[B]Move the US capital to Kansas City[/B] - Page 2

piercehawkeye45 · 01-19-2007, 10:11 PM

I don't think it would be that effective. The security would be the biggest problem, you can't just move that.

Toymented · 01-19-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't think it would be that effective. The security would be the biggest problem, you can't just move that.

You've got me puzzled on this point, ph. How can you say the security is immobile when the president, senators and reps travel extensively?

piercehawkeye45 · 01-19-2007, 10:41 PM

Do you think that the the SS doesn't have a complete layout of Washington DC and know everyplace that a sniper could hide and every weakness in its infrastructure? They would have to rework the whole system every eight years or so, which would be a huge pain in the ass.

Toymented · 01-19-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

[wet blanket]You will lose any efficiency the federal government ever had if you have to re-staff the entire freaking thing every 8 years and train the new employees on what their jobs are. The lobbyists will still follow the money to the new government city. Each capital city will go through terrible growing pains followed suddenly by a horrible economic depression.[/wet blanket]

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Do you think that the the SS doesn't have a complete layout of Washington DC and know everyplace that a sniper could hide and every weakness in its infrastructure? They would have to rework the whole system every eight years or so, which would be a huge pain in the ass.

Alright, let's make it a permanent move. The seat of government should be centrally located in the country, not isolated on one coast.

Happy Monkey · 01-19-2007, 10:59 PM

That was the idea when DC was originally placed. It's irrelevant now, though. California congressman's jet lag isn't worth the hassle of moving...

Toymented · 01-19-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That was the idea when DC was originally placed. It's irrelevant now, though. California congressman's jet lag isn't worth the hassle of moving...

The issue is bigger than relieving some congressional jetlag. It could impact the interests of the country's heartland, which are now largely ignored. If it was a valid argument 230 or so years ago, why then is the location of the capital unimportant now?

Happy Monkey · 01-19-2007, 11:17 PM

Because of global communications technology.

Toymented · 01-19-2007, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because of global communications technology.

Communications are improved, no doubt about that. But it's still not the same as living and working there. The exposure to the environment and people would create a positive influence.

Happy Monkey · 01-20-2007, 12:02 AM

It doesn't matter where the capitol is, the same people will still be elected to go there. And it's not like working in DC made them particularly interested in DC's problems.

tw · 01-20-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't think it would be that effective. The security would be the biggest problem, you can't just move that.

If Saddam can have mobile biological labs, then why can we not have a mobile zoo?

piercehawkeye45 · 01-20-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

If Saddam can have mobile biological labs, then why can we not have a mobile zoo?

Somehow I think our moblie "zoo" will need more internal security than Saddam's biological labs.

tw · 01-20-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Somehow I think our moblie "zoo" will need more internal security than Saddam's biological labs.

True. Our's leaks more. Even a CIA agent in Kansas City would not be safe.

yesman065 · 01-20-2007, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Somehow I think our moblie "zoo" will need more internal security than Saddam's biological labs.

Obviously Saddams security wasn't too good - look where it got him.

Toymented · 01-20-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Somehow I think our moblie "zoo" will need more internal security than Saddam's biological labs.

OK ph, since you won't let the security thing go. I say the solution is "surge" Kansas City! That way, we'll make it secure for both citizens and public servants.

Griff · 01-20-2007, 07:50 AM

Couldn't we just outsource the Feds to Mexico?

01-19-2007, 10:59 PM	#20
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	That was the idea when DC was originally placed. It's irrelevant now, though. California congressman's jet lag isn't worth the hassle of moving... __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-19-2007, 11:17 PM	#22
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Because of global communications technology. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-20-2007, 12:02 AM	#24
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	It doesn't matter where the capitol is, the same people will still be elected to go there. And it's not like working in DC made them particularly interested in DC's problems. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-20-2007, 07:50 AM	#30
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Couldn't we just outsource the Feds to Mexico? __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

01-19-2007, 10:11 PM	#16
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	I don't think it would be that effective. The security would be the biggest problem, you can't just move that.

01-19-2007, 10:41 PM	#18
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Do you think that the the SS doesn't have a complete layout of Washington DC and know everyplace that a sniper could hide and every weakness in its infrastructure? They would have to rework the whole system every eight years or so, which would be a huge pain in the ass.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)