Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (4837)	11/15/2006 1:59:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

LOL, ever here of checks and balances? Removing administration oversight of the DOJ is removing one of the balances. But I will defer to your suggestions for a workable alternative... I've never been one to say that those who reject a problematic plan have to propose their own plan. Well in a certain sense you have to choose an action (remaining in the status quo", or "doing nothing" still is a choice, even if its only a choice by default). But sometimes doing nothing is the best choice. Maybe it isn't here, but its probably better then a fully independent DOJ.

To: one_less who wrote (4837)	11/15/2006 2:23:08 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 10087

"...and don't call me Nellie." <GGG> Shirley you jest! I've already indicated how I think the rating system should be implemented -- by the Congress itself, perhaps by the Ethics Committees, or perhaps by new committees established for that purpose. Which is not to say it would be a perfect system, but it would at least be workable. Those who would try to "game" the rating system would find their efforts have a negative return. Finger tapping can cease now. <G>