And there is one of the problems we always have here. You try to define the debate and the issues in it by some arbitrary standards that you attempt to foist on others.
Such as discussing the merits of the proposal instead of assigning nefarious motives to those who make the suggestion.
Yes, that's certainly arbitrary.
Now you are telling us that the motivations and selfish purposes behind some scheme which could cripple the US government and not important and we should know better.
Try arguing "the
proposal is bad because it could cripple the US government" instead of "the proposal is bad because the
person proposing it would like to cripple the US government" and you will do a lot better, because that is the way people debate and discuss.
You have the right to consider any part of the argument you want to for yourself and decide it for yourself. That is fine and I respect that. I am not going to order you how you should think and how you should judge an issue. And please do not do that for myself or anyone else here.
That is an interesting attempt to phrase "attack the person not the argument" as the moral high ground, even though it isn't.
As an American citizen who loves this nation and its people, I get very concerned when a group is pushing an idea and they openly admit that
So who wants a more efficient tyranny? If government comes to a halt maybe we'll finally be left the hell alone.
That speaks volumes to me. And I guess to others here as well. If it means nothing to you, thats fine and I will not criticize you for considereing it not important. But it is vitally important to me.
We all know that you think it is vitally important that we always be told what to do. Should that be what we argue against your opposition to this idea, or should we argue about the idea? Should I call that desire "evil" and "nefarious" when I argue that point? Or would you consider that to be attacking the person instead of the argument if it is applied to you for a change?
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote: |
No. I did not write it in context of "we need speedy action to solve a crisis", but we can't sit and wait with a crisis looming. We can't fix the House, then say, "okay, we're wired, let's fix something". The problem is that this discussion works only in theory. In the current climate, there are American livelihoods at stake.
There will always be some crisis that needs more government to fix it, so waiting until all the problems are solved before we try to improve government is arguing that we should not improve government.
TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote: |
It does make the House more representative, but at the cost of efficiency. 10k reps is ridiculous. It is the exact radical change that the poster with the Japanese name said it would prevent from happening.
Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box here, but how would 10k reps get a bill passed, even a reasonable one? Yes, they would better represent their constituents, and that is better than lobbyists because the average American can't afford lobbyists. I'm wondering how the wishes of the voters gets passed when each rep gets 3 seconds in a day to give his or her opinion. What may take a day in our current system, probably would take a week or so with 10k people trying to speak their minds. Slower government equals what? Forget any crisis situation in the US.
It seems then that the solution is obvious - not all congressmen get to speak every day. Perhaps coalitions can internally appoint speakers to speak for a group of congressmen in agreement.