World HOt toPPIX

After the Internet bandied up together and killed SOPA, you'd think the government would be a little weary of introducing SOPA-like bills less the Internet start a revolution and start calling out dumb politicians. Guess not ...

After the Internet bandied up together and killed SOPA, you'd think the government would be a little weary of introducing SOPA-like bills less the Internet start a revolution and start calling out dumb politicians. Guess not though because it looks like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid still wants to censor the internet with a new bill hidden under the mask of cybesecurity. SOPA in sheep's clothing.

According to The Daily Caller, details about the bill are "shrouded in secrecy" though "clues available to the public suggest that the bill might be stronger" than previous bills and "broadly expand the authority of executive branch agencies over the Internet." Supposedly, Reid will couch the new SOPA with some sort of cybersecurity bill to create a Frankenstein monster law. Of course, this is all conjecture, which means nothing is really happening yet but it's clear that the government wants something to happen.

We don't want to cry wolf on this bill but it's clear that the government has full intention in creating laws that'll shackle down the free reign of the Internet. When will they learn. We'll keep an eye on this as it progresses. [The Daily Caller]

The real issues are that stupid people elect stupid, dishonest leaders and that there is no real, immediate accountability for those elected to those that elected them.

Stupid people elect stupid, dishonest politicians. These ignorant voters cannot tell when a politician is lying to them because they don't even understand the basics about their country or government - much less being able to discern when they are being lied to.

Now, before you get your panties all in a wad over your supposed "right to vote", please understand that we regularly refuse people the right to vote.

We refuse to let people under 18 vote. Why? For the same reason we don;t let them enter into legal contracts...because we believe that they are not mature enough (a nice way to say not smart or wise enough) to vote.

We refuse to allow people convicted of felonies the right to vote. Why? One reason is that the have shown that they are not intelligent enough to make wise life choices. The other reason is that some people think that taking away this "right" is some sort of punishment.

The simple fact is that you would not let a 5 year old child decide what shots or medicines it would take, and you should not let people with the same understanding of politics as a five year old vote.

Look, we already require licensing to sell alcohol. We require a license to run a business. We require a license to practice law. We require a license to run a daycare center. We require a license to shoot squirrel. We require a license to drive a car. We require licenses to do hundreds (if not thousands) of things in the U.S., so why not a license to vote?

Voting for the wrong Presidential candidate can literally end the U.S. and/or the world as we know it. None of the licensing restrictions mentioned above can ever have the immediate and long-lasting impacts that putting an idiot and/or a liar in the White House can have.

A licensed voter would mean that they understand the facts of the OFFICE and the powers that a person elected to that office would have. It would lessen the chances that a lying, idiot would be elected.

So, how would we keep stupid people from voting without being discriminatory based on their political affiliations? We already have that test. It is called the U.S. Naturalization Test.

According to Newsweek "They?re the sort of scores that drive high-school history teachers to drink. When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America?s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn?t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn?t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn?t even circle Independence Day on a calendar." - [www.thedailybeast.com] .

So, how do we go about this licensing? The mature, honest way is to have people take the test at their leisure at the same place they go to take their drivers test. The tests should be free and monitored to help prevent cheating. If caught cheating, you should have to wait 4 years to re-test - with no right to vote until you pass the test. (Dishonest voters = stupid voters = more stupid, dishonest leaders.)

A less obvious way of safe-guarding us from stupid voters would be to have a short, 10 question, multiple choice test at the end of each voting session and simply toss out any ballots that the voter scored below 70% on. That way all of the stupid people feel like they voted and their "right" was not denied, and the rest of us don't have to live with their stupidity screwing up the country - or world.

I am dead serious about all of this. Stupid people should not vote. This is not based on political party, race, religion, creed, nationality or anything. It is simply the right and intelligent thing to do to keep people from voting when they haven't bothered to learn what they are even voting about.

(Edit comment) promoted by m9105826 sebjamar @georgecarlinjr If stupid people didn't vote, then the dishonest leaders only concerned with making money or other nefarious reasons wouldn't be voted into office. Because of this, we both know they'll do anything to keep these people voting for them. I love the idea, but I don't see it happening because of that. (Edit comment) m9105826 @georgecarlinjr Can we get this guy a star? This is the sanest thing I've read all day. (Edit comment) mjt @georgecarlinjr I pay to get you another star. (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @sebjamar It would be difficult. But corruption is always difficult to root out.Abraham Lincoln said - "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."President Lincoln also said "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."The question is...how do you get rid of the corruption in our current government (present in all political parties) using non-violent means when all you have to change things are people who are too stupid to vote? (Edit comment) weezeee @georgecarlinjr who can you vote for, when your choice are between dishonest leader A and dishonest leader B? (Edit comment) sebjamar @georgecarlinjr That does seem to be the difficult part and the government seems content keeping things the way they are. The way I see it, in order to change things we need to do a better job of educating people, young and old, about the implications of what you quoted and different avenues we can take in order to change things. Along with that, we need as close to a neutral media source as we can get. The Occupy movements did (and are still doing) a great job of bringing some of these issues to light. The problem seemed to be media coverage. If every news outlet is referring to the protesters as "stupid", "uneducated", "dirty", and any other negative term, it's no wonder the overwhelming opinion of people I've talked to about the movement is that the protesters are uneducated hippies. Whether or not you personally agree with them, it's great to see some people trying to change things. Unfortunately, the media is doing everything they can to shine a bad light on them. If we had more neutral news on TV, more people could come to their own conclusions about issues instead of being force-fed someone else's as fact. Anyways, I still agree that stupid voters are a huge part of the problem. Until more people realize that about others and even themselves, things will stay the same since no one will see a reason to change anything. (Edit comment) blub @georgecarlinjr The media talks often about how incredibly smart Barack Obama is, he taught constitutional law don't you know. If Barack Obama signs this thing, is he still so smart? Or was he a just another craven politician all along? Oh I know, hes still smart, he was forced into signing it...Its easy to slash and burn the electorate, you fight with the military you have not the one you wish you had. The electorate is the only one we have, and its being manipulated because the politicians have no respect for them at all. Maybe they are right to treat the voters like idiots, if it works it works. I think if the media were more honest and there were much higher standards for political ads things would be better, but no one is listening to me. Bill Buckley once said he would rather be ruled by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book then who we presently have. I know I keep conflating the electorate with the politicians but the politicians are excreted by the electorate, I see a cause and effect which blurs the line between the two.The truth is, as bad as things seem we do have a natural correcting mechanism with constant elections. The Presidency of the USA is inherently weak, yet, the media feel the dumb public needs a personality to hook into so, there are 100 Senators, many more congress men but only one President, lets focus on the President. Day after day after day its all about the President because the media feel the people are dumb, AND IT WORKS! Yes the people are stupid, I know that, we all know that but there is nothing we can do about it. I would love it if people had to have a license to vote, but it is not going to happen, the Democrats would never win another election in a contested districts or state. Sometimes having a stupid electorate is smart for some. (Edit comment) z0phi3l @georgecarlinjr Term limits, 8 years MAX in any branch of the Federal Government, 99% of the corruption would be gone since most of these "people" have been in Washington for too long and all the "lobbyists" have had ample time to buy them out, with proper term limits in place it would be practically impossible to buy a Senator or Congressperson, you wouldn't get any bang for your buck (Edit comment) Alex Devlin @georgecarlinjr I agree with you 100%. I think we need to start testing people who will do anything that can be a danger to others. Like as you said, voting. A lot of people will vote for the same party, regardless of their policies, because that's who they've always voted for, or they really just don't like the other guy. I'm not trying to rile up voters of any side here, but in Oklahoma I saw streets of houses for sale. They were either for sale by owner, part exchange possible, foreclosure and in the yard was their truck with a for sale sign and also a McCain/Palin sign. I'm not against their political beliefs. But if you are having to sell your truck because gas is too high, and your house because the market crashed and you are either behind on payments or are out of work... Why would you vote for the people who have been in power for the last 8 years and are causing this? - - Again, I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs or saying what side is best. And of course not all of the houses I saw would be selling due to not being able to afford it anymore. Some could be moving to another house and could get a better price for selling their truck privately instead of a trade in. But there were a LOT of houses like that, and only 10% of them had the Obama sign out front. The Obama sign was outside a lot of ordinary houses with no other signs selling things to be seen. And a similar amount for McCain was on those type of houses too. But I know that some of the other ones were losing their houses and can't afford to gas their trucks, but were still willing to vote for the party that had caused this to happen to them. And whenever I got the chance to talk to them and ask them what they liked about their guy that they were voting for him. They had a good understanding but left out the problem areas that had put them where they were just now in life.Someone once told me about what they called 'party blindness' when it comes to voting. A lot of people will vote the same because that's what they've always done. Others because their family vote for them. Some base it on how their life is going at that point. If it's been good the last year, then keep them in power. When they did a study on these voters, some knew nothing about the policies of the party they were voting for. Some knew enough to decide they preferred them. Some disagreed with the other party so are voting for this one, and some of them had no idea what this parties policies were on the topic they disagreed with regarding that party. They were trying to break it down into simple black and white choices.I think a good way might be to have the voters take a blind test on the parties policies. Check the ones you agree and disagree with and then be told who you would be better voting for. It's not reasonable to expect people to read through all of the party info and decode the political-ese into something they may understand properly. So maybe a summery of the points could be used to allow them to decide who to vote for based on beliefs. Sorry for the long ass post. I just get angry with the parties not working together on obvious things just because they want to disagree with them about it instead. It's like watching a couple of frat houses go to war over beer and pizza. Seriously guys, get it together and try and get the country back to some kind of being normal. And stop taking money and services from people who have earned it and are due it. Like olds. and vets./rant - mode off. Thank you for reading, if you're still here. (Edit comment) phydeauxfilms @georgecarlinjr The problem with trying to control who can and can't vote is who would be in control of who votes... Just look at who controls re-districting. That hasn't worked out so well. (Edit comment) hemo_jr @georgecarlinjr Looks like you are confusing ignorance, foolishness, and stupidity. I know a number of very smart, well educated minors, but few of them have the experience required for wisdom. Giving people a citizenship test may weed out the ignorant, but not necessarily the stupid and foolish. Even IQ tests tend towards cultural bias.Then there are those who vote to feather their own nests, those who let their own self interests affect their opinions on a subconscious level. The Libertarians call them 'rent seekers', people like the RIAA and MPAA who seek to use government and the force of law to ensure they have a comfortable living. Older voters may show bias towards increased social security and Medicare. Government employees and contractors may be biased towards increasing the size of government and the budget.So what we want is and intersection of the smart, the knowledgeable, the wise and the truly unbiased selfless. Then, of course, these epitomes of virtue will need the time to look at the issues. And they will need to be teachable. Even smart, selfless people can end up set in their ways. They could let ideology or other prejudice bias them toward sub-optimal solutions. So we need people who can think out of the box.Okay so we need smart, knowledgeable, wise, selfless, unbiased, teachable, flexible thinkers who are not trapped by ideology, who can think out of the box and have the time and inclination to examine the issues. And, in addition, they will need to be in touch with the people, know and care about the issues that affect the average and not so average citizen.I think I have pretty much eliminated everyone. (Edit comment) blessedswine @z0phi3l This is what needs to be we need to get term limits on every branch of government. Not only would it bring new blood in, but it would get rid of theese people who have been around so long they have lost touch with the everyday man. (Edit comment) NorthernRoamer @blub So, in other words, if you vote Democrat you're an idiot?if you vote Republican you're smart. Is that it? (Edit comment) NorthernRoamer @hemo_jr The people who have all the requirements you're looking for are not the kind of people who would demean themselves by running for office. (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @weezeee You can stop worrying about who to vote for and run yourself. I am looking into getting into politics myself. I'd rather start on a local level to cut my teeth and try a few ideas out before jumping into the cesspool that is D.C..Let's face it, if my ideas don't work on a local level, they shouldn't be implemented on a national level.In fact, that's how I think all politicians (regardless of political affiliation) should be vetted. They should be required to prove they have the answers (by implementing them on a smaller scale successfully) BEFORE they are elected to a national office. Show us what you did in local (city, county or state) government that you also want to do nationally.If you can show success locally, by all means let's try it nationally.If you have no results to show that your ideas improve the peoples' situation, why should we elect you to experiment with a whole nation? (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @sebjamar I agree that the news is anything but unbiased. In Atlanta, CBS 46 is almost comical in it's news delivery - with "news" anchors frowning and shaking their heads disapprovingly at news stories being read by other anchors that you should consider bad. It's like they are reading to a bunch of kindergarten students.And, they almost are. They know that their audience has the mentality of a child, and they openly treat them that way. It would be funny if it weren't so damned sad.You really hit the nail on the head with "Anyways, I still agree that stupid voters are a huge part of the problem. Until more people realize that about others and even themselves, things will stay the same since no one will see a reason to change anything."People have to be self-aware enough to know that they need to be vigilant and that they need to inform themselves more about the topics that concern them - including just how their government works and if current legislation is Constitutionally sound or not. But, most people will not question themselves unless they are trained to do so from an early age.You were also correct when you stated "The way I see it, in order to change things we need to do a better job of educating people, young and old..." That is the real and lasting solution. We need to do a better job of educating our children about the Constitution, their rights and about our government. We need to do so while keeping political opinions out of it as much as possible (either left or right leaning).But, how to keep politics out of school is a sticky situation indeed. Most of our educators are of a left-leaning persuasion. Most of them belong to a teacher's union and would say little to cast unions in a poor light (even if that means not teaching about the brutality of early or current unions). Unions have also done some good things, and those should not be glossed over either, by right leaning educators.Our schools, IMHO, should be neutral in their teachings of all subjects. Just the facts please. Leave interpretation and guesswork at home, and teach our children just the facts.Of course, the "facts" will vary depending on who is telling the story. It is not that different storytellers are intentionally lying. It is simply that different people see things differently. It is like asking a Confederate soldier and a Union soldier about the same battle. You would likely get two very different views of the same battle - liberally sprinkled with the prejudices of each according to his beliefs.Perhaps the key is to intentionally seed classrooms (and textbooks) with both a liberal and a conservative teacher that can shed light on both sides of the coin. For this to work, children should also be taught logical thinking skills as well as how to get along with others (think a Dale Carnegie class) every single day of their schooling. After all, what good does it do to teach a child how to make a living if we do not teach them how to think and live peacefully (as much as possible) with one another?Presenting both views of a topic, after teaching logical thinking skills, would ensure that we do not skew history one way or another and that the true facts of a time or event are not lost with the telling of single points of view. The truth, balanced with logic and a true desire to understand the all sides' points of view, should always be our goal - if we are to reach our potential as human beings.This form of teaching is a long term solution to a very important aspect of the lives of every person on Earth. The problem is...I am not sure that we have the time to implement this solution before the corruption that we already have destroys us and the country (or world) that we hold so dear.We need a faster solution (like licensing voters) to stop stupidity from killing us all while we implement the education solution and wait 12 years to see the first newly educated people graduate and get to vote (hopefully more intelligently than those that came before them). (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @z0phi3l I think that you are right about term limits. I would keep the current years of service allowed in each term, but I would limit the ability of a person to hold ANY elected office within any government entity (local, state or federal) to 2 terms total - like the office of the President.Basically, I would extend the 22 Amendment to our Constitution to all publicly elected officials that are elected to any office of any official governmental body within, or acting on behalf of, the United States of America.Two terms as a Congressperson, Senator, President, Mayor or any other elected office should be enough. It should also be a felony to intentionally deceive voters during the course of an election to either persuade them to vote for you or against another. This should apply to the candidates as well as PACs, news outlets and even regular people.Voter deception is the number one reason that people don't participate in the election process. Causing people not to vote any longer because they no longer believe in politicians eats away at the very foundation of our form of government. Anyone convicted of voter deception should be tried for treason and punished accordingly, if convicted.Finally, those creating our laws should not be exempt from them. What the $)@* was that whole thing about letting members of the House profit from insider trading for years and years while the people went to jail for 20+ years for doing the same thing? And, why don;t the member of the house have to use Obamacare like they are trying to force on the rest of us?Nope....what's good for the people is good for the elected officials. (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @Alex Devlin 'party blindness' is a real and persistent problem. In any election, it is estimated that 40% vote liberal and 40% vote conservative and 20% actually decide the election.That being the case, I fail to understand why the politicians waste any time on their 40% and don't spend more time wooing the 20% in the middle.The reason that the parties do not work together to accomplish a goal is because fixing issues makes it harder to run for office next time. I mean, if the issues are all fixed, who needs ya? (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @phydeauxfilms As I said before, this is not an issue. Just use the U.S. Citizenship Test to establish the absolute minimum standard for a knowledgeable voter.Then, raise the standards for future voters and educate them accordingly throughout their academic careers, so that each successive generation of voters is more informed than the one before it - hopefully leading to better and better decisions and a better future for all. (Edit comment) eduardo.maal1 @georgecarlinjr Here's the problem with your rant: feasibility. You want to regulate voting. I agree with the core of your argument, but how do you regulate it? Who decides what the requirements with voter licensing would be? Like all the other stupid licenses you mentioned, it cimes down to Government to regulate it. And do you think the Government cronies will license it in favor of the population, or as always, license voters according to their opinions.But here's a vote you can't manipulate; the Free Market. When you buy a product among competing brands, you vote for that company. You will weigh in price, quality, public image, environmental responsibility... And, additionally, if you make more money (not through Government favors, but through creating wealth through innovation and creativity), you have more votes, because you are more successful.That is the idea behind Austrian Economics. Free market competition. Make government as small as possible, so they don't habe favors to give out, so they can't trade the Nation's wellbeing, for one person or group to profit. And in the areas where we think Goveernment must be present, we allow for competition with the private sector. Some people think the Government should be in roads, airports, water treatment. Great, but let the private sector do it to, and let people opt out of paying the goverenment for that. Poverty programs, etc., that in the past were carried out - not perfectly, but better than the Government does nowadays - by churches and private organizations.Bring back the Free America that was once the greatest nation in the World! (Edit comment) eduardo.maal1 @eduardo.maal1 Sorry for the spelling mistakes, I'm still getting used to touch keyboards.

*paying the Government for that (Edit comment) eduardo.maal1 @eduardo.maal1 To conclude, there is an underlying problem. We have given the Government many monopolies. They have the monopoly over Justice, Violence, Legislature. More recently, schools, social security, poverty management. The most obvious example of how Government can't manage a business is public schools and social security, where they have put politics above all else, and quality has suffered, and they have gone into tremendous debt. The same has happened with the other areas, but it was so long ago, that we can't conceive an alternative to it nowadays. And as always, the Government takes control through fear and manipulation; first, they put up regulation that screws up the incentives. Then, when everything goes wrong, they blame the Free Market and take more control. There are very good case studies in the main role of Government on the Housing Bubble (I'm not saying the banks didn't have accountability, they definitely did), as well as other bubbles and ensuing depressions since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. My favourite ones are: The Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and Economic Policy Journal (I won't post the websites because I don't know if I'm allowed to by Gizmodo, but also out of respect). (Edit comment) bmccombs @Alex Devlin @ AlexDevlin"They were either for sale by owner, part exchange possible, foreclosure and in the yard was their truck with a for sale sign and also a McCain/Palin sign. I'm not against their political beliefs. But if you are having to sell your truck because gas is too high, and your house because the market crashed and you are either behind on payments or are out of work... Why would you vote for the people who have been in power for the last 8 years and are causing this?"You are making 2 incorrect assumptions: 1) That Republicans are to blame for the current economic situation, specifically the housing market you described and 2) that the current administration is the opposite and therefore can fix the problem.1) In response to your first incorrect assumption, I'll "simply" state that Clinton, Frank and Dodd were primarily responsible for the housing market collapse because they strong-armed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into approving mortgages for people who couldn't afford them under the rationale that it is the American dream to own a home (yes it is a dream, but it's a privilege, not a right). And of course that policy took time to bite us in the ass because those adjustable interest rates took some time to kick in, for people to stop not being able to pay the increased mortgage payment and then eventually for the foreclosure process to kick in. So it only makes sense that the housing crisis kicked in at 7 years later during the Bush administration but that doesn't mean it was Bush's fault. It takes 5 years for Adjustable Rate Mortgages to change rates and with everything else the timing was right, as many people predicted and advised the Clinton administration of the problem (but it was ignored). Now, what say you?2) Regarding your "gas is too high comment", Obama is on audio/visual record (i.e. a video) stating he does not care how high the cost of gasoline rises. This explicitly proves he is not looking out for any of us, regardless of what income class you belong to. Now, what say you about blaming the Republican administration prior to Obama for high gas prices, especially when the current administration has stated they don't care about them? (Edit comment) o0RaidR0o @weezeee Exactly! Yes are there stupid voters out there, absolutely but like everything else in life it isn't a black and white matter. Everything political falls into the grey area, as exampled by you, the lessor of two evils.Even if we get someone that looks to be the real deal the system is rigged so that person never makes it through the polls. They always find dirt no matter how clean one tries to live his life. We are born of sin, ergo it's up hill battle from day one. Obama has good idea's but not a single one could pass because the republican congress will absolutely vote anything down he presents. Not on the merits of the bill but just because it came from the Obama administration. Just recently a bill was passed to resin insider trading by congressmen. How the fuck was that possible or even considered ethical. Congress continues to pass self serving laws. Did you know the children of congressmen are exempt from having to pay back student loans? Lobbying laws need to change, no more corporate lobbying! No lobbying group should have offices within Washington, DC. And any lobbying group must be Representative of real people, and not a corporate entity.That's just starters, of course shorter term limits will helps also./end rant! (Edit comment) bernesto @georgecarlinjr You sir, are my kind of guy. I will vote for you in any election. Please pursue politics, never become corrupted, and teach others your logic. Georgecarlinjr for president 2016!! (Edit comment) Tyler Miranda @georgecarlinjr best thing I have read in a long time. (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @o0RaidR0o "They always find dirt no matter how clean one tries to live his life." This is true. So, it always has baffled me as to why political hopefuls don't just come clean at the beginning of their run for office.Intelligent people know that you have done things in your life that you regret and they need to be shown that you have learned from those experiences, have grown as a person and that you would not make the same mistakes again.We all make mistakes. NEVER trust someone who acts as if they have not made mistakes. (It's one reason I don't trust Microsoft. In the many, many mistakes that they have made in the past - like Clippy - they have never ONCE admitted a mistake. If they truly think they have never made a mistake, you can be sure they have not learned a single thing from any of them.)I think it might be a good idea to actually write out all of the dirt that you can think up on yourself and distribute that list to the media and public. At this time, you should also issue a call for anything that you may have done wrong that you may not remember so that those things can be added to the list.Then wait a week and hold a press conference/town hall meeting in which you address any and all concerns about the previous week's dirt list (with any additions that people may have reminded you of).After this, you should refuse to re-examine this list for the remainder of the campaign - concentrating instead on what you have done and wish to do for the people.Showing and explaining your own mistakes should take the sting out of any future references to the things on the list and will avoid surprise revelations that make it look like you are hiding things and may be a dishonest person.This just may also have the effect of making the other people in the race that do not follow suit look like they are hiding things from the voters.We are all people. Everyone has done stupid things in their lives. Everyone has regrets. And, hopefully, we all learn from our mistakes and regrets and grow in maturity and wisdom.I hope that people appreciate this approach. It's the one I am planning to use in my first political run. (Edit comment) Alex @georgecarlinjr I agree 100 percent with you but honestly the more simple approach is just to remove money from politics. Money as we all know causes corruption, remove that from the equation and you have a healthier government. Create laws that make "donations" and "lobbying" treasonous along with changing the law of "corporations are people" and things would vastly improve. (Edit comment) georgecarlinjr @Alex Recently Barbara Walters did an interview with a man (can't remember his name right ow to save my life) that was sent to prison for several crimes that included bribing members of Congress and/or the Senate.One of the tricks that he said would put a politician in your pocket without exchanging a single dime was to tell them that your people want him to come work for them when the Congressman leaves D.C.. Then, you didn't even have to ask the Congressman/Senator to vote in your favor. In fact, he said that they would come up with legislation to help the lobbyists clients just to make sure they would be taken care of when they left D.C..All of this happens without a dime being exchanged.Removing the money from politics is like trying to remove the money from prostitution. People just find other ways to trade sex for money - like marrying a sugar-daddy.How can you ever be certain about a politician's motives for a piece of legislation? You can't.The only thing you can do is make it illegal for any politician to profit in ANY manner from any legislation that they work on, vote on, or in any way influence or help to pass...unless the people as a whole profit from the same legislation in the same manner as the politician has profited (i.e. tax relief legislation).This law should follow them for the rest of their lives. And, if at any time it is proven that they profited from their actions as a politician, whether during their tenure or after it, and the nation's people were not given the opportunity to profit in a similar fashion, they should be convicted of a felony and live out their life in a federal prison on a work detail.It's high time we reign in these politicians and make them subject to the laws and rules that they pass and enforce on the rest of us. (Edit comment)

Cancel LoginLogin or create an account using Facebook or Twitter. If you wish to remain anonymous, we suggest creating a separate Twitter account. You will need to be approved before your comments are displayed on site.

Logging in... Please enter a username. Please enter your password. | Reset Password Reset passwordYou password contains non US-ASCII characters. We recommend you reset your password due to a flaw in handling non US-ASCII characters.

A temporary password has been emailed to you. If you do not receive the password reset email, please be sure to check your spam folder. In some cases, it can take up to 10 minutes for your email service to receive the email.

You can log in to Gawker using your Facebook or Twitter accounts. If you wish to remain anonymous, we suggest creating a separate Twitter account. You will need to be approved before your comments will display on the site.

While we don't require an email address to sign up, consider adding one to your account. This will give you the ability to reset a lost or stolen password.

While we don't require an email address to sign up, consider adding one to your account. This will give you the ability to reset a lost or stolen password.

Change passwordYou password contains non US-ASCII characters. We recommend you change your password due to a flaw in handling non US-ASCII characters.

Old Password: Please enter a password.New Password: Please enter a password.Confirm Password: Please confirm your password.Passwords are not identical.

We understand you'd like to delete your account. If you delete your account all of your information including your comments, messages, posts, and friends and followers associations will be removed from our system. Please consider the following options before clicking delete.

If you're concerned about your public identity on site you can change both your username or your display name. Your display name is the name that is publicly visible to other users. Your username is what you login with and is in your profile url. Both can be edited by going to your profile then clicking "Edit Profile."

If you still wish to completely delete your account, click the Delete Account button below. Your account will be locked, and your information will be wiped from our servers within 30 days.

If you have any other questions about deleting your account, please contact help@gawker.com. If you've already contacted help@gawker.com about deleting your account, we've received your request and will follow up with you.Submit your commentYou don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

Mirror creates a mirror copy of the post that appears on the destination site. Post metadata (headline, timestamp, tags) can be changed, but not the post body, and any changes to the post body are reflected in the mirror.