Wednesday June 19, 2013
Jump to content
Send our incumbents to Costa Rica.
Can't help but ask the question whether any of the studies examined other concurrent factors besides term limits that may have played a part in bringing about the reported results... did they offer any empirical evidence of direct causal relationship between the statistics before term limits and those they reported after? Did they all approach the issue with the notion that term limits were purported to be the magic bullet, but if the stats didn't show an immediate 180 then the idea was written off as a failure? Did any of them view term limits in the context of simply one facet of many various means to a desired end?
Back in the day (late 60's), the term "huffing" was reserved for the inhalation of paint and glue fumes. But more importantly, did the author of that article really write "had drank"...?
Hey Tom... this sounds like it could be interesting. You already got my hackles up when you said that rich Libertarians pushing the issue would prejudice people AGAINST term limits. I would submit that the Libertarian position is for a smaller, less intrusive, and arguably more transitory government, less entrenched and more in touch with their constituents in the real world, which to me would seem to prejudice some folks FOR term limits. Anyway, maybe you're human and your bias is showing. ;)
Another thing... have you seen or heard from Dean Shields lately...? I have a message for her from a guy in Illinois and I tried forwarding it to the only address I have, but no response. Hope she's alright.
A consumption tax - taxes paid only on what you buy - is the surest way to create a vibrant and robust underground economy. Not sure who said it first, probably an old Soviet reformist, but I'm saying it now.
No problem with labor unions, per se, Jack, although I would be glad to criticize many of the actions of their leadership at some other time. I do take issue, however, with the need for unionization of public employees... always have.
It irks me to watch a representative get on TV and say that they have the "right" to union protection. Just once I'd like the reporter to ask, "protection from whom... or what?"
I suspect that, since they work for the government, e.g., me, and I'm a pretty nice guy to work for, the protection they want is from a merit-based system, or more simply, competition in the work place.
Inarguably, they took the idea of unionization from the private sector, leaving behind the dynamics that brought about the need for unions in the first place! Now, it is we who need the protection, and since they work for me, I say that public employee unions should be banned.
This is a typical example of a partisan blinded by bias. When trying to make a point that may indeed be worthy, she simply can't mask the hatred, allowing her rhetoric to alienate the majority of readers. Such people should be advised to do a deep breathing exercise before unloading on the rest of us. Who knows... we might actually be inclined to listen.
I'm just guessing here that Robert is voluntarily sending in to the state that additional 1% while graciously trying to convince government to force the rest of us to do what he's already doing... right?
I don't know what's more goofy - that the question is not amenable to a "yes or no" response, or that 90+% of respondents answered it as if it were. Kudos, I suppose, to the "Undecided".
OK, that's what I figured. It does seem like 7 months is little more than a slap on the wrist. The way I understand it, she sent her son money after the escape, so she knew what she was doing. But I'm thinking that the court may have taken her "special circumstances" into account - motherhood.
Now, I've never been a mother (or a father), but I do have a dog that I helped raise from a puppy, and I love that little dog more than life itself. Just based on that relationship, something tells me that, were I in her shoes, I would have done whatever I could to help, protect and defend a kid of mine, no matter what the charges were, no matter the personal consequence.
I'll just bet the judge is a parent, too.
There were two women involved, Barbara... one who visited them regularly and then went with them on their rampage. The second was a local Jake's Corner woman, the mother of one of the escapees. Apparently, all she was charged with was harboring. Do you know which one the news was talking about...? I can't find anything on-line this morning...
Last login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013