Lets try again!!1

[Zoo]

I'm thinking we should really take a look at what this country(United States of America) has become. Then ask ourselves are we alright with this or do we need to start over again? What do the people think? By the look of me you already know what I think!!1

[onan]

What does start over mean? What happens to the infrastructure we have now? How long will this start over take? Who supplies our sustenance during this redo? Will conventional business continue?

[Zoo]

Start over to me means a complete reboot/overhaul of the Government. Get rid of the IRS go with a flat tax of 10% across the board no matter what or who. Get rid of the Federal Reserve it's a private bank. Then comes the trick part how to turn over power from the old to the new. I recommend laws that state all Government Officials be held a countable to what they say and the actions they take higher than a regular citizen. What I'm trying to say if they break the law the get double what a normal citizen would get. Same with Judges, lawyers and even Cops and one who works for the Government for that matter. Companies will be allowed to fall and if CEO'S break the law they go to jail plain and simple. Get rid of the Electoral College or simple make it even for every State. Term limits and they get the same health care as the poorest citizen.  Any thought on what else we can do!!1

[onan]

Start over to me means a complete reboot/overhaul of the Government. Get rid of the IRS go with a flat tax of 10% across the board no matter what or who. Get rid of the Federal Reserve it's a private bank. Then comes the trick part how to turn over power from the old to the new. I recommend laws that state all Government Officials be held a countable to what they say and the actions they take higher than a regular citizen. What I'm trying to say if they break the law the get double what a normal citizen would get. Same with Judges, lawyers and even Cops and one who works for the Government for that matter. Companies will be allowed to fall and if CEO'S break the law they go to jail plain and simple. Get rid of the Electoral College or simple make it even for every State. Term limits and they get the same health care as the poorest citizen.  Any thought on what else we can do!!1

How do you suggest these changes get implemented?

[PB the Deplorable]

... Get rid of the Electoral College or simple make it even for every State...

Anyone advocating getting rid of the Electoral College should be required to understand why it was implemented in the first place.

[b_dubb]

if we do a reboot then what do i do with all my fiat currency that i've been amassing all these years?  and personal property?  um ... nope.  no thanks

if you want to nix the Fed, go ahead.  and while you're at it campaign financing reform.  and no more corporations are people too.  that's nonsense

[Eddie Coyle]

 
         How come the "eliminate government" crowd don't take up residence in say...Somalia, where that scenario exists?

[Yorkshire pud]

Start over to me means a complete reboot/overhaul of the Government. Get rid of the IRS go with a flat tax of 10% across the board no matter what or who. Get rid of the Federal Reserve it's a private bank. Then comes the trick part how to turn over power from the old to the new. I recommend laws that state all Government Officials be held a countable to what they say and the actions they take higher than a regular citizen. What I'm trying to say if they break the law the get double what a normal citizen would get. Same with Judges, lawyers and even Cops and one who works for the Government for that matter. Companies will be allowed to fall and if CEO'S break the law they go to jail plain and simple. Get rid of the Electoral College or simple make it even for every State. Term limits and they get the same health care as the poorest citizen.  Any thought on what else we can do!!1

Although a Utopian ideal is erm, ideal; (Depending on how you define Utopia), in practice you're advocating something that in all practical terms, can't and won't happen unless there is mass genocide, almost all humanity is eradicated and a new consensus grows up and lives within it's needs, rather than it's wants. Humans are the only species on the planet that rape it for it's own avarice. And as a species we're not satisfied with our lot; we always need the next best thing. The $300 I-whatever would have made me happier than the $150 one I could afford. 
But would I be any happier if I'd been able to buy the $300 version just before the $450 version came out? It's how wars start; wanting what someone else has, or denying someone else what they need.

[b_dubb]

How come the "eliminate government" crowd don't take up residence in say...Somalia, where that scenario exists?

THIS ^^^^^

[PB the Deplorable]

The first thing we can do as a society is stop assuming the politicians are just so smart, have all the answers, and know everything about everything.  The only thing most of them know is how to get elected or appointed, stay in office, and live quite well off the rest of us.

Once that barrier is crossed, we should insist they start doing what's on their job descriptions instead of ignoring that and working on building their little fiefdoms, forever thinking up new taxes and reasons to jack up existing ones, and continually finding more ways to intrude into our lives.

Then we can talk about the rest.


You know, we can see and hear these people on TV every day if we want.  When we do they are either clearly lying, or saying something flat out stupid or insulting.  Look at Obama Care as just one example of their genius at work.  I will never understand why we think they know best about anything, or why we hand over whatever additional cash - and power over us - they ask for.   Are they really that persuasive?  Is it really that hard to see through them?

Maybe if they were good at their jobs - keeping the infrastructure from crumbling, containing crime, running the schools and public transportation competently, keeping the parks maintained, staying out of foreign issues that they don't understand and that don't concern us, getting their welfare 'clients' back to work, etc - maybe then we could have some confidence they might know what they are talking about with the other stuff.  But we are far from that.


Someone on another thread asked what has happened over the past 30 years, why everything turned to shit so fast.  He is right - up until somewhere around the late 60s things were on track and we had pretty good government at all levels in most parts of the country most of the time.  We didn't have officials like many of the ones we have now - it wouldn't have been tolerated.   It really shouldn't be that hard to get back to that, but we'd better do it quick.  We may be at or past the tipping point in many areas, for starters:  the national debt, the rot of our inner cities, the greed and selfishness of the people running government agencies at all levels, the entitlement mentality of those addicted to handouts, the attitudes of  the big corporations and the way they conduct themselves on so many levels...

[Juan]

It began much earlier than the late 60s, but in the late 60s Lyndon Johnson ramped it up.  With the Voting Rights Act, he federalized Jim Crow and created segregated Congressional districts that destroyed any connection with local communities.  The Vietnam War distracted people while he increased welfare and the resulting dependence on the federal government.  Richard Nixon continued these policies and created new departments in the federal government that increased Johnson's fascist policies of corporatism, dependence and loss of local control.

[Zoo]

Anyone advocating getting rid of the Electoral College should be required to understand why it was implemented in the first place.

Well the reason I say this is the people don't choose/vote for the President in fact the people could vote for one person and still lose because the Electoral College still out ways the people. Also makes it that states with a smaller population have no say so which is crap. It was implemented as a check for uneducated people for what I understand or maybe I read it wrong.  One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the Constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change!!1

[PB the Deplorable]

Well the reason I say this is the people don't choose/vote for the President in fact the people could vote for one person and still lose because the Electoral College still out ways the people!!1

I would point out that it's the Ds that want to change this.  When one party is the predominant force behind something like this, it's a good idea to find out what their motivations are.  Of course they are going to claim it's because it's 'more democratic'. 




The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make this a Republic, and not a Democracy.  Each state has 2 Senators, regardless of size.  The judiciary is appointed for life.  The President, House members, and Senate members all have terms of different lengths.  The 100 person Senate has roughly the same amount of power as the 435 member House.  Together they have roughly the same power as the President.  The House and Senate have oversite over the President and the Judiciary.

Originally the Senators were appointed by the state legislatures and represented the states, not the citizens, in DC.  The President is not elected directly - as you point out.  The Federal government was to be small and have little power, the power was to be held at the state level. 

Every single one of these was set up like that for specific reasons.  It's a brilliant document - and we'd be much better off if we hadn't strayed so far from it. 

We should be careful when doing any tinkering - when the 17th Amendment was ratified so Senators were elected directly, the states no longer had their rights represented in DC.  From that day forward the Federal government has usurped the powers originally left to the states, and has grown to become this bloated monstrosity we have today.

A few reasons would be that if the EC were eliminated, the smaller states would tend to be ignored during the campaign.  Campaigns would mostly stick with vote rich big cities and not visit rural or farming areas, and so on.  we'd end up with a government even more closely aligned with just the interests of the east and west coasts.  With every EC vote counting, the candidate has to have a much broader appeal than they would otherwise.  Lobbyists and big money 'donors' would have even more say over our government.  Those aren't the only reasons, you might want to read up on it in the Federalist Papers, or find something on the internet.


I agree that having the vote of the entire state all go one way is probably not a great idea -  I like the idea that each county is a winner take all county.  And specifically counties, not gerrymandered congressional districts.

[Zoo]

if we do a reboot then what do i do with all my fiat currency that I've been amassing all these years?  and personal property?  um ... nope.  no thanks

if you want to nix the Fed, go ahead.  and while you're at it campaign financing reform.  and no more corporations are people too.  that's nonsense

I don't wish for anyone to lose their savings or property but if you think are Government can't take it now if they feel like it then you are mistaken. You as a citizen have no rights in the Governments eyes right now in my opinion. A man in Oregon  lost his freedom for collecting rain water he must do thirty days in jail and pay $1,500 dollars.

[Zoo]

Paper*Boy
I hate the D's and the R's they are both the same and I am wrong on the electoral thing my understanding was wrong my bad. I was thinking one State that had more people have more electoral vote's. I also agree that politicians suck and have no ones interest but their own (not all but most) this is why I suggest a reboot. I'm not perfect in fact I'm far from it I just think we as citizens need to start at least talking about it so one day we can actually do something about it!!1

[FightTheFuture]

She still has good "bones"


She`ll come back...just as She always has before.






Happy Independence Day




Excuse me whilst I indulge. A fair tribute from a former shipmate, on this Holy day:


Ernest Borgnine Tribute


 

[onan]

I don't wish for anyone to lose their savings or property but if you think are Government can't take it now if they feel like it then you are mistaken. You as a citizen have no rights in the Governments eyes right now in my opinion. A man in Oregon  lost his freedom for collecting rain water he must do thirty days in jail and pay $1,500 dollars.

I like how you glossed over the fact that he had built 3 huge reservoirs holding more than 13 million gallons of rain water. Without the proper permits and more than a few notices to stop, ongoing for 10 years.


This wasn't a man collecting 50 gallons of rain water to shower with. Setting up damns without the consideration of those down stream is more complicated than what you present...

[Zoo]

I like how you glossed over the fact that he had built 3 huge reservoirs holding more than 13 million gallons of rain water. Without the proper permits and more than a few notices to stop, ongoing for 10 years.


This wasn't a man collecting 50 gallons of rain water to shower with. Setting up damns without the consideration of those down stream is more complicated than what you present...

One he owns over a hundred acres- Two he did get a permit then after he built them they voided the water permits- Three he never damned anything- Four it was run off on his own land- Five after the reservoirs where full the over flow went into the streams!!1 

[onan]

One he owns over a hundred acres- Two he did get a permit then after he built them they voided the water permits- Three he never damned anything- Four it was run off on his own land- Five after the reservoirs where full the over flow went into the streams!!1

I’ve taken a look at some [/size]mighty impressive[/font][/size] rainwater collection systems in the past, but it appears that Gary Harrington, 64, takes the proverbial cake when it comes to hoarder-esque rainwater collection activities: over the years, the Oregon resident has built three massive reservoirs â€" in actuality, they’re more like proper man-made ponds â€" on his 170-acre property on Crowfoot Road in rural Eagle Point that hold roughly 13 million gallons of rainwater and snow runoff. That’s enough agua to fill about 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.[/size]

But an extensive reservoir set-up complete with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten without the proper, state-issued water-right permits â€" after all, Oregon law dictates that water is a publicly owned resource â€" and Harrington did not possess said permits.

However, officials reversed their decision the same year, 2003, that the three permits were issued, citing a 1925 law that states the city of Medford holds all exclusive rights to "core sources of water" in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/oregon-man-in-possession-of-13-million-gallons-of-illicit-rainwater-sentence

[West of the Rockies]

Damnit, Onan, I hate it when you go clouding issues with facts!

[onan]

Damnit, Onan, I hate it when you go clouding issues with facts!

Like most things, it isn't a simple case. At first glance, it does seem Gary Harrington is being railroaded. It seems, where Gary lives, there are statutes about who owns water. sounds kind of crazy huh? But back in 1925 the local government passed a law about what was appropriate collection of water. Rain water collected from one's roof, rain barrel or other non porous surfaces is legal to collect. But Gary was collecting all water that fell on his land. Again at first look, that seems fair... but if that is extrapolated people could essentially dam up the head waters of the Mississippi and we would have the Mississippi Flats. It seems, that rain water after falling to ground sometimes forms streams and those streams supply water to lower lying lands. Gary by building dams on those water flows broke existing laws. Because the county was at first ignorant of that fact doesn't give carte blanche to Harrington; no matter how much he wants it.


It seems to me, Gary's tragic flaw here is he was too stubborn to realize his error. But the county was more than lenient, it took them 10 years to draw a firm line... too bad for Gary.




Addendum:


I don't know why this particular thread is so interesting to me. But this story is a very good example of how things get twisted. It must be the awful government imposing immoral punishments on civic minded, constitutional supporters, never meanin no harm kinda folks. Why! it must be tyranny. In reality this is an example of where government is needed to manage resources.

[Zoo]

I read the sight Onan and you are right, still comes down to the sate saying the own the rain. If he built a concert pond with a parking lot next to it would have been complete Legal now that's the truth!!1

[onan]

I read the sight Onan and you are right, still comes down to the sate saying the own the rain. If he built a concert pond with a parking lot next to it would have been complete Legal now that's the truth!!1

I don't know what a concert pond is. Does the state own the rain? no. But neither does anyone else. And to add to my credibility, I grew up in Montana, where water is a very valuable resource. I have seen what happens when water is diverted without regulation and it is devastating to cattle, crops, and those that make their livelihood from the land.


Not to mention that the city attempted a more lenient resolution. One that Gary Harrington decided to disregard and did what he wanted. That isn't the behavior of a citizen who supports the law of the land.

[ItsOver]

What's with the !!1?  Is it some kind of code for revolutionists?

[PB the Deplorable]

I read the sight Onan and you are right, still comes down to the sate saying the own the rain.   If he built a concert pond with a parking lot next to it would have been complete Legal now that's the truth!!1

Concrete pond?



We do have governments for a reason, and this is one of them.

The basic idea behind water rights is that someone upstream can't just cut off - or even reduce - the water flow of those downstream that depend on it.  So much can be involved - irrigation, wetlands, the water table, flood control, treaty rights of Native Americans, fish and wildlife and the ecological system, even public health and navigation. 

A person can't just come in and dam up water, just like they can't violate zoning laws and building codes, have an 'attractive nuisance' on their property, pollute the air, or build up or grow trees that block a neighbors view.

Things get more complex when rivers run through different countries.  From time to time this is the cause of international disputes.

[RealCool Daddio]

I don't know what a concert pond is.

The Turtles played there.  And Country Joe and the Fish.

[Zoo]

Concrete pond?

If he made it out of concrete with a asphalt parking lot to harvest the water or if he built a man made tower/silo with no roof it would be legal by law just saying. I live in a farming area where water is needed every year no matter what. Every farmer I know including my uncle harvest water for their crops they just don't pay anyone to do it. As for a water well systems who ever has the deepest wells win's and 90% of the time the only people can afford this is company owned farms which get a tax break for the State!!1

[Zoo]

What's with the !!1?  Is it some kind of code for revolutionists?

Just a tag so others who are like minded know who I am!!1

[Zoo]

She still has good "bones"

I liked it a lot well done and hats off to his Service!!1