Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by Mike Stark on February 23, 2010 at 1:15pm

Comment by Mike Stark on February 22, 2010 at 1:26pm

Comment by ctyankee on February 20, 2010 at 2:09pm

Mr. Smith goes to Washington -- Jimmy Stewart
The Distinguished Gentleman -- Eddie Murphy
Wag the Dog -- Dustin Hoffman
Man of the Year -- Robin Williams
Dave -- Kevin Kline

How is it that we've been able to see the corruption in DC for so long and fail to react to it?

Comment by Mike Stark on February 20, 2010 at 8:42am

Brewster's Millions definitely goes into the Netflix queue. I think I'll put Bulworth in as well, as I never saw that. Any other movies I should watch with a "throw the bums out" feel?

Comment by ctyankee on February 19, 2010 at 8:58pm

Richard Pryor's examination of "None of the above" in "Brewster's Millions" was eye opening!!! Too bad most folks forgot the lesson.

Comment by Kirk Brooks on February 19, 2010 at 5:56pm

True Pat, the Courts did overturn the voters in states that imposed term limits at the ballot box, but it still applies that unless it's nationwide it will do more harm than good.

Comment by Mike Stark on February 19, 2010 at 5:23pm

Truman always got a huge chuckle out of the fact that the 22nd Amendment prohibited Ike from running against Kennedy. I'm not a fan, voting the bums out is the way.

I also had a Russian friend in grad school who gloated that he could vote for "none of the above", and if "none of the above" won they would chuck out all the candidates and start over.

In practice, Putin had things under control (for him) -- but I do like the concept.

Comment by ctyankee on February 19, 2010 at 1:02pm

I appreciate the issue of retiring "good" representatives, but the lame duck issue... these folks would have to return to their districts and be subject to the repercussions of "angry neighbors" -- just like the boards of condos and other organizations that limit the terms of those with power.

Yes it's true that the people are *theoretically* the best qualified to determine who represents them... but that was before the moochers and the parasites took over the government.

A 10 term Congressman in 1790 was a an Elder Statesman -- today he's an opportunistic pile of {dog squeeze} -- hardly a fair return on investment of what the voters are entitled to or should expect... but accurate nonetheless!

Comment by Kirk Brooks on February 19, 2010 at 10:03am

The reason term limits have never worked well in the past is because it isn't an "Across the board" imposition of the limits. Some states have tried to impose limits but they just end up short changing themselves when other/larger states aren't using term limits and end up accruing more power by building seniority and lacing the more powerful committees with their own people.

Comment by ctyankee on February 19, 2010 at 8:24am

They put up with him because he;s the incumbent. There is no other reason! Take this group for example -- we're more likely to support a candidate that says good things about the military -- as if there are no *outside* candidates that support the armed forces.

How many folks have said: "We have to fire 434 of those bums in Congress, but my guy seems OK."? We've been programmed to think that way an the politicos ***LOVE*** that little-bit-o-brainwashing.

I realize that imposing term limits on the *few* legislators might occasionally punish a district. But the House & Senate did impose that restriction on the Executive -- "what's good for the goose is..." or "do as I say, not..."

I think it's a small price to pay to sacrifice the handful of good congressmen for the piece of mind we'd gain by imposing term limits. One the flood gates are burst and *citizens* realize that going to DC is an opportunity of limited duration with a clear exit strategy, we'll get more and better segments of the American population instead of the bottom-feeding parasites that are seeking a comfortable and lifelong security blanket with power perks and influence!

In the grand scheme I'd rather support slobbering Barney and those like him at or on a level of "welfare benefits" than on the "congressional pension" social program!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 84
• 85
• 86
• 87
• 88
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page