I like this guy. For once, I actually agree with Ann Coulter and her assessment of Christie.

quote New York (CNN) -- "It's why the American people hate Congress. Unlike the people in Congress, we have actual responsibilities." New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dropped a bomb on Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Congress for refusing to allow a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief in the final hours of the 112th Congress. It was an instant classic of principled political outrage. It provided a strong dose of what Washington has been missing: blunt, independent leadership. Christie prosecuted the case by pointing out that hurricane relief had been provided more quickly to others: For victims of Katrina after 10 days and victims of Hurricane Andrew in Florida after 30 days. But residents of the New Jersey and New York coast have been waiting 65 days to date for some relief. Christie also accurately pointed out that Northeast states such as New Jersey and New York send more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in federal aid, unlike many of the red states represented by conservatives in Congress. The "makers versus takers" narratives fall apart fast when confronted with reality. Pulling no punches, Christie declared: "Last night, the House majority failed most basic test of leadership and they did so with callous disregard to the people of my state. ... It was disappointing and disgusting to watch." He also unapologetically named names: "There's only one group to blame ... the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." He added that the relief bill "just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/...index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Christie's effortlessly positioning himself as the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2016....."Maverick 2.0" ala the ghost of John McCain.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I like this guy. For once, I actually agree with Ann Coulter and her assessment of Christie. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/...index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Christie's effortlessly positioning himself as the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2016....."Maverick 2.0" ala the ghost of John McCain.

A guy who doesn't bow to the regular partisan BS, I respect that, more politicians should follow his lead IMO.

Edit: to correct brain fart

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-03-2013).]

I have a great deal of respect for Christie. He'll tell you what he thinks. No BS. You may agree or disagree, but you won't be unsure of his position.

quote Originally posted by newf: A guy who does bow to the regular partisan BS, I respect that, more politicians should follow his lead IMO.

?
I can't figure out what you were trying to say.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I have a great deal of respect for Christie. He'll tell you what he thinks. No BS. You may agree or disagree, but you won't be unsure of his position.

Quite true.

I just hope he doesn't succumb to the "cater to the base" disease most pols catch during the primaries. If he does, he just becomes another face in the crowd.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-03-2013).]

I like Christie, but I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there.
FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: ? I can't figure out what you were trying to say.

I think he meant "doesn't bow"....I guess anyway.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I like Christie, but I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there. FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

Actually they do foot the bill. Every state pays into a disaster fund that is to be used later in the event of a disaster. It's mandatory and based upon population. If one should happen, the money the state paid in is doled out to them after they beg and grovel and are determined to 'qualify' for disaster aid.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I think he meant "doesn't bow"....I guess anyway.

Whoops sorry..... I did mean DOESN'T BOW.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I like Christie, but I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there. FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

yes...New Jersey & New York always asking for disaster relief......

really? I can understand this thinking about California, Florida & such which regularly take poundings - but - New York & New Jersey?


and - WTF does civilization mean to you? be a good drone?

I like a lot about Christie, we'll see what happens in the coming years.

As far as that diaster relief goes, I don't mind that it exists but, I think it should be handled like insurance, the higher the risk of it being used, the higher the premium the "insured" pays. It may be like that, I really don't know but I'll bet there are some states that pay way more than their fair share based on their "claims". I'm also pretty confident that some states get way more out of the program that they ever put in.

I'm not picking on New Orleans but rebuilding it was a huge mistake in my opinion. They should have dredged it out and created a huge shipping/receiving port that would have created lots of jobs for those there.

------------------
Ron
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
So, what do ya think, are we there yet?

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I like a lot about Christie, we'll see what happens in the coming years. As far as that diaster relief goes, I don't mind that it exists but, I think it should be handled like insurance, the higher the risk of it being used, the higher the premium the "insured" pays. It may be like that, I really don't know but I'll bet there are some states that pay way more than their fair share based on their "claims". I'm also pretty confident that some states get way more out of the program that they ever put in. I'm not picking on New Orleans but rebuilding it was a huge mistake in my opinion. They should have dredged it out and created a huge shipping/receiving port that would have created lots of jobs for those there.

yes, but that is how ALL insurance works. some make out. most do not.
I myself think the whole concept of insurance should be outlawed. it is a scam thru-n-thru.
nothing allows the shirking of responsibility like insurance. would be a whole new nation if people had to pay for their own frac-ups.

FEMA type insurance is not like normal insurance with premiums based on potential for claims. Some areas (mine included) require flood insurance through FEMA for a mortgage. I live about 1 1/2 miles from the lake & most of the homes around me are in a "designated 500 year flood plain" meaning that they were below 579.6 feet above sea level and were subject to flooding in a 500 year cycle. There was a whole lot of development going on around me with most areas being taken out of the flood plain not requiring flood insurance. This area has never flooded that I can find in any history. Keep in mine that this insurance is expensive. Thirty years ago when I had a mortgage, it was over $ 600 per year. Well, FEMA wasn't getting enough money for all the disaster relief, so the raised the elevation that required flood insurance, putting lots of homes back in the flood plain even though the Great Lakes are at the lowest prolonged levels in history. I remember watching Jon Stossel on ABC reporting on how his beach house had been destroyed multiple times & rebuilt each time thanks to his FEMA insurance. If this was private pay insurance, do ya think any company would touch his house ?

I admire any politician that thinks for himself. I would definitely consider voting for Christie.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I like this guy. For once, I actually agree with Ann Coulter and her assessment of Christie. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/...index.html?hpt=hp_c1 Christie's effortlessly positioning himself as the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2016....."Maverick 2.0" ala the ghost of John McCain.

I agree, I think he is definitely interested (and pushing) to make himself the GOP nominee in 2016.

As for the bill... I don't know the whole specifics so this is very tounge-in-cheek....

My understanding is that they didn't want to pass the bill that was on the table because they felt there was too much pork in it. So, I understand that most bills can't be passed when there is no pork in it because congress has become accustomed to needing to be bribed before they vote for anything. IE: let me put this spending project in, and sure, I'll sign whatever you want.

That said, I have no idea what the pork was that was all in there, and I also don't know why they didn't just decide to draft up a new plan.

I'm guessing maybe they didn't think it was a big deal, and that they could take care of it later.


I am frustrated by the pork though... I thought they were going to stop that... guess that didn't last very long. This isn't a Republican or a Democrat thing... but I don't know why they couldn't simply draft a bill that JUST allocated money to the relief, and that's it. Sort of like with portions of the health-care bill... (why) since they all agreed with eliminating the pre-existing condition clause from insurance companies, why they couldn't have then or a decade before, just simply wrote up a single sheet of paper bill, passed it, and moved on. Why does every bill need to be filled with tons of **** .

Flood insurance is a scam... sadly, as those who need it don't get it and those who don't, pay for it

I know someone who lives in a flood zone and he just had a bunch of backfill brought in to raise his property just enough to exempt him.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I like Christie, but I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there. FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

EXACTLY

Everyone is all for spending cutbacks until it affects them. He is business as usual in this matter, I think.

[This message has been edited by ls3mach (edited 01-04-2013).]

quote Originally posted by red88gt: FEMA type insurance is not like normal insurance with premiums based on potential for claims. Some areas (mine included) require flood insurance through FEMA for a mortgage. I live about 1 1/2 miles from the lake & most of the homes around me are in a "designated 500 year flood plain" meaning that they were below 579.6 feet above sea level and were subject to flooding in a 500 year cycle. There was a whole lot of development going on around me with most areas being taken out of the flood plain not requiring flood insurance. This area has never flooded that I can find in any history. Keep in mine that this insurance is expensive. Thirty years ago when I had a mortgage, it was over $ 600 per year. Well, FEMA wasn't getting enough money for all the disaster relief, so the raised the elevation that required flood insurance, putting lots of homes back in the flood plain even though the Great Lakes are at the lowest prolonged levels in history. I remember watching Jon Stossel on ABC reporting on how his beach house had been destroyed multiple times & rebuilt each time thanks to his FEMA insurance. If this was private pay insurance, do ya think any company would touch his house ?

yes, I spent alot of years in the civil engineering field, and have done alot of work in Harrison, St clair shores, Chesterfield dealing with Fema & the FIRM maps.
the elevation varies, depending on the watershed. there are areas above 600 feet that are in flood plains. its all up to how the water drains.
and, the 500 year is not a "cycle", it is a probability. there is no 500 year flood cycle. it is a 1 in 500 years odds that there will be a flood.
in the mid 70's the lakes did rise quite a bit. I was just a kid, but I remember Jefferson ave being underwater.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes...New Jersey & New York always asking for disaster relief...... really? I can understand this thinking about California, Florida & such which regularly take poundings - but - New York & New Jersey? and - WTF does civilization mean to you? be a good drone?

Frequency hasn't anything to do with it. Our house flooded because of a high river a few years ago and we had to pay for it out of pocket. Why should it be any different for anyone else? You live next to the water, there's a risk, accept it or move but don't ask me to pay for it.
NY and NJ have been lucky in the past, ya live next to the water, there's a risk.

I used to like Christie but I think he's been shooting himself in the foot. I think of him more as a loose cannon than "someone who can think for themselves". I don't think he'll have a shot at the white house, at least as the GOP's pick, for many years if ever.

Jonathan

Why would Christi blast the GOP, ? It's not their fault. I would not have considered that pork bill either. It wasn't the GOP going there in the aftermath and promising help, it was Nobama. Christi hailed Nobama then, .

quote Originally posted by fierofool: Actually they do foot the bill. Every state pays into a disaster fund that is to be used later in the event of a disaster. It's mandatory and based upon population. If one should happen, the money the state paid in is doled out to them after they beg and grovel and are determined to 'qualify' for disaster aid.

I can't believe this is correct ? FEMA's budget I think is determined by Congress. Do you have any specifics ?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: ... I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there. FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

I agree but not exactly. I can see the value of mobilizing national resources, such as equipment, water/food, temporary housing (maybe). Rebuilding though should be upon the residents. I think FEMA should be restructured, to provide for the services I mentioned, and only them )perhaps a few others). What the heck is Home Land Security doing with it's FEMA oversight ? Home Land Security also needs a revamp.

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: I used to like Christie but I think he's been shooting himself in the foot. I think of him more as a loose cannon than "someone who can think for themselves". I don't think he'll have a shot at the white house, at least as the GOP's pick, for many years if ever. Jonathan

Respectfully, I disagree. Look at the last batch of possibles offered up by the GOP during the primaries....Cain/Perry/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul/BACHMANN for cryin' out loud/Romney....a weak field to say the least. Were that not the case, there would now be a Republican in the WH as (for all practical purposes) Obama should've lost this election. Jon Huntsman may have been able to pull it off had he gotten the party's support but it seems his tinfoil hat wasn't big enough to encompass the GOP base.

I'm quite comfortable in predicting that should he opt to pursue it, Christie will make the "Playoffs" for the nod in 2016 at the very least and, if the same manner of offerings present themselves as did in 2012, will probably get it.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-05-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I agree but not exactly. I can see the value of mobilizing national resources, such as equipment, water/food, temporary housing (maybe). Rebuilding though should be upon the residents. I think FEMA should be restructured, to provide for the services I mentioned, and only them )perhaps a few others). What the heck is Home Land Security doing with it's FEMA oversight ? Home Land Security also needs a revamp.

I agree, except about leaving it to FEMA, I still say it shoould go bye-bye. The things you describe should be moved to the private sector completely. Like everything else the government touches, it's like a monkey f***ing a football. You want to see some impressive logistics, look into how the home improvement stores handle and respond to disasters. It's probably one of the most impressive logistics processes you'll ever read about. When I first read the description of how Home Depot and Lowes handle their supplies to disaster areas I was simply astounded. It's the sleekest most efficient use of manpower and resources on a large scale I think I've ever seen. If emergency response was handled like they do it, there would be people, equipment and supplies waiting just outside the danger area before anything even happened.

And frankly, that's the problem with most people. They're so brainwashed into thinking everything large-scale needs to be handled by the government, or that the government can do it "better". Until people realize the government can only do things MORE EXPENSIVE, and never better, we'll continue to have the kind of government that wants to do everything, and idiots who keeping voting for those kinds of politicians.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 01-05-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: The things you describe should be moved to the private sector completely.

The private sector does not own or control many paid for gooberment resources, such as heavy equipment, large transport abilities etc. I agree about fracking a fotball. What is it, half the relief bill going to other stuff ?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: And frankly, that's the problem with most people. They're so brainwashed into thinking everything large-scale needs to be handled by the government, or that the government can do it "better". Until people realize the government can only do things MORE EXPENSIVE, and never better, we'll continue to have the kind of government that wants to do everything, and idiots who keeping voting for those kinds of politicians.

Large scale/small scale. They need Mommy Gooberment, .

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The private sector does not own or control many paid for gooberment resources, such as heavy equipment, large transport abilities etc. I agree about fracking a fotball. What is it, half the relief bill going to other stuff ?

Granted, the government owns a lot of equipment, but I doubt there is much that isn't available or already owned by private companies. The government could sell off that equipment to the private companies and recover some of our ill-spent tax dollars.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there.

Wow! That's the best line I've heard in a long time.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I have a great deal of respect for Christie. He'll tell you what he thinks. No BS. You may agree or disagree, but you won't be unsure of his position.

Interestingly enough I am the same way. And I get the same share of respect from people who appreciate knowing where a man stands and the same amount of condemnation from a$$wipes.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Interestingly enough I am the same way. And I get the same share of respect from people who appreciate knowing where a man stands and the same amount of condemnation from a$$wipes.

Awww...Poor Todd....

Self-martyrdom doesn't become you, Dude.

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: I used to like Christie but I think he's been shooting himself in the foot. I think of him more as a loose cannon than "someone who can think for themselves". I don't think he'll have a shot at the white house, at least as the GOP's pick, for many years if ever. Jonathan

No way he is going anywhere in 2016.

As for the others comments on “the field” there was nothing wrong whatsoever with the republican picks for the white house. That was far from the problem.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: No way he is going anywhere in 2016. As for the others comments on “the field” there was nothing wrong whatsoever with the republican picks for the white house. That was far from the problem.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Obama bought people stuff.

Keep telling yourself that if it gets you through the night. Like it or not, there wasn't a single GOP candidate that captured the hearts and minds of more than a few factions beyond the base. Essentially, even fellow Republicans didn't particularly care for the field. The primaries weren't a battle among stellars.....it was simply a war of attrition.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-07-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I like Christie, but I disagree with the concept of "disaster relief" of any kind. You live there, foot the bill, period. Disasters are nature's way of telling you it's expensive to live there. FEMA is one of the federal agencies that needs to be dismantled, and emergency management turned over to the private sector.

I find your statement shocking and disturbing, devoid of any compassion or empathy.
It appears you are as cold and heartless as Ebenezer Scrooge.
Your attitude towards others is certainly not that of a good Christian.

Hypothetically,
If a tornado touched down in your town and totally destroyed your house and every house with in a 5 mile radius of your house, would you want help from FEMA, and the Red Cross? Of course you would.

What makes America great is its people and their sense of community and compassion for their fellow citizens.
American's willingness to pitch in and help others beset by disasters, both natural and man-made, is one of our great strengths.

You should reconsider your attitued toward disaster relief, because "There but for fortune, go you or I."

~ Bob ~

P.S.
10 days after Katrina, federal money was going toward the people of the Gulf.
It has been over 60 days and federal money has yet to reach the NJ/NY area. Why?

------------------
"Its nice to be important.
Its more important to be nice."

Two sides to every story, regarding FEMA, government run groups like this malfunction, I've been burned by them. When I purchase my house it required no Flood Insurance for good reason, the area has never flooded as long as records have been kept. However, 3 years after I purchased the house Bank of America starts to slam me with very expensive flood insurance on my monthly bill, because FEMA changed their flood plane maps. I fought them and lost aside from getting cheaper private flood insurance, who's inspector said they were nuts. A little more than two years later Bank of America comes back to me saying FEMA revised their maps again, and flood insurance is now waived. I asked them to refund all the flood insurance money paid, and was told to go pound sand, it wasn't their fault, and you know what it's like going against the government.

quote Originally posted by FieroBobo: I find your statement shocking and disturbing, devoid of any compassion or empathy.

You won't like my agreeing opinion either. It does not reflect a lack of of compassion or empathy.
I understand that you were affected and see on a daily basis the real life affects on your community. The wife and I tithe 10% of our pretax dollars (not all to the church) and we tithe again if we sell something paid for by taxed and tithed money we earned. In fact, we doubled up and directed more money your way after Sandy and we are not done yet. I have no sympathies though for the crying of people affected by natural disasters. We are dealt a hand of cards in life. Play them. Hold 'em, fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run.

quote Originally posted by FieroBobo: Hypothetically, If a tornado touched down in your town and totally destroyed your house and every house with in a 5 mile radius of your house, would you want help from FEMA, and the Red Cross? Of course you would.

No, I would not want FEMA's help. Especially as it is set up now. Where was my help when my home burned down and I lost everything ? Why shouldn't I be entitled to some, just as all the other victims of life are ?

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: I used to like Christie but I think he's been shooting himself in the foot. I think of him more as a loose cannon than "someone who can think for themselves". I don't think he'll have a shot at the white house, at least as the GOP's pick, for many years if ever. Jonathan

Didn't you support Ron Paul?

I dunno, at this moment I think he is the best choice to be president in 2016 out of both parties precisely because you know where he stands on people. It's hard to keep a good man hidden to long, regardless what party he belongs to. I think hes a good man, damn glad to have him as a fellow American.


Still, 2016 is so far away, the whole world will change 20 times before we ever get there.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 01-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by FieroBobo: I find your statement shocking and disturbing, devoid of any compassion or empathy. It appears you are as cold and heartless as Ebenezer Scrooge. Your attitude towards others is certainly not that of a good Christian. <snip>

See, this is the problem. I don't believe anyone owes me anything, or vice versa. I don't believe that my bad luck should be anyone else's problem, nor should theirs be mine. Under the current circumstances, I can't say I would *want* FEMA assistance, but since my tax dollars go towards it, I wouldn't refuse it. Although as I stated earlier, our house (and about a hundred others in our area) flooded some years ago and neither FEMA nor the Red Cross were anywhere to be found.
The fact is, in my opinion, your attitude is far less "Christian" than mine. You condone *forcing* people to pay money they may not have into a program that only a few people benefit from. That's not charity, it's socialism, and you get no points for generosity for that. It doesn't make you charitable by any stretch of the definition, so don't go trying to claim that it somehow makes you superior or more "Christian". Robin Hood was still nothing more than a thief.
I can assure you, when it comes to charities and voluntarism, I would be happy to compare my accomplishments with yours. I'm quite selfless and generous when it comes to time talent and treasure that I contribute and donate when it's of my own free will. Just today I was recognized during our service by our minister for my contributions to our church. I do free work out of my shop all the time, and on occasion, when someone has said they can't afford something, I've been known to ask "what can you afford?" So you should be very careful about the assumptions you make. Just because I prefer to be able to choose where my charitable and altruistic efforts go doesn't mean I don't make ANY, it just means I prefer to choose, and every f***ing dollar that is taken without my consent is a dollar I can't direct towards something I do believe in. Holding a gun to my head and forcing me to give to something I don't agree with, nor believe in, will be met with resistance every time.

Taijiguy,

I just saw your post responding to mine.
I want to respond, but its late and I'm too tired to think straight, and I think you deserve an intellegent answer.
I think we could have an interesting discussion.
I will print and read your post carefully before I respond.

~ Bob ~

quote Originally posted by FieroBobo: Taijiguy, I have read your post and given it a fair amount of thought. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree. #1 As a member of a civil society I feel that I have some obiglations to support that society, and I believe that society has some sort of responsibility to help me in a time of need. I also believe the idea that one should, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So, I will reach out and help my fellow citizens in their time of need, and I don't mind that it comes out of the taxes that I pay. #2 I did not claim to be superior or more christian than you, or any one else for that matter. I just try to treat the people that I interact with with dignity and respect. #3 With regard to Robin Hood being just a thief, you are correct according to the letter of the law. However I think that his heart was in the right place and I'm fairly sure that Jesus would approve of his actions. I'm sorry if my original response to you post angered or upset you. I'm a firm believer in the idea of, "Live and let live." So you have your opinion and perspective, and I have mine. They don't match up, but then, they don't have to. Take care of yourself. Be well. Enjoy life. ~ Bob ~

1. So exactly how much of what I earn are you or anyone else entitled to in order to satisfy that "obligation"? If the government wasn't doing the dirty work, would you still feel the same way? Since by your own admission, we all have this "obligation", then I assume you would have no issue breaking into your neighbor's house in order to get what you need, right? If not, what's the difference? (aside from not having to get your hands dirty) Do you think that if left to voluntarily help those in need, that the people of the country wouldn't deliver?

2. As for "dignity and respect", I wonder how you can possibly feel you're treating people that way when you're essentially supporting a program that robs them of the things they rightfully earn and own? Those things seem quite contradictory to me. It seems trusting them to do the right thing, and leaving the decision on what they can afford, would be much more in line with "dignity and respect". Encouraging the government to take from others so you can have what you want seems neither dignified, nor respectful.

3. And I don't recall Jesus ever condoning thievery of any kind, or denying anyone of their rightful belongings. And if you believe Jesus would approve of that kind of action, I would say you completely don't understand what Jesus' message really was.

I appreciate your considerate response, but like most who support any form of redistribution, there can't be any real justification. How anyone can with any degree of conviction justify the forcible confiscation of others' property for their own wants is beyond my comprehension. You're right, we definitely disagree.

On a side note....with regard to my assertion that emergency management should be moved to the private sector, I just stumbled on this and thought it was a good representation of what I was talking about:


The fed will never be able to respond like the private sector, mainly because there's no incentive, they get your money whether they respond quickly or not.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 01-09-2013).]

I've been watching him since he doesn't seem to be constrained by lock step party thinking, but I'm a little disturbed by his backing, lobbyists in particular. I'm not saying that politicians are beholden to those whose support they receive, but I do think that it does have some effect on their decisions. We shall see!

quote Originally posted by dratts: I'm not saying that politicians are beholden to those whose support they receive, but I do think that it does have some effect on their decisions.

Do you believe politicians should represent the will of the people they serve? I do.
The question is then how they know what that will is. I agree many lobbys are going to the extreme, but at it's core it's a group of people paid to present certain views and opinions to the politicians.

If you support green energy, you might be a member of Greenpeace, who represents your views to your representatives.

Organizations like Greenpeace, NOW, NRA, NAACP, etc. are all made up of people with shared views and those groups lobby representatives on their behalf.
The alternative is for each individual to make their 1 voice known on each and every issue, and that doesn't work very well in practice. How often do you talk to or write your representatives? Most people don't even know who their reps are. But it's much easier to join a group you believe in and cut them a check to support their effort to make your views known in D.C.

I'm not saying it's not abused or without fault. But it has it's place.