<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Firing Offense" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/846]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Queen0fCups]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1866453]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Romney is a states rights guy, so I would not be surprised if he would refrain from prosecuting them. I really don't know what political advantage there is for Obama to prosecute dispensaries. Who benefits from that? It occurs to me that it benefits the already illegal traffickers. Why would Obama choose to help the cartels? Just a thought. How ironic he is exporting more jobs.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCDTE_Rrdrd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1866453]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from KoutyTory]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1862677]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Pay attention to this post earlier this time!so good news in your articles.
If you want to know more news about me...come to http://www.mmohome.com/!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1862677]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from BobNL]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1849534]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Well, you have to admit that the piece on mediaite is kinda funny:

&quot;Thus, the premise of Adamsâ€™ endorsement is that President Obama has been too tough on medical marijuana dispensaries, but Mitt Romney will be better because he sucks so much. Or something like that. Also, the President kinda killed a guy, but not really. But he totally killed a guy:&quot; (then comes a quote from your blog)

To me, this shows that mediaite is more entertainment  then information. Which also goes for yourself, as you have repeatedly said. So the bunch of you are fighting eachother for our entertainment, that's what I get out of it.

So all of this is entertainment, not information, and we're all better off voting for Obama (allthough this last remark will bring me the thumbs down).]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1849534]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Ardent_Eccentric]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1848224]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I wouldn't be surprised if the legalization of marijuana becomes a hot, states rites issue the next few years. Out in colorado we have  a amendment that legalizes marijuana throughout the whole state. Not quite sure it will pass, but if it does i'm curious how it will pan out with the feds...

We have a  moderate democrat governor John Hickenlooper, who I hope,  just might put up a bit of  a stink with the federal government meddling with dispensers out here.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCDTE_Rrdrd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1848224]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Fallout2man]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1847253]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[No, the problem is that it can be the tipping point without it ever registering to the Media, the Candidates, or the general public as the issue that became the tipping point. People love to rationalize their biases, and that means exit polls may or may not reflect people's real reasons for voting. I mean, we wouldn't have the Bradley Effect as a known issue if we didn't understand humankind's fundamental capacity for self-deception and delusion.

You as a cartoonist and creator of a major media franchise reach a lot of people. This is just like celebrity endorsements, it shouldn't matter, but it will, and worse yet people will lie about why they voted because nobody wants to be caught saying: &quot;I let my favorite cartoonist determine my vote! Nope, don't really think about it much further, Scott Adams' blog, that's it.&quot; So you owe it to your audience I'd think to at least be honest about the reasons for your endorsement.

As in, the reasons you gave do not jive with an a reality-based assessment of Republicans in government from 2001-now. Your analogy is a poor attempt at disguising a moral proposition as a rational consideration, and the real-world example you then bring in to breathe life into this hypothetical is one of the worst cases of false equivalency I've seen. Apparently nobody remembers what the DOJ was like under Bush. Do I need to cite examples?

I'm not faulting you for getting the wrong guy elected. I have no qualms with you endorsing who you want, but I do very much take issue with someone using false equivalencies, hasty generalizations and other logical fallacies to torture logic into fitting their latest convenient rationalization. I don't know what drives you or what really moves you to say the things you do, but it certainly isn't the facts. As long as that's made obvious then more power to you. :)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1847253]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Fallout2man]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846976]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[Rant 2]Also, just to clear things up regarding this &quot;Firing Offense&quot; mess:

Your hypothetical sounds like a great platitude but let's get real here. Deterrents exist for a reason and are not some high-horsed moral proposition like you make it sound. Yes it would be Nice if it were as simple as having a policy of firing people who did illegal things. In fact, the economy might not be in the gutter if Wall Street had fired people forging documents instead of institutionalizing the process that created and crashed the real-estate bubble.

Sadly, that does not happen in the real world and it doesn't for a reason. Actions have consequences, and if you want to do something you need to be prepared for the blowback. Wall street for instance just lied and tried to cover up its illegal acts and when we found out? The CEOs laughed all the way back to their bank headquarters after lying to congress, getting bailed out with 16T in loans, being able to keep robosigning foreclosures and issuing the latest round of bonuses and getting away with it like a bandit.

We could've nationalized the banks, and done things like Iceland (who by the way has seen a record recovery in their economy after 2008, unlike much of the rest of the world.) but we didn't because the consequences of Citizen's United means that the people doing illegal things, because of how rich they are, were able to buy a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

How is this relevant to the hypothetical? Because in the real world the board would do just that and carry on it's merry way unless the CEO had murdered someone in a way they obviously couldn't cover up and fire the CEO only if they knew his secret would make it out.

The real world does not operate on high-minded ideals and no, the jails are not there to punish the mean criminals because we believe in hurting those who hurt us. At best Jail is meant to be a deterrent, it's meant to be bad but it's not meant to be torture. You know why? Because even if it was torture it wouldn't stop people committing crimes, wouldn't make a dent on recidivism, and wouldn't make anyone safer. All it does is make people who get off on torture giddy that someone is locked up and on the metaphoric rack somewhere.

So while in your mind it may be as simple as &quot;I morally object to that action, I'll vote Republican in protest!&quot; as my previous post outlined at some length, this is pure cutting off your nose to spite your face territory. Standards of Presidential behavior are not going to change because of your &quot;Firing offenses.&quot; You will elect a political party who takes your vote to mean &quot;I agree with the entirity of the official party platform and consign myself to be brow-beaten into line with cries of RINO or be ejected from the party should I speak or act in any manner contrary to this.&quot; and strategically vote against the only party standing in the way of Private Prisons.

What was that? Romney pragmatic on Drugs? Hah! Tell that to the Corrections Corporation of America. They spent 45 million lobbying Republicans (like Boddy Jindal in Louisiana) this year to adopt Private prison systems which create perverse incentives in our legal system. As the state will be contractually required to fill jails up to a certain percentage to keep their contracts. You want to talk about firing offenses? Compare the jailing of a few MMJ providers to the jailing of what could be hundreds of thousands for that and more if states keep privatizing their prisons.

Still, the right to vote is sacred and each American can cast their ballot for whomever they want for whichever reason they want. But Scott, please stop pretending this is in any way a rational matter. You are voting based on your emotions, and I'd have had a lot more respect for you if you just said that from the start instead of trying to disguise it in pseudo-intellectual trappings meant to give this whole thing a respectable veneer.

Republicans have comitted more firing offenses, they will not be softer on drugs, Romney has to pander to a paranoid Tea Party, and the reality of your hypothetical is that it never ends in a &quot;Firing offense&quot; in the real world, because actions have consequences.[/Rant 2]

[You think I'm voting? You must be new. 

But to your point, in the highly unlikely event that this issue becomes the tipping point that determines the outcome of a close election, I would expect every candidate from here on out to avoid this same landmine out of self-interest. And if this issue doesn't change the result, you can't blame me for getting the wrong guy elected. -- Scott]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846976]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Fallout2man]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846833]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[Rant]Okay Scott, I get what you're saying, you're so big on this one issue you'd rather &quot;Take a gamble&quot; with Romney than risk Obama who you know needs to appear &quot;Tough on Crime.&quot; It sounds a little bit like what you're professing is: &quot;Since only Nixon can go to China, Vote Republican!&quot;

And you know I'd kind of agree with you if I hadn't spent a lot of time following politics post 2008. I'll be the first to admit I have many reservations about Obama, his handling of the banking crisis (no one goes to jail?! GOLDMAN SACHS ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BOARD LIED UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS! PERJURY! And they don't go to Jail for that OR crashing the economy?!), the CIA drone program, and the killing of Anwar Al Awaki, as well as the continuation of the warrant-less wiretapping program.

However, that being said given the context of his opposition we only have two strategic choices worth voting for in any given national election. Nixon could go to China, and Eisenhower could stare down the Soviets because at the end of the day neither we nor they literally wanted to die in a firey ball of Atomic death. There was a core interest both nations shared and despite partisanship that remained.

This however goes much deeper than foreign policy, while yes Obama could issue a few executive orders and he had attempted to tamper down the DOJ's priority on prosecuting Medical Marijuana, the same authority that Romney has. However you're either being naively optimistic (To think the forces that animate Romney would allow him to be softer on the war on drugs) or immensely myopic (in theory Romney might, through no intentional effort, slightly reduce the amount of resources devoted to the war on drugs to other projects. However odds are it would be so minor a change as to make the difference barely perceptible to the nation.)

So you're either over-estimating what Romney's &quot;pragmatism&quot; may allow, or you are myopically valuing that tiny 0.0001% change in current policy over every other issue in this election. Just as PBS only takes up a fraction of the nation's budget (running for a year on what it costs to run the pentagon for six hours) a Romney DOJ will most likely only de-allocate resources towards the war on drugs if he puts those officers on monitoring protesters like Occupy, and so-called &quot;anti-terror&quot; initiatives where we have agencies like the FBI attempting to infiltrate and incite acts of terror within Muslim communities to add points to their &quot;terror plots foiled' scorecards.

Indeed, if there is anything this Presidential election has taught us about what Mitt Romney truly believes, there is one thing we can say for certain. He believes he should be president, he's running for office for Pete's sake he'd better! But that translates in having to appeal to the rabid Tea-Party base, who as of right now control the better part of the Republican party through the house. These are people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, or Gov. Jan Brewer who want &quot;Papers Please&quot; laws and are about as hard on drugs as Battetoads is on your thumbs.

Mitt Romney depends on THOSE constituents to get elected, they are by definition HIS BASE. And they will in the event of his election compose his house and quite possibly his Senate as well. These are people who believe women can't get pregnant from being raped (Todd Akin), who believe Evolution and modern biology are &quot;lies straight from the pitt of Hell&quot; (Paul Broun), people who believe the DOJ should spend time not just jailing Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Hell these are people who think the DOJ SHOULD PUT !$%*!$%*!$%*! IN JAIL. (Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachmann) I mean, some !$%* is pretty slimy, but jail time, for offending someone, really? Thes

These are people who think you should be free to stage for-profit-dogfights (Steve King), but that women can't be trusted to decide what they want to do with their own bodies without first being further-violated by a potentially probing trans-vaginal ultrasound (Bob McDonnel/Paul Ryan.) These are people who think Sodomy should be legal, that Rape only counts if it fits their definition of &quot;Forcible Rape&quot; and they have actually tried to pass as much in bills (Paul Ryan.)

So let me get this straight Scott...You have faith, in THOSE sorts of people to be pragmatic on Drugs? Because they are the ones who will put legislation on any President Romney's desk. They are the people a President Romney will need to woo for a second term. They view compromise as weakness, education with great suspicion, and are animated by enough pure rage that they and their values are not reflected in the congress that they damaged our nation's credit rating last year during the Debt Ceiling fiasco.

A fiasco that only occurred because ONE PARTY made it an issue due to lock-step intransigence. They were ready to let the nation go bankrupt, not just Detroit, if we didn't drastically slash domestic spending. Let that sink in too, because they're welching on their original Defense sequester (that is, trying to, they may not pass the repeal of the cuts but they've made obvious they will if allowed.) and want to replace it with still further cuts to programs which help the poorest among us.

Oh, and they don't care as much about electability either. Throwing out people like Dick Lugar for working with Obama once, or electing Christine O'Donnell in their primary despite her near zero chance to win her general election (which she did lose.) The only reason these people even chose Mitt Romney was due to this messed up primary season being filled with candidates whose campaigns literally imploded. Bachmann believes children get autism from Vaccines and that the government puts LSD in the drinking water, Cain was a serial philanderer, Rick Perry just couldn't handle being asked questions, Gingritch is still as corrupt and bombastic as all hell, Pawlenty is Jan Brady, and Huntsman was just too darned moderate for them Tea Partiers. The entire primary cycle was the TP trying to find a &quot;Not Mitt Romney&quot; to defeat him, and they failed. This has forced Romney to be schizophrenic during the general, making statements he regularly has to walk back because the Tea Party doesn't trust him and wants him to make clear he's conserva-mitt and not Governer-Romneycare Mitt, who once was pro-choice but now supports both the Blunt amendment and a federal person-hood amendment just like the ones even Mississippi shot down.

They negotiate in bad faith, they lie about the facts, they are pioneering a new taking-statements-out-of-context industry this campaign-ad-season (And yes, Democrats do this as well but not to anywhere near the sheer mendacity of the GOP or Romney-Campaign nor in anywhere near the volume.), they hate science, they hate drugs, they get all of their ideas from think-tanks run by billionaires looking to find a new way to disguise their &quot;fellate-the-rich&quot; economic neoliberalism as valid 21st century public policy, and THESE are the people you expect to allow a more Mitt Romney to be more pragmatic on drugs?

Yeah, only if that's because the DOJ is too busy throwing Muslims, !$%*ographers and protesters in jail to net a 0.1% reduction in busts for pot. These are our two strategic choices this election. I'll be the first to say I hate having my major choices on things like public policy reduced to a binary decision (or rather series of binary decisions between two political parties, a few local non-partisan offices and California Ballot measures). I certainly don't feel well represented by Democrats on a whole, but the current election system leaves no other option if one wants to actually get things done. I have a suggestion for you Scott, next election season instead of attempting to make a case for voting Republicans into office why don't you participate in the primaries?

The only way we'll get better people with better positions elected is if people get involved early and attempt to change things from within. The more anti-drug-war congresspeople we have, the better.[/Rant]]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846833]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from SeanNY]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846832]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Although I believe that States should outlaw drugs including marijuana, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal government.  If the people of the State of California want to make marijuana (or any other drugs) legal or illegal, that is their right under the US Constituion in two ways:

1.  There is no provision in the US Constitution giving the Federal government authority in these matters, and the Federal government is a government of limited jurisdiction.  If they haven't recieved explicit authority over a particular subject then they have no authority to legislate in that area.

2.  As if that were not clear enough, the 10th Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Where in the US Constitution did the States delegate to the federal government the authority over drugs?

The answer is: nowhere.  That's why it took a Constitutional AMENDMENT to ban alcohol.  Congress could not have just passed a law to ban it because they didn't have the power to do so.

Neither George Bush nor Barack Obama ever showed a shred of concern for the 10th Amendment.  Bush administration DEA agents arrested Angel Raisch for having medical marijuana in his home and then the Bush administration argued tot he Supreme court that the arrest was valid under the Commerce Clasue, the same clause that is used to justify EVERY unconstitutional encroachment by the Federal government (including Obamacare).  Sadly the Supreme Court has sided with the federal government (of wich they are a part) nearly ever time.

In the debate (when talking about Obamacare) Romney specifically objected tot he federal government's &quot;whisking aside the 10th Amendment,&quot; so yes I think Scott is spot on with his analysis.  if anyone is going to leave the people of teh State of California to make their own choices, it is not Barack Obama, it was not george Bush, it will be Mitt Romney]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846832]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from BarbaraDarlin]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846567]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, you are far too intelligent to choose a President based on only one issue.

The World is a very big place and the one issue you chose is so small in the grand scheme of things.

I don't agree with the crack down on marijuana. 

However, I'm much more concerned about who wants to bring us another war, who really has an economic plan, who will be choosing the next Supreme Court Justice, who will care about all citizens, etc.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846567]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846433]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@alexegz

...Where have you been the past four years?  You don't even have to look to find Obamabashing all around you.  Scott has been Obamabashing here since Wednesday.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846433]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from JustStoppingBy]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846432]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Thanks for playing &quot;Conservative For A Day.&quot; 

The game where liberals learn what it's like to be on the receiving end of the &quot;progressive&quot; media.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846432]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from alexegz30]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846419]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I, for one am grateful the O man is on his way out.  We had 8 years of president bashing from both sides which sometimes made sense and other times not, but with Pres B, all I hear are excuses.  We are supposed to hold the big guy responsible for problems that come along.  Was there an oil spill?  Anyone care?  How many terrorist attacks took place?  Were there any?  How about the cost of living?  Anyone notice?  Am I the only one struggling?  I remember hearing the old Clinton lady shouting about how we are American and have a right to criticize any president of any administration to a cheering crowd.

I'm waiting to sigh with relief when I can see that again - when Romney is in office.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846419]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MarkCWarner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846216]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Apologies for the multiple post. Evidently an issue with my connection, if I could remove the duplicates I would]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846216]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from JLHmpls]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846212]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Why can I only see my comment when logged in?  Does Scott have to approve comments for them to appear?  I guess that would set a minimum intelligence level to post, as well as a maximum.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846212]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MarkCWarner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846185]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133577n&amp;tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846185]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MarkCWarner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846184]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133577n&amp;tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846184]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MarkCWarner]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846183]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133577n&amp;tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rndnd]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1846183]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from MugaSofer]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1844690]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I didn't think the company should fire the CEO. Why should they? There job is to choose the most effective possible CEO. To do otherwise is to reduce the amount of money they will make. SO naturally your analogy takes on a somewhat different tone for me - are you willing to accept a president who will actively harm America, in order to punish someone for pragmatically furthering his political career? If you want to argue Romney will, in fact, be a better president, that's an entirely different matter.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunPMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1844690]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from EtherGnat]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1844122]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@KingFisher

A person who strays too far from the wishes of the people who elected him will soon find himself without a job. All I'm saying is there is no necessity for a politician to vote the will of the constituency on every single issue. 

Assuming I was crazy enough to run for office I'd make it very clear that if they elect me I intend to vote my conscience, and I'd do my best to convey what my value system and beliefs are so people could make an informed decision. I would certainly listen to my constituency, but I would never vote for something I find immoral or unjust even if 90% of my voters were for it. If that's a problem for somebody they're welcome to never vote for me in the first place, and they're certainly welcome not to vote me back into office if I was elected. 

Not that I could ever get elected anyway. Voters seem to have an aversion to the truth and I'm not much of one for lying.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1844122]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kingfisher]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843507]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@ EtherGnat

Democracy by representation is not about opinion polls (that's no better than a direct democracy - which doesn't work)  But it does require an elected representitive to be in tune with his constituents.  Not every issue comes up in an election, and even if it did - some are considered more important than others.

There is an attitude at all levels of government that I feel is very bad - that being elected gives a person a mandate to do everything they campaigned on.  So lets say that I ran a successful campaign on platform stressing one issue in particular that is important to voters - like the economy.  Does this give me the right to pursue my pet policies that my constituents aren't crazy about?

An elected dictator is still a dictator.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843507]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
