I bet we'd get more attentive governing if those were automatically set to "no."

/re-farking-diculous

Never should have left you in charge.

I hate the cult of personality surrounding politicians. The closer you look, the more you realize they are just regular idiots.

They will not solve your problems. They will not help your life. They will steal your money, lie to you, and take every opportunity to make their lives one tiny bit better at the expense of those whose care they are charged with.

I Don't Appreciate Your Ruse: I hate the cult of personality surrounding politicians. The closer you look, the more you realize they are just regular idiots.

They will not solve your problems. They will not help your life. They will steal your money, lie to you, and take every opportunity to make their lives one tiny bit better at the expense of those whose care they are charged with.

Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

erveek: Never should have left you in charge.

I Don't Appreciate Your Ruse: I hate the cult of personality surrounding politicians. The closer you look, the more you realize they are just regular idiots.

They will not solve your problems. They will not help your life. They will steal your money, lie to you, and take every opportunity to make their lives one tiny bit better at the expense of those whose care they are charged with.

Thread closed.

In a culture where everything is so PC, so fair, and everyone wants to give their input (hey, look at Fark) I'm seriously always surprised that was still have this representation system. The only reason for it is that we're too lazy or "busy working" to be actively involved. The only reason we had representation set up in the first place was because the general population was considered too stupid to understand the issues and make important decisions. We'll, we're still too stupid, but so are the elected officials, so let's just get rid of the middleman already.

Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

Lord Jubjub: I can see great mischief to be had.

How about a resolution officially defining pi as 3?

Resolution ######: It is hereby amended to the establishing documents of the city that all the council-members who approve of this resolution shall be known in all forms of public address, including campaign advertisements, as "The FARKing idiot from ward (#)" where # is replaced with the number of their represented district.

/Just lay that one on the table right before budgets are voted on, and everyone is away from the voting doing back room deals.

johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

The legality of being forced to pay taxes is... questionable... but, the issue of legality aside, no. You don't have to pay taxes. You can leave.

IN before somebody brings us a Congressional Republican "NO" machine.

and three million Farkers immediately begin looking to see how 'and send me a million dollars' can be added to each city council resolution.

Unless this story makes the front page of every news rag in southern california, I doubt enough people in LA will hear about it to change anything. Maybe not even then.

Rohasman: johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

The legality of being forced to pay taxes is... questionable... but, the issue of legality aside, no. You don't have to pay taxes. You can leave.

Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

johnphantom: Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

And everyone in the US pays taxes?

While this is obviously the wrong approach to take, it does make sense to eliminate the need to be physically present for a legislator to cast his or her vote. It seems silly to believe that the public gains more from having the legislator present to smile for the cameras at a roll-call than:

* Working with their constituents.
* Participating in a committee meeting or less formal gathering, actually debating policy.
* Or, lord forbid, actually reading the legislation before casting their vote.

While it might not be reasonable or sound to allow them to full-on remotely call in their vote, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow for the legislator to register their vote from their office or in advance.

Yes, it's wrong to have a preprogrammed default and not require positive action by the legislator. That said, they are trying to solve a real problem here. Skewed though our system may be in favor of the lobbyist, subby's wrong on this one - Being out of the room to deal with a lobbyist or a legitimate constituent or to work with their own staff is a better use of a legislator's time and our tax dollars.

Rohasman: johnphantom: Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

And everyone in the US pays taxes?

That's a good point, but I think you are missing my point, which is the politicians do run you (at least as a resident of the USA) whether or not you like it - as in laws and policy they set.

Oh and BTW, I am sure you don't like it as much as I do =)

I vote death penalty.

erveek: Never should have left you in charge.


This is why I can't have nice things.

MrZaius: While this is obviously the wrong approach to take, it does make sense to eliminate the need to be physically present for a legislator to cast his or her vote. It seems silly to believe that the public gains more from having the legislator present to smile for the cameras at a roll-call than:

* Working with their constituents.
* Participating in a committee meeting or less formal gathering, actually debating policy.
* Or, lord forbid, actually reading the legislation before casting their vote.

No, no, and no.

1) They shouldn't need to "work" with constituents. If a city service isn't being provided correctly, the process should be fixed from the get-go. This hand-holding crap has got to go. Design procedures that are fair and comprehensible, and stop coddling the moran citizens and moran civil servants who enable them.

2) Those should be scheduled as part of the normal legislative calendar. If there are too many roll call votes on meaningless crap like putting statues into City Hall, then change the parliamentary rules.

3) That should be on the calendar as well.

Britney Spear's Speculum: erveek: Never should have left you in charge.

I Don't Appreciate Your Ruse: I hate the cult of personality surrounding politicians. The closer you look, the more you realize they are just regular idiots.

They will not solve your problems. They will not help your life. They will steal your money, lie to you, and take every opportunity to make their lives one tiny bit better at the expense of those whose care they are charged with.

Thread closed.

Stingrays or AIDS?

johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

Contract work, one off for each customer, less than $600 per assignment. I have no idea if there's a yearly cap.

/well, at least for my state commonwealth

johnphantom: Rohasman: johnphantom: Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

And everyone in the US pays taxes?

That's a good point, but I think you are missing my point, which is the politicians do run you (at least as a resident of the USA) whether or not you like it - as in laws and policy they set.

Oh, I read you five by five... but my point, in addition to addressing the broad generalization of geographic placement being equated to political control, was also speaking to the remarkably limited power things like laws and policies have in our lives. Heck, if things like laws and policies has actual power, they could just pass a law against murder, and the problem would be solved.

This may seem to be a statement in conflict with my earlier posts, but what little I understand about reality provides a framework upon which all these ideas hang. Simply: no one is really in control of... pretty much anything.

I Don't Appreciate Your Ruse: I hate the cult of personality surrounding politicians. The closer you look, the more you realize they are just regular idiots.

They will not solve your problems. They will not help your life. They will steal your money, lie to you, and take every opportunity to make their lives one tiny bit better at the expense of those whose care they are charged with.



/People in Question?

Otherwise Just Fine: Rohasman:

This may seem to be a statement in conflict with my earlier posts, but what little I understand about reality provides a framework upon which all these ideas hang. Simply: no one is really in control of... pretty much anything.

That doesn't stop them from trying, and using force.

The fact that no one is in charge of anything includes our inability to keep them from trying to be so pathetically hypocritical.

Yeah, in New York, we had the same iss--[reads article]--Oh, wow, no we didn't. Some legislators had it so they could be other places when their vote was automatically tallied, but they had to actually tell it how to vote in advance. It didn't automatically select yes.

Congratulations, LA! You're officially more farked than Albany!

Liberals are more computer saavy I guess?

MrZaius: While this is obviously the wrong approach to take, it does make sense to eliminate the need to be physically present for a legislator to cast his or her vote. It seems silly to believe that the public gains more from having the legislator present to smile for the cameras at a roll-call than:

* Working with their constituents.
* Participating in a committee meeting or less formal gathering, actually debating policy.
* Or, lord forbid, actually reading the legislation before casting their vote.

While it might not be reasonable or sound to allow them to full-on remotely call in their vote, it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow for the legislator to register their vote from their office or in advance.

Yes, it's wrong to have a preprogrammed default and not require positive action by the legislator. That said, they are trying to solve a real problem here. Skewed though our system may be in favor of the lobbyist, subby's wrong on this one - Being out of the room to deal with a lobbyist or a legitimate constituent or to work with their own staff is a better use of a legislator's time and our tax dollars.

That's all nice and theoretical, but I'll bet a voter actually would like a representative to attend a hearing or session and cast a vote which represents the constituency, rather than being out drumming up support for the next election or having some dinner with a contributor. And if 'reading the legislation to be voted on' is a problem, perhaps there should be a bit higher standard involved in electing these idiots. I'll bet if the vote was on a salary increase or decrease, or if it was about something to do with their working conditions or money then they would all be right there voting away after reading the documentation.

Ah, what am I complaining about, we keep electing people like this, believing the hype and that a haircut and good teeth will get us some real change. Maybe the real solution would be in having some sort of criteria other than age that would define the right to vote. Everyone would whine about it being discriminatory, though. Higher standards wouldn't be fair to the underachievers and stupid lazy people who throw their vote towards whatever seems to bring the best short-term good feeling.
(How about a simple test over whatever the position is to be voted on, which would include the state constitution for a state office or the US constitution for the US offices. This would require being able to read, so right there I can see a bunch of 'that's not fair to my segment' people getting all wadded up)

We probably deserve our future robotic computerized overlords.

Rohasman: ...remarkably limited power things like laws and policies have in our lives. Heck, if things like laws and policies has actual power, they could just pass a law against murder, and the problem would be solved.

I have to admit this is true. I guess you do know that the national average for solvency of murder is about 62%. I, um, have a fairly serious criminal background from when I was young, so I have some first hand experience.

I will say that my father did his best to cheat the IRS out of the money they wanted, but in the end they took a very large chunk of his estate. Trust me, to be generous, I would say the IRS knew about and received less than 5% of what he really owed. Think in terms of cash businesses, pretty much pre-credit card era that we are in now. In some of his businesses he had SWEDA IRS certified tamper-proof cash registers. Took my mother 15 minutes to crack the encoding, and the IRS believed, without question, the data from these registers. This is circa early 1970s, BTW.

I have chosen to follow the law and try to be a decent human being. I do not like the lazy idiots that are paid to run our government, and that includes pretty much all of the politicians on both sides. Sure, there are some that have some ethics, but they are rare.

I just find it disappointing to see news like this, and I feel fairly powerless to do anything about it. At least the Internet is bringing to light reality to many people. Maybe things can change. I don't know, seeing as how Obama is failing, in my opinion. Things like the renewal of the Patriot Act. A half-assed health care bill. Bail outs (which I know Bush started with AIG/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) for companies we should have let fail, like the auto companies. Bail outs for big corporate banks, while leaving the mom-and-pop banks out to dry. If anything should have been bailed out, they should have directly helped the people with bad mortgages and taken the business away from the banks that farked up in the first place.

I did vote for Obama, but I doubt I will again. The only hold out I have to vote for him again is to try to keep a bimbo like Palin out of power.

Capital punishment for corrupt politicians.

Rumpleforskin: Unless this story makes the front page of every news rag in southern california, I doubt enough people in LA will hear about it to change anything. Maybe not even then.

I'm betting the John and Ken show will have something to say aout this today.

johnphantom: Rohasman: johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

The legality of being forced to pay taxes is... questionable... but, the issue of legality aside, no. You don't have to pay taxes. You can leave.

Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

You get to vote. With 300 million people, not every aspect of gubmint is going to satisfy everyone all the time. Everything is some form of compromise. Such is life.

Jument: johnphantom: Rohasman: johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

The legality of being forced to pay taxes is... questionable... but, the issue of legality aside, no. You don't have to pay taxes. You can leave.

Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

You get to vote. With 300 million people, not every aspect of gubmint is going to satisfy everyone all the time. Everything is some form of compromise. Such is life.

Vote for who though? The two parties are just different sides of the same coin, and if you say vote for some independent, that is just a waste of time.

johnphantom: Jument: johnphantom: Rohasman: johnphantom: Rohasman: Good news, just like every other position of authority, they're only in charge of you if you let them.

So I am not required to pay taxes?

The legality of being forced to pay taxes is... questionable... but, the issue of legality aside, no. You don't have to pay taxes. You can leave.

Sooooo... by default by way of living in the USA (I am assuming your residency) you agree to let them be in charge of you, and agree with anything that they decide to do as officials of the USA?

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

You get to vote. With 300 million people, not every aspect of gubmint is going to satisfy everyone all the time. Everything is some form of compromise. Such is life.

Vote for who though? The two parties are just different sides of the same coin, and if you say vote for some independent, that is just a waste of time.

/insert Simpsons Kodos vs. Kang clip here

(Bill) All state senate members to have a 50% pay cut.

I implore all LA residents to vote for Zuma Dogg next time an at-large seat is up for grabs. the entire LA city council is a bunch of criminals.

What are the councilors talking to the lobbyists about if the computers are doing the voting? Shouldn't the lobbyists be on the council floor shoving money into the disk drives?