Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
Are we forgetting our history here? Does no one remember the Missouri Compromise? Sure, it wasn't the best thing since sliced bread, but it's hard to argue against it's efficacy. (And no, the fact that the civil war still happened, and the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the split up Comprimise of 1850, Clay's great sequel, doesn't count as an argument against it. Because I said so.)
So Shredder would end up asking "Who Stole the Terror Dome?" I can imagine it now, with Flava Flav in the background yelling "Com'on" "Yeah" and various other inane and useless exclamations.
Come on down!
Who Stole the Terrordome?
I am Poop Dog! The gangsta specter of defeat, in effect! And you will never win the mystery prize, fool!
Corporations should not be able to buy the rights to all the seats for their own people and tell everyone else to find another way to get to work.
A lot of the way lobbyists have power is that they can convince congressmen, something that is theoretically available for us all. The difference is, most people don't take that a personal, active role in convincing their congressional representative. I don't take my congressman out for lunch, I don't distill mounds of evidence garnered from industry reports and an expensive Lexis-Nexis account into a comprehensive (if sided) brief complete with summaries. If I do anything, I'm writing a letter, and the primary purpose of this letter is in expressing what I think he should do, what my vote is for, I become one of the multitude of other voters in his district or state, one voice among many. If I really wanted to, I could schedual a meeting with my congressman (who may or may not be on a commitee that actually does anything with the issue I have), get together a brief, collect a bunch of signatures or something to show I also represent larger group (the lobbyist represents a broader interest, not himself), fly to DC, meet with my congressman, and then use my knowledge of how to deal with Washington (none) along with my winning personality (well, okay, I don't have that either) and my persuasive powers to convince my congressman. But I probably wont.
The only inherent difference, that which really prevents me as a constituent of my congressmen from equalling the lobbyist, is that because a lobbyist represents the interests of a group, he talks to people with posistions in commitees that deal with that subject, to people with power over that issue, so they have 535 voices, rather than 3. Is this illegal? No, its not even immoral.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I get in, do I get adamantium claws?
"You'll never see anything if you go out on the wrong day," deadpans Cooke.
"It can get cold in November at 3 o'clock in the morning."
"Try to get away from city lights," he suggests. "The darker the sky, the more meteors you'll see."
Gee, thanks. I never would have guessed.
Hey, they left off the most important step for me! Get out of the Pacific Northwest, go somewhere you can see the sky.
Oh well, I can always pretend the raindrops are comets.
Are we forgetting our history here? Does no one remember the Missouri Compromise? Sure, it wasn't the best thing since sliced bread, but it's hard to argue against it's efficacy. (And no, the fact that the civil war still happened, and the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the split up Comprimise of 1850, Clay's great sequel, doesn't count as an argument against it. Because I said so.)
His name is my name too.
Whenever I go out,
the people always shout,
"There goes John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith!"
La la la la la la la.
Steal the Terror Drome?
So Shredder would end up asking "Who Stole the Terror Dome?" I can imagine it now, with Flava Flav in the background yelling "Com'on" "Yeah" and various other inane and useless exclamations.
Come on down!Who Stole the Terrordome?
I am Poop Dog! The gangsta specter of defeat, in effect! And you will never win the mystery prize, fool!
A lot of the way lobbyists have power is that they can convince congressmen, something that is theoretically available for us all. The difference is, most people don't take that a personal, active role in convincing their congressional representative. I don't take my congressman out for lunch, I don't distill mounds of evidence garnered from industry reports and an expensive Lexis-Nexis account into a comprehensive (if sided) brief complete with summaries. If I do anything, I'm writing a letter, and the primary purpose of this letter is in expressing what I think he should do, what my vote is for, I become one of the multitude of other voters in his district or state, one voice among many. If I really wanted to, I could schedual a meeting with my congressman (who may or may not be on a commitee that actually does anything with the issue I have), get together a brief, collect a bunch of signatures or something to show I also represent larger group (the lobbyist represents a broader interest, not himself), fly to DC, meet with my congressman, and then use my knowledge of how to deal with Washington (none) along with my winning personality (well, okay, I don't have that either) and my persuasive powers to convince my congressman. But I probably wont.
The only inherent difference, that which really prevents me as a constituent of my congressmen from equalling the lobbyist, is that because a lobbyist represents the interests of a group, he talks to people with posistions in commitees that deal with that subject, to people with power over that issue, so they have 535 voices, rather than 3. Is this illegal? No, its not even immoral.
Sounds like Russia. Is Russia without movies, music, books and software?