Reply With QuoteGood grief. Because I think this particular state law (or some variation of it) should be used at the federal level it does not mean that I think that all state laws should be used at the federal level.
Why should we as a Nation all follow Montana laws?
Montana has/had a law that guns and silencers made in montana to be completely unregulated. Should that really want that expanded to Chicago, Detriot, NY?
In Montana it's a felony for a wife to open her husbands Mail
That it's LEGAL to shoot 7 or more Native Americans gathered together as Montana considers it Raiding party.
That it's ILLEGAL to have Sheep in the cab of your vehicle WITHOUT a Chaperone- You guys must be so Ronery...
Apparently some things are good for rural states and not for every other state
Good grief. Because I think this particular state law (or some variation of it) should be used at the federal level it does not mean that I think that all state laws should be used at the federal level.
Good Grief there is no Corruption in Montana among Politicians?
Thank god for that, So Conrad Burns, John Morrison, Stan Stephens, Scweitzer, etc. were all figments of imagination.
Never said that. Are you trying to break some kind of record for straw man arguments in this thread?Originally Posted by LineDoggie
What about changing the election system? It's kinda scary how some rich were the drivers behind the pre-elections.
Same budget for both. Less show, more arguments.
It's not about money... it's about time. Most politicians simply do not have the time to keep in touch with the "small man". And when they do, they're presented a cleansed image. Do you think when the President visits a company he gets to see dirty machinery, empty stocks and burnt-out people? Nope, everything's got tarted up for him and everybody's smiling. It's a psychological scheme most politicians fail to understand. They rub shoulders with the crowd at campaign events and come to think everybody loved them - although the folks were supporters anyway or even party members.Good point. I think I like the system Germany which has, were parties get financial aid for elections depending on their last result.
Not at all, just pointing out that what allegedly works in Montana isnt neccessarily what the country needs like you postulate.
You initial post was the strawman and off topic
That's a valid opinion. I disagree. I think we should get the big money out of elections for a number of reasons, one of which is so that people with less money can have a better shot at getting elected.
No, it was not. If you think so, you don't know what a straw man is.You initial post was the strawman
No, it was not.and off topic
There's nothing wrong with rich people in office but I do think that the playing field to get elected is tilted heavily in their favor
I have little interest in electing a dude who's life experience is working at Napa Auto Parts, and on Labor Day, takes the boat out to the lake. A person who is rich, is rich because they worked their asses off, got lucky now and again, was able to capitalize on those days they got lucky, knew the right people at the right time, and never, ever settled for "good enough."
I don't care how rich they are, I want the guy leading the country to expect "more."
OMG! it is the 1%ers!!!
I'm not voting for the Napa Auto Parts guy or the Rent Is Too Damn High guy. I'm thinking more along the lines of Buddy Roemer.
Both have tried to make a character issue out of each other's lifestyle -- conservatives complain that President Barack Obama takes too many vacations and White House aides say that Romney is living on "another planet." Given his wealth, Romney could probably afford to buy one.
Sup guys, we heard someone wanted to buy a planet?
Wooooooaaaah!
Hang on there fella.......did you find that with your high speed internet......only rich people can read and find stuff on the internet.
The whole thing allowing super PACs (and PACs period) is beyond stupid. What did they think was going to happen?
Posting Permissions
