does your assessment account for internal corruption, or do you view this as a different issue?
gotta hate those politicians, always talking to us like we're children.
Lol, I didn't propose a change to the way we make the laws. I said I feared there was a risk that there is something else interfering with how the system makes the laws and that this is what we should be correcting. This guy is proposing a change with how we currently handle the law, not me. I'm merely questioning why he wants to make this change, and seeing if there's a better way to handle it. He was suggesting, for whatever reason, that our legislature does not feel responsable for laws currently on the books and that they feel they can't change things once the decision has been made. This, to me, suggests there may be forces control on the system. I realize you don't understand how easy it really is for forces outside the system to exhibit control on the legislature and I was pointing that out.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

The problem there is that current lawmakers are not responsible for the laws still on the books that were created 50 years ago or more. It isn't a case of "you made the mess, now you have to fix it." Yeah, good samaritan congressmen could look at laws in judicious ways and determine what is useless and what still has something to it, but without proper incentives, that could become unreliable easily.

__________________
Stop asking the same questions in the "Forum Help" section. Just read this post:

Before I say anything, you're off topic. This is a different issue.

This could be a problem, but it probably is not the problem. You seem to want it to be the problem, but that does not make it the problem. The problem is most likely that it is actually (in reality) very hard (as in it takes a lot of time, paper work and money) to do something like that, and why do something like that when you could be playing golf? It could be some type of massive corruption! It could be that we're being lied to on every issue all the time, that lobbyists are sick madmen playing monopoly with our very lives! but it's probably not, and to assume something like that with out having anything to go on in a thread that isn't even supposed to be talking about it is dumb.

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

I'm running on the assumpton that there is a problem as proposed in the OP. I asked for clerifications of the percieved problems that he thought he was correcting with his proposed change to the system. I pointed out why I disagreed with his tactic, and moved on to suggest other means and places to focus on if we want to fix those problems. The example he gave suggested that one of the reasons he proposed his plan was to address the concern that our legislature is not held accountable for old laws on the books and that they feel they can't change what was decided in the past. So unless you are calling his claim off topic from his own topic, I was only addressing these concerns of his. I said he should focus on why the legislature feels they can't make changes and attack that issue more specifically. I see nothing wrong or off topic with this.

You say old laws stay on the books because it's hard to change just as it's supposed to be. However, you are talking on the assumption that the government is working fine, which is YOU being off topic because the topic itself assumes there is a problem that needs addressing. I don't need your lecture on how the governmnet and system is designed to work because that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about possable shortcomings of the system and how to fix it. Get back on topic.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Are you really this stupid or have you been repeating yourself to patronize me? I know where you're coming from, I simply don't care. If you care to look back, you were the one that asked the initial question. When I answered it, you obviously didn't get what you wanted, so you persisted and kept asking the same question. That is why I've had to explain such elementary things to you - because you don't seem to understand it the first time.

Yes, me even responding to what you said would make me off topic since you were off topic in asking the question. And, since I know you've forgotten, was "what causes congressmen to feel that they don't have to change the laws?"

The OP's idea was to force them to pick a side on issues - like the federal reserve, as I'm sure you know. Is his idea good? some what, but it's probably not doable. However, you keep insisting that there is some thing corrupt with the system, that there is some "outside forces" that control the system. There COULD be, BUT there probably is nothing corrupt about the system. And, for your information, the system may not work well with out being corrupt. An "outside force" is a ridiculous assumption - ESPECIALLY WITH OUT PROOF.

The system is conservative. It rejects new ideas, and AT THE SAME TIME, it resists the removal of old ideas. The OP's idea is to stop the resistance of old ideas being changed. I support it. I don't fully support his method, but I do support his idea.

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

Furthermore, the OP's example was anecdotal (meaning that it was one personal example that does not represent the over all picture). Congressmen actually do review things quiet often. But, like I said, it's hard to change laws, thus why they are seldom changed, but that does not keep them from trying or making new laws.

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

You're one to talk about being patronizing. Why don't you learn to treat people with a little bit of respect and you might get some in return. There was no need to go on the attack. And forgive me for being repetative, it seemed like you needed it.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Maybe you don't know this, but the process of making a new law is the same as gettign rid of an old one.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I'll grant you that this was just a personal experince, as you said. However, he brought up this personal experience for a reason, to make a general claim... that it would be good if our current law makers could be held accountable for the laws on the books. However, any law is up for review, and the only two reasons a law can not be changed is because either the legislature does not support the change, or because there is some sort of external force or corruption. On the assumption that the personal experience he brought up had merit, I suggested he should focus on the corruption/external forces. This is where you proceeded to call the idea stupid because I had no proof of corruption. But I didnt need proof, it was a hypothetical. On the assuption that IF there is a problem changing laws, it must be a result of something external or corruption because the only other alternative is that the legislature, working just as it should, does not support the change. I appologise if I came of ranting of political corruption, my only intent was to speak to the hypothetical situation presented.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Out of curiosity, do you work out? And do you have a six pack of abs? I know that's personal, but please tell me so I can make my point.

__________________
My freedom is more important than your good idea.