 'mob rule'

>> It will be the same game, just more of it. Simply having a smaller
>> district does not make an elected offic holder more accountable.

> Let us reduce the size of the represented constituency to 10 (or one).
> Are you telling us that you would "represent" some alien force other than
> yourself?
> You lose again.

When you need to strawman your own argument, you lost.

> Glad you mentioned the Libertarians and the Greens and the like. Because
> we would actually see a LOT more 3rd party affiliated persons in the House
> of Representatives. I said this would bust the duopoly and I was dead
> serious.

You provide no mechanism to break the two party system. I grow tired of
this. It's clear you haven't thought things through or are looking to
just hide your desire for central control. Probably both.

To me it seems you just think you can change things to get the central
control you'd like best and be able to force people who don't see it
your way to obey.

If you really want to learn about decentralized government, free people,
etc go he http://www.lewrockwell.com/

Buh bye.

<snip, unread>

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:49:08 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>>ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>>AS IT SEES FIT.
>
>> In the US the government is you and your neighbors.
>
> No it is not. It never really has been and hasn't even been close since
> 1932 at the latest... one could easily argue 1913 or 1861-1865 as well.

Actually, the assault on the people really got underway in 1921 when the
Republicans refused to reapportion the House in view of a lot of Irish
immigration and migration to the cities. Having gotten away with this
clear violation of the Constitution they then made it official in 1929:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappor...nt_Act_of_1929

> The founders knew that government as an institution was
> not a friend of the people and cared more for itself than anything else.
> The systems they put in to place were designed to keep government in
> check. That has slowly failed as many of them predicted.

Yes. This is discussed he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_The_First

And he

http://Thirty_Thousand.org

>> But the concept of
>> community, cooperation and responsibility continue to confound you.
>
> The USA was founded on the principles of individual liberty. You get
> community, cooperation and responsibility with property rights and
> respecting the rights, the liberty of your neighbors in a free market
> economy.

I'd be willing to bet that you really have no idea what an actual "free
market" might be.

> You can't get "community, cooperation and responsibility" by coercion
> and theft of property. In fact, you get the opposite (theft,
> leaching, fighting over resources, and blaming society) rather
> frequently. But that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying.

Mirror time, chump.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend