Gawain 0 #1 July 25, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQYFdXSeA4 I know she worked "so hard" for that title of Senator (attributed to her as she talked down to a US Army Colonel during a briefing), but I didn't know those cushy seats and telephone call were being held under fire, or in a fire for that matter...but she and Rep. Maxine Waters have apparently been in it neck deep... What goes through these people's minds? So, we can likely agree that term limits are a good idea, correct? Can we also agree that those that would enact a law mandating such limits will not vote themselves out of a job? How then, do we attract real talent to serve in the public sector? What are the impediments? For some, they don't want the scrutiny, or the cut in pay, or maybe giving up their current job, or messy idea of politicians in general. So, why are we able to afford so much scrutiny upon these few? Because there are so few of them in the end. How do we find an incentive for those that wouldn't otherwise run for office, to run for office? We open the floodgates...get more and more people to run for their local and national offices to get fresh people into this system before we bleed dry from the out-of-touch-egos of the likes of Sen. Boxer (or pick your least favorite candidate). It will keep the real politicians on their toes, if they're on their game, they'll still get elected. If they aren't, well, they're gone. I have some ideas, but for those patient enough to read all those questions, I would like to see those perspectives...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #2 July 25, 2010 What a silly spin that you're buying in to (and trying to foist on us), Max. Doesn't even deserve a responsive rebuttal to the supposed "point". For a bright guy, you're kind of insulting our intelligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 July 25, 2010 QuoteWhat a silly spin that you're buying in to (and trying to foist on us), Max. Doesn't even deserve a responsive rebuttal to the supposed "point". For a bright guy, you're kind of insulting our intelligence. Granted, it doesn't have legs. I DO find it amusing that you aren't willing at least to tackle the questions I asked, whose intelligence were you talking about?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 July 25, 2010 HUH Quote I've said it before that one does not need military service to be qualified for a position of leadership. Nor does military service automatically qualify one for leadership. If one wants to use it on their resume, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the Holy Grail (and as it happens, it isn't since most of those in national political service, didn't serve). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 July 25, 2010 Quote HUH Quote I've said it before that one does not need military service to be qualified for a position of leadership. Nor does military service automatically qualify one for leadership. If one wants to use it on their resume, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the Holy Grail (and as it happens, it isn't since most of those in national political service, didn't serve). I stand by that. Although, that's quite different from comparing civil service to that of a policeman, fireman or soldier.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #6 July 25, 2010 QuoteHow do we find an incentive for those that wouldn't otherwise run for office, to run for office? We open the floodgates...get more and more people to run for their local and national offices to get fresh people into this system before we bleed dry from the out-of-touch-egos of the likes of Sen. Boxer (or pick your least favorite candidate). Speaking for myself, running for office (at the national level, maybe state) would involve walking away from a career I have spent all my adult life building. I would have to return the grants that fund my research program, dismiss my graduate students (after they have spent years working towards their degrees), let my technicians go, etc. So, people who depend on me in one way or another would be adversely impacted. If I decided after a term or two, or if term limits forced me to retire from public office (this assuming I was elected in the first place), I would likely never be able to resume my research; once you are out of the field for a while there are too many younger fresh hotshots competing for funding to allow room for an out-of-date oldtimer. What would I get in public office? Constant criticism, obstructionism, attacks from people who are mainly interested in their own power, all so I can pass laws to tell other people how they should live their lives? No thanks. While details would differ, almost everybody is in more-or-less the same position: public office means walking away from your present career, so people who like what they do and have invested a lot in building a career will have little incentive to change career paths. Term limits make it worse, in that you'd have to give up everything for what amounts to a temporary job. So, why aren't you running for office? One more thing, I disagree with (actually, resent) your implication that firefighters, police officers, and the military (women do those jobs too) are the only people who "work hard". Doctors don't work hard? Teachers don't work hard? Only people who make similar career choices to the ones you made "work hard"? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #7 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote HUH Quote I've said it before that one does not need military service to be qualified for a position of leadership. Nor does military service automatically qualify one for leadership. If one wants to use it on their resume, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the Holy Grail (and as it happens, it isn't since most of those in national political service, didn't serve). I stand by that. Although, that's quite different from comparing civil service to that of a policeman, fireman or soldier. Some soldiers running for public office seem to have a hard time telling fact from fiction: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3873358;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread How are things down in Laredo, incidentally?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 25, 2010 Quote So, we can likely agree that term limits are a good idea, correct? Sorry, can't agree. I believe term limits are a key contributor to the failed state government in California. In exchange for eliminating incumbency advantage, you get politicians who are always campaigning. They become more ideological and less able/willing to work across the aisle. I wish Boxer would go away and another person would replace her. She's done nothing in 18 years in office. Unfortunately, the Democrats won't put up an alternative until after she has finally lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #9 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote Quote HUH Quote I've said it before that one does not need military service to be qualified for a position of leadership. Nor does military service automatically qualify one for leadership. If one wants to use it on their resume, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the Holy Grail (and as it happens, it isn't since most of those in national political service, didn't serve). I stand by that. Although, that's quite different from comparing civil service to that of a policeman, fireman or soldier. Some soldiers running for public office seem to have a hard time telling fact from fiction: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3873358;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread How are things down in Laredo, incidentally? Couldn't come up with anything relative to this conversation, could you?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #10 July 26, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote HUH Quote I've said it before that one does not need military service to be qualified for a position of leadership. Nor does military service automatically qualify one for leadership. If one wants to use it on their resume, that's fine, but it shouldn't be the Holy Grail (and as it happens, it isn't since most of those in national political service, didn't serve). I stand by that. Although, that's quite different from comparing civil service to that of a policeman, fireman or soldier. Some soldiers running for public office seem to have a hard time telling fact from fiction: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3873358;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread How are things down in Laredo, incidentally? Couldn't come up with anything relative to this conversation, could you? Yes. Not my fault if you can't figure it out.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
