Man flies plane into IRS building.

[tryfuhl]

I think that our entire govt comprises the idea of "We're smarter than you, so we know what's best for you" mentality, that's certainly not limited to the left. If you do then you have to come up with "We don't care, we're telling you what's best for you and you'll deal with it" from the right.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I think that our entire govt comprises the idea of "We're smarter than you, so we know what's best for you" mentality, that's certainly not limited to the left. If you do then you have to come up with "We don't care, we're telling you what's best for you and you'll deal with it" from the right.

True, this isn't something that's only developed over the course of the past year.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

I don't really like entering political debates but this one is a bit intriguing.

Let me be the first to tell you that I don't really feel 100% informed and educated on all political matters which gives more to my listening to these conversations as opposed to entering them.

I do want to gauge some opinions on this personal idea.

I've always felt that most political matters seem to revolve, and are decided, around big businesses and big money contributions. In our modern era, politicians seem to have their campaigns propelled more by large industries and lobby groups than the individual constituent.

To me, this seems to lend more to conflicts of interest from those elected officials. So let me propose a question to you:

Why isn't corruption (bribes/gifting/position abuse) of any kind at a publicly-elected level, high or low, considered an act of treason and thus punishable by the same stiff penalties?

It's basically just as unpatriotic and detrimental to the country to misuse a publicly elected position and it should be considered as treasonous as espionage. What's your opinion on this?...too harsh of a penalty for our elected officials?...maybe it affects the candidates decisions in office for the better/worse?

There will ALWAYS be some level of corruption in government, or any place where power is wielded. That much is true, and people will find ways to skirt/minimize their exposure to consequences. Asking politicians to treat corruption harshly requires them to make laws that could effectively be used against them.

A side tangent to this is that we have essentially pushed all corruption to a national/federal level when it comes to the legislative branch of the government. When the Constitution was written senators were elected by their state governments, not the people of their state. That made the corruption for getting into and on the good side of a senator a very local thing. Now, I accept that it had gotten out of control in many states, and so the move to elections may have been necessary. But I think we see now the result of having the whole congress popularly elected. In my opinion, a very good move would be to move back the clock on how senators are seated. Would corruption still exist yes, but it would counterbalance the megacorporations and activist corruption that happens at the Federal level.

I think the Constitution, in it's original form was an amazing document. It missed the boat on one or two obvious issues, but the framework of the government was an immensely well balanced system - balancing between the need for accomplished statesmen who were politically savvy and the need for feet on the ground in for a couple years then back to the real world political savants.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

True, this isn't something that's only developed over the course of the past year.

I really wish that we voted on more of our issues federally. Of course then you still have the people that only heard one point of view, but it's there and people have more of a chance to become educated on it to make an opinion.

I'm really tired of this "let us protect you from yourself" mentality.

[Lotus]

What an utterly futile gesture by this guy. If his beefs were correct, then he should have worked to change things. But this stunt won't change anything except his status among the living. Oh, and it will require more money to fix the building, which will require more taxes, and...

[firstdown]

Well I was going to post that one other person did die in the attack but when I lloked for a link I saw they found another body which means he killed two other people. Must have been some poor guy coming in to give his last dime to the IRS and the guy gets killed by this nut.
2nd body found inside Texas building hit by plane | AP | 02/18/2010

[tryfuhl]

I heard 2 bodies last night.. then on a later report I just heard 2 injuries so I didn't know which one was right, or if both were true

[firstdown]

Last night the body count was 2 the crazy guy and someone in the building. Today a clean up crew found another body which makes the count 3 (you probably could have figured out the count on your own)LOL.