Nowhere in this response do you explain how it's a poor analogy, how it misses the point, or why lobbies shouldn't exist. I'm interested in the Constitutional backdrop that supports your anti-lobby opinion. I haven't seen a good case made for that yet, although in my heart I admit that I distrust anyone trying to sell me anything. So, I don't like lobbies either. I just can't make an argument for restricting their right to exist.
Geez, I just did. OK, I'll repeat it and try not to use big words. It's a poor analogy because unions are quite unlike lobbyists. Unions are a special interest group who employ lobbyists. Lobbying is not a special interest group, but a method of gaining close access to elected officials. Opposition to lobbyists does not constitute opposition to the special interest group that employs them. Boy Scouts, remember? It misses the point because you responded by suggesting that I must despise unions because I oppose special influence groups, as if the two were synonymous. I have no objection to special interests groups, just about their special access to our politicians, through lobbying. Lobby's shouldn't exist because there is nothing in the Constitution that give special interest groups any right to permanently work in the Capitol, wine and dine officials, contribute money to them, and other wise try to influence their policy. These elected official are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents, not special interests. I've stated all this previously. I've just made my case. Challenge it with anything you want. What makes you think lobbiests have any right to do what they do? Do you like it that that your senator can go against your wishes because the Sierra Club donated bucks to him? :huh: He's supposed to be working for you. I think you are just addicted to dispute. martin would have liked you. :hihi:
I see your point vis-a-vis the relationship between unions and lobbyists. As for the right to do what they do, it's called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Pretty basic. McCain-Feingold, IMO, infringes on freedom of speech. Outlawing or otherwise neutering lobbies would be an even more egregious infringement. Which is why, as distasteful as lobbies are, they are still around, have always been around, will always be around. I like to debate, no doubt. I'm not addicted to dispute. You and I just disagree inside the political spectrum. And that's OK. You're also probably not used to people calling your BS. Which is OK, too. :grin:
Politcians have special positions of power in our country, and (should) have to play by a specific set of rules. Our political system's integrity comes before freedom of speech. Politicians already have lots of rules that could be considered violations to the freedom of speech, such as not being able to campaign outside of voting locations, etc. Lobbyists, in some form, will likely always exist. That doesn't mean they will exist in their current form and/or with their current amount of power.
It belongs on a new thread when you get the time, but how exactly does election reform infringe on free speech. As far as lobbying being free speech . . . by your logic, an outright bribe would be constitutionally protected freedom of expression, which is absurd. People call my sage counsel all of the time. Most don't get up and keep coming back after I've demolished their arguments. It's very martin-like. If not for your ability to punctuate and use the shift key, I'd suspect you are martin. :grin:
Delusional self-confidence is a powerful tool. I'm guessing you're pretty successful in life. :thumb: Just gotta keep an eye on the Peter Principle. No, I'm not martin...though someone dug him up in another thread. He apparently isn't into the whole grammar thing. :lol:
Is there any other nation that has seen gas prices at the pump triple since 2000? I don't think so. Because our govt. has behaved in so fiscally irresponsible a manner, raising spending while advocating large tax cuts targeted primarily at the richest, we have huge govt. budget deficits. Because we've offshored so much manufacturing, we don't make much, so our trade deficit has soared. Combine the two, budget deficit and trade deficit, and we have a historically weak dollar. Combine that with the muslim world being mad at the US for our foreign policies and they are trying to transact business in Euros, which reduces demand for the dollar, which causes the dollar to fall. The Chinese are seeking to shrink their holding of US bonds, which reduces demand for the dollar. With the economy weak, housing in the dumper, we must reduce interest rates (did over the last year) and that weakens the dollar. There is some real price increase in oil due to increased demand from China and India, but no nation has seen the soaring oil prices like the US, because our currency has been gutted by our govt's poor policies. I don't hear the rest of the world screaming about a 200% price increase for gas at the pump the last 7 years. Talk about suspending gas tax is like swatting an elephant with a fly swatter. Bush said last week the problem with oil prices is not Saudi, its lack of exploration and production in the US. That's partially true, but mostly the problem is his and the republicans mis management of the nations finances, and giving tax incentives to companies off shoring jobs.
And every Wednesday we'll have coffee and scones with the President.:insane: You need to recite the Serenity Prayer when you get like that.:hihi:
The Brits were paying $4 a gallon in 1999, back when our gas was around a $1 a gallon. Nice rant. Not an ounce of truth or reason in it. But, really, nice rant. Jon Stewart would be proud of you.
Point out the untruths. I asked a brit on another forum recently about their gas prices in 2000 and he gave me the $6 US figure. Where does yours come from? And it was from a year later 1999 vs. 2000. We know a lot can happen in a year. I believe in Britain, about 75% of the price of a gallon of gas is tax. Fact remains, if your currency has been stronger relative to the dollar for the last 7 years, and oil is priced in dollars, then you will not have seen the same price increase as americans. That is correct, isn't it (taking out other factors, such as a tax increase).
