[QUOTE=Gofast;160378]Welcome to career politicians. I say 2 term limit on any elected office in the United States at federal, state and local levels. It wouldn’t totally stop corruption but would certainly hinder it. Also maybe a 3rd term awarded to whistleblowers for those taking these handouts for votes/laws[/QUOTE]
as well as to end the private funding of all political campaigns! The money needed to run for office defacto makes one who would be a leader into a prostitute. LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL TO RUN FOR OFFICE…ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO AREN’T WHORES!
[QUOTE=Steamer;160279]That’s a bit rough, don’t you think? Cheney is better looking … not easy to look at but at least he doesn’t instantly remind you of a fanatical right-wing whackjob.[/QUOTE]
are you kidding…? Cheney is so far to the right that he is out in Empire controlled space
the Dark Lord is intent to control the entire Galaxy…Lisa Murkowski is just a CUNT and a WHORE!
And to think that I recently suggested to Lisa that she hire you as an advisor to help wrest Alaska mariner jobs away from the Cajun Navy that is now invading Alaska.
Anyhow, I guess Murkowski et al’s actions shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the country’s trajectory over the last several decades, but it’s really a shame that [B][I][/I]we citizens[/B] keep electing assholes who repeatedly sell us out. It seems like an intractable problem in the short-medium term. The optimist in me is glad our industry has maintained some measure of bipartisan support with people like current House Rep. Duncan Hunter ® and former Senator Carl Levin (D). The pessimist/realist in me realizes there’s not nearly enough support to meaningfully revitalize the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Maybe they’ll throw us a bone when WW3 starts in a few years.
Doesn’t help the Maritime industry-Oil Patch any, but, hey, it doesn’t matter if we’re all dead… And yes, I’m posting with ye 'old solar powered Tablet…
I’m all for technology, solar, electric vehicles etc., but if our domestic oil reserves are going to be extracted (which they will be), then they should be used domestically as long as we continue to import additional oil, no?
[QUOTE=catherder;160299]That’s what we get when we keep voting for the same clowns over and over again, people.[/QUOTE]
That’s just it, innit? We the people love to rail against our politicians–doesn’t our Congress have the lowest approval rating in history right now?–but somehow they keep getting re-elected and keep doing the same bullshit [I]over and over and over again.[/I]
So what’s the real issue here? Maybe we, the people, are more concerned with what the Kardashians (and Bruce/Brenda Jenner) are doing this week. Maybe the politicians in power are the best that we can produce. Maybe it’s just as simple as money speaks–there’s a reason third parties never get up off the ground, after all.
Maybe it’s just as simple as nobody bothers contacting their elected representatives (with coherent arguments) to actually express their concerns–a group, incidentally, that I am all too guilty of falling into.
Agreed 100%. Learned that a long time ago when a bunch of us long haired hippie type teenage tree hungers went toe to toe with high dollar Coca Cola Lawyer Suits over Recycling in Ca. Testifying before the State Legislature we kicked ass, but only because 1) We were there , and 2) We spoke the Truth. I can tell you for a fact that that technique does not work so well in the Oil buisness. In the words of Lisa M…
1of17Sen. Lisa Murkowski, on the U.S. ban on crude oil exports: “As long as lawmakers are fearful that there will be political retribution because of price at the pump, it’s going to be hard to get the votes we need to lift the ban.”
[QUOTE=c.captain;160381]as well as to end the private funding of all political campaigns![/QUOTE]
I have been trying for years to get someone, some media group, anyone, to make a lot of noise about making it a federal offense, a felony, for anyone to contribute a single dollar to anyone they cannot legally vote for. That means if a politician’s name is not on the ballot a voter is legally allowed to submit then both contributor and politician go to jail when bribe money changes hands, no matter whose hands receive it.
We need to criminalize what we all know is a crime against American society.
Eliminate PACs, “soft money” eliminate all means and methods of buying or selling elections. If the voters want a certain person on their ballot, then let them give a certain small amount of money to help that person advertise. It is that simple. Take the money away and the crooks and scumbags go away too. We need citizen representation, not a class of self appointed political royalty fed by treasonous corporate criminals.
[QUOTE=Steamer;160491]I have been trying for years to get someone, some media group, anyone, to make a lot of noise about making it a federal offense, a felony, for anyone to contribute a single dollar to anyone they cannot legally vote for. That means if a politician’s name is not on the ballot a voter is legally allowed to submit then both contributor and politician go to jail when bribe money changes hands, no matter whose hands receive it.
We need to criminalize what we all know is a crime against American society.
Eliminate PACs, “soft money” eliminate all means and methods of buying or selling elections. If the voters want a certain person on their ballot, then let them give a certain small amount of money to help that person advertise. It is that simple. Take the money away and the crooks and scumbags go away too. We need citizen representation, not a class of self appointed political royalty fed by treasonous corporate criminals.[/QUOTE]
A couple other solutions I’d like to add on:
–Political campaigns can only occur during the month before election day. No political ads, no signs, no fundraising, nothing other than in that window. Campaigning starts October 1st, primaries are on October 15th or thereabouts, general election is in November as before. This would also eliminate the issue of those already holding office spending more time on the campaign trail than actually doing the job they were elected to.
–As a condition of having an FCC license, any candidate for office will get a certain number of free advertisements on television and radio. The same would apply to ballot measures/referendums, x number of ads for and the same against. No other political advertisements may air at any time, including advertisements that aren’t for a specific candidate or about a specific ballot measure.
[QUOTE=awulfclark;160468]That’s just it, innit? We the people love to rail against our politicians–doesn’t our Congress have the lowest approval rating in history right now?–but somehow they keep getting re-elected and keep doing the same bullshit [I]over and over and over again.[/I]
So what’s the real issue here? Maybe we, the people, are more concerned with what the Kardashians (and Bruce/Brenda Jenner) are doing this week. Maybe the politicians in power are the best that we can produce. Maybe it’s just as simple as money speaks–there’s a reason third parties never get up off the ground, after all.
Maybe it’s just as simple as nobody bothers contacting their elected representatives (with coherent arguments) to actually express their concerns–a group, incidentally, that I am all too guilty of falling into.[/QUOTE]
You nailed it with the money speaks item.
I do contact my elected reps but as an army of one, and a poor one at that, I certainly don’t have their ear like the oil lobbyists do
The average citizen is a fly speck on their radar.
[QUOTE=catherder;160533]The average citizen is a fly speck on their radar.[/QUOTE]
We should be so lucky to achieve that status. Those of us who write letters and voice our opinion are, if anything, a gnat on the windshield along the highway that is leading to an American century that will make pre-revolutionary France look like an enlightened society.
[QUOTE=Steamer;160537]We should be so lucky to achieve that status. Those of us who write letters and voice our opinion are, if anything, a gnat on the windshield along the highway that is leading to an American century that will make pre-revolutionary France look like an enlightened society.[/QUOTE]
I really think we are de-evolving as a species, and particularly as a nation. It’s depressing…especially if I allow myself to dwell on it.
[QUOTE=catherder;160540]I really think we are de-evolving as a species, and particularly as a nation. It’s depressing…especially if I allow myself to dwell on it.[/QUOTE]
People are the same as ever…they will rise or fall to the expectations we and others place upon ourselves. Our wealth has made us soft, as it has done to past empires. That does seem to be an inescapable cycle that repeats through history… Technology, for all its uses, appears to hasten this process.
A new bill introduced on Wednesday seeks to lift the over 40-year ban on the export and sale of U.S. crude oil outside of the country’s borders.
Senators Heidi Heitkamp and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are the sponsoring the legislation, which will reclassify crude and condensate oil – a light petroleum oil- so that they can be exported freely without licenses from the Commerce Department.
“The 1970s-era ban on exporting American crude oil is as outdated as the typewriters on which the policy was written. It’s past time for an upgrade,” said Heitkamp in a press statement today.
According the bill’s supporters, the new legislation is aimed at growing the U.S. economy and ensuring energy independence. Additionally, U.S. allies could purchase oil directly from the U.S. instead of having to rely on ‘volatile’ countries such as those in the Middle East or ‘unfriendly’ nations like Venezuela or Russia. Were the ban lifted, estimates suggest that oil exports would rise to 1.8 million barrels per day by 2017.
The ban on crude exports was prompted by the 1973 oil embargo by several Arab countries. With the ban, congress attempted to reduce the impact of crude market volatility on the U.S. economy by keeping U.S. oil supplies at home. However, several market analysts have questioned whether the ban has ever achieved this desired result.
The new legislation introduced today would likely herald in further U.S. oil exploration efforts, which may prove to be a double-edged sword. On one side it could support up to 1 million additional jobs according to recent industry studies and it could drive down the global price of oil. On the other side it could lead to exploitation of America’s natural resources.
For this reason, conservationists have been quick to criticize the lifting of the ban. In a statement released today Marcie Keever Friends of the Earth Oceans and Vessels Program Director commented that, “Repealing the ban would open the floodgates to more crude oil extraction and the burning of petroleum products, which would worsen the impacts of climate disruption. Keeping the crude export ban in place would help to keep this dirty, dangerous, climate-disrupting fossil fuel in the ground where it belongs.”
