It’s not a bug, it’s a feature
AC:
This parliamentary crap goes on all the time. Bills are brought up and bills are passed just to make a statement or prove a point or settle the score and it is all hid behind this pomp and circumstance.
I understand we have to have a legislature but do we need two separate bodies? It seems like if we were able to merge our two bodies into one unicameral legislature we would have somewhat less of this nonsense.
Au contraire, mon cracker. This is one case in which the Leviathan gets my support. I like when there’s a pissing match between them. It keeps them from doing really stupid stuff. When a large group of politicians agree on something, it’s probably bad for me and you. Hell, I think six houses would be good.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
[…] My Uncle Say busts out with some instant contrarian analysis to my call for a unicameral legislature one half hour ago: Au contraire, mon cracker. This is one case in which the Leviathan gets my support. I like when there’s a pissing match between them. It keeps them from doing really stupid stuff. When a large group of politicians agree on something, it’s probably bad for me and you. Hell, I think six houses would be good. […]
June 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Two things, the “Au contraire, mon cracker” is priceless and I will be borrowing that. Future hat tips.
Second, what is ACK smoking? Not even Ron Paul would suggest something this far out.
When ACK writes, “I understand we have to have a legislature but do we need two separate bodies” what is he thinking? One unicameral legislature my ass. That is crazy talk. On a Constitutional basis ACK is out in far left field. And I do mean left field. First the soldier thing and now this. What happened?
What next, we don’t need no stinking Electoral College ACK?
June 7th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
In short: An efficient government is the _last_ thing we need…
June 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I think someone skipped out on their U.S. government classes back in jr. high school.
Next, we’ll be hearing calls for a single decision maker, elected by popular vote, so as to avoid all indecision and conflict. This is also known as a “dictator”, but why discount something just because it has a bad-sounding name? For that matter, why bother with elections? Once we have a smart guy in office (and what could be smarter than someone elected by popular vote?) we can turn over total power to him and keep him there for life. We can call him “chancellor”, we’ll swear an oath of allegiance to him personally, and we’ll end up with a “thousand year empire” of glorious proportions. What could be more effective than that?
Actually, Congressional “gridlock” is a good thing, boys and girls. It means:
A short period in which our freedom isn’t being chipped away.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Sometimes I think we need a third legislative chamber. One solely dedicated to striking obsolete and unconstitutional laws from the books.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Uncle is absofuckinglutely right. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. Go look at the absurd horseshit they do without argument.
June 8th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Repeal the 17th Amendment. That ought to help with the grid lock, i.e., increase it.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Sometimes I think we need a third legislative chamber. One solely dedicated to striking obsolete and unconstitutional laws from the books.
I think the Congress is charged with that already. Let’s face it, they do not do their job and we allow it.