Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 First of all, we ought to move the Ethics committee into the judicial branch. This having democrats rule on democratic representatives is nonsense. Just as having the Repubs adjudicating the ethics of Repubs was a farse, but more than that... the ethics committee needs teeth. It needs a ban hammer. Could you imagine how much better behaved (or more sneaky) Congressmen would be if they risked being banned for a week or semi-perma banned? Imagine how lobbiests would have to reimagine their bribery strategies if their Congressmen might be banned during the VOTE. What do you think? Should we give the Ethics committee a ban hammer? If not, should we at least give them Maxwell's silver hammer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Oh, and I can think of at least half a dozen Senators who deserve to be NNTed (or denied the ability to write new bills until they prove they can stop being redundant and know how to follow the rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I say permaban, or for ethics violations that deal with their personal lives, they should be NNT with an arseclown avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 If called, I will serve :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 I say permaban, or for ethics violations that deal with their personal lives, they should be NNT with an arseclown avatar. I like it. During every campaign commercial you would see the arseclown avatar beside their name. I think it would also be cool if you had the arseclown avatar by their name instead of the (D) or ® Senator Joe Blow (arseclown) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Only if TK is the one with the banhammer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I like it. During every campaign commercial you would see the arseclown avatar beside their name. I think it would also be cool if you had the arseclown avatar by their name instead of the (D) or ®Senator Joe Blow (arseclown) as far as I'm concerned these days, 90% of all D's and R's already signify the arseclown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 as far as I'm concerned these days, 90% of all D's and R's already signify the arseclown. No comment. :evilg: BTW, how could you diss Jumbo like that Matt? I trust ya Jumbo with the ban hammer (though I'm not sure if you could be trusted with Max's silver one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 No comment. :evilg:BTW, how could you diss Jumbo like that Matt? I trust ya Jumbo with the ban hammer (though I'm not sure if you could be trusted with Max's silver one) I would just want to hear TK say, "Hi There :)" to one of them lol. No disrespect to Jumbo, though Jumbo does easily have the best of the Mod avatars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Seems like all the mods here want in on this idea lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 In theory, it sounds great. However, here is why I would be against it - certain segments of the population would have no representation for a period of time. Random thought - I miss BigMike. Ok, what was the question again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think moving it to the judicial branch would be a fine idea. Make them accountable for a change. You're 100% right, Burgold. Having the crooked politicians police the crooked politicians is a moronic idea. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 In theory, it sounds great. However, here is why I would be against it - certain segments of the population would have no representation for a period of time.Random thought - I miss BigMike. Ok, what was the question again? The reason I don't think you are entirely right in your concern is that no state has one representative, therefore, while representation would temporarily be reduced it would not be eliminated. On the other hand, you are correct that the banning would cause some problems and some districts might not be fairly advocated for during the period of NNT or banning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm there with you.. thats my pet peeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.