Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

It makes you thankful that presidents are limited to two terms.

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

I agree. We need to stop giving these people lifetime paid vacations in DC.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

They already have it. 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators, unless the citizens of the respective states use their constitutional authority and re-elect them.

We may not agree with the decisions of the voting public, but I really don't want to place more restrictions on our dwindling civil rights.

Realize that the term "term limitations" really means that the government is telling the citizens who they can and can't vote for in an election. Is this really what we want?

A better solution is to educate the citizens so that they make informed decisions when it comes to voting. It is not an easy solution, but one I believe is the best.

Term limitations for congress sounds attractive as a short term solution, but I fear that it may be a cure worse than the disease.

What we really want is term limitations for those members we don't like, but no term limitations for those members we do like.

I don't like term limitations for the president, but I understand the historical and practical differences between a president and a member of congress.

Given the choice of one or the other, I would rather eliminate term limitations for elected positions.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

They already have it. 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators, unless the citizens of the respective states use their constitutional authority and re-elect them.

If they are still electable then there is no real term limit is there?

We may not agree with the decisions of the voting public, but I really don't want to place more restrictions on our dwindling civil rights.

Career politicians are one reason why our civil rights are dwindling.

Realize that the term "term limitations" really means that the government is telling the citizens who they can and can't vote for in an election. Is this really what we want?

I don't see it that way. Term limitations exist to limit or reduce power and corruption in the government. There is something inherently wrong when one can say that presidents come and go, but some congressman are always there. It's a good ole boys club on capital hill, and many times, they act in a way that is summarized as "I know what's best for you". That in my view, is dictatorial.

A better solution is to educate the citizens so that they make informed decisions when it comes to voting. It is not an easy solution, but one I believe is the best.

That is part of the solution, but not "the" solution. Sometimes I don't know what is worse, the politicians, or the idiots who elected them.

Term limitations for congress sounds attractive as a short term solution, but I fear that it may be a cure worse than the disease.

I strongly disagree here. Term limits are part of a long term solution to put the government back in control of "We the people", in this fast fading constitutional republic. We need to irraticate the truth that we have the best government money can buy, and getting rid of career Politicans is part of that solution. We do not need the situation where public officials can be bought and paid for in order to maintain power of office; which coincidentally makes voting, more often then not, illusionary.

What we really want is term limitations for those members we don't like, but no term limitations for those members we do like.

Can't do that without having a double standard. I think one standard will do, besides, resting our well being on the shoulders of an aging politician sounds like a very bad idea to me.

I don't like term limitations for the president, but I understand the historical and practical differences between a president and a member of congress.

Speaking of historical contexts of No term limits, "President for life" or "Congressman for life" is no different then "Dictator for life". Power corrupts, its a truth as sure as we are human.

Given the choice of one or the other, I would rather eliminate term limitations for elected positions.

I think you'd be trying to put a fire out with gasoline by doing so. We need congressional term limits, and we needed them yesterday. We don't need anymore Feinstien's or McCain's.

[Platapus]

I don't see how having "amateur" members of congress will automatically be an improvement.

If a congresscritter knows he or she only has short time in office, what is to prevent them from just doing what will benefit them in the short term and then leave the problems to the next "amateur"?

It is not the length of the term/terms that is the problem. The problem is the person.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Now if we can only get the same limitation imposed upon congress.

I wanted to spam a ton of positive emoticons as a response.


Ok I cannot help myself.

: sunny::su bsim:

Congress and the house, and its elementary schoolyard bickering is why this country is fast approaching Nigeria, in political integrity.

If we didn't have a large army we would be as much of a joke on the world stage as N korea.

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Congress and the house, and its elementary schoolyard bickering is why this country is fast approaching Nigeria, in political integrity.

If we didn't have a large army we would be as much of a joke on the world stage as N korea.

Those are two countries which also have the death penalty, you should be happy at becoming like them soopa.
N.Korea also has a larger army, it doesn't stop it from being a joke though.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't see how having "amateur" members of congress will automatically be an improvement.

If a congresscritter knows he or she only has short time in office, what is to prevent them from just doing what will benefit them in the short term and then leave the problems to the next "amateur"?

It is not the length of the term/terms that is the problem. The problem is the person.

I would say that it is partially because of the length of terms and near unlimited time to hold the power of office, is one reason why we get the people we do in office. I've heard all the "amature" and "continuity" arguments before and I am unconvinced. I would give senator's like Feinstien as a great example why. The power someone like her wields through committee is frightening, and she or someone like her is at the center of our dwindling civil rights and liberties. Furthermore, the longer someone is part of the washington club, the more locked in to party politiics and ideology they seem to become.

Overall, all arguments considered, I think a maximum of 4 two year terms for a Representative, and a maximum of 2 six year terms for a Senator, is quite reasonable.

[soopaman2]

You forgot the power the California wicked witch of the west, Nancy Pelosi has, despite not being in charge anymore.

It reminds me of an Eddie Murphy movie, called the distinguished Gentleman,. He was a con man, who got himself elected because he shared a name with the old congressman who died, he preyed on idiots who pull the lever based on habit, and not education. Funny enough, this happened in Florida, long before the Bush Brothers election rigging debacle.

This is the main problem, partisan nonsense.


"Well,we always vote Jefferson"

movie quote.


Except in real life, the conman never has a change of heart.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

There's a whole litany of things he said in the past, and then did the exact opposite later. If one is bored, look around youtube, it's well documented on video. After all the reversals, i have come to the reasonable (yes reasonable) conclusion that If Obama says one thing, expect a high likelihood of the opposite of what he said to happen.

This is particularly frightening because of how quickly people are to forget how much of a malcontent and hypocrite this man really is. Not to mention the people behind him pulling the strings such as Valerie Jarrett and George Soros.

Liberals just don't get it and it's amazing how blind they are, in particular their blind hatred of traditionalist American values. It's getting to the point where even some of the most hardcore Liberals are calling out Obama, that's extremely sad.

[Tchocky]

There was a great influx of new faces after the 2010 House elections, people who campaigned on not being Washington insiders, having new ideas and an outside-the-Beltway perspective.



That worked out............great.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

There was a great influx of new faces after the 2010 House elections, people who campaigned on not being Washington insiders, having new ideas and an outside-the-Beltway perspective.



That worked out............great.

Oh, but it did work. The Tea Party revolution of 2010 brought....holy cow! The ordinary citizen back to the forefront. Liberals and establishment Republicans alike despise and dismiss the Tea Party because they are a threat to the status quo. What those people call 'crazy' I call 'realists'.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Admiral Lutjens

Oh, but it did work. The Tea Party revolution of 2010 brought....holy cow! The ordinary citizen back to the forefront. Liberals and establishment Republicans alike despise and dismiss the Tea Party because they are a threat to the status quo. What those people call 'crazy' I call 'realists'.

Er, no. Unless you define "working" as "making themselves look terrible and accomplish nothing".

Which I suppose might be the end goal of electing people to offices they don't believe should exist at all.


The ordinary citizens preferred cockroaches to the 112th Congress. Least productive and most disliked in history.


EDIT - What exactly was the "Tea Party Revolution". What changed? Aside from the aforementioned holy cow.

[Admiral Lutjens]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Er, no. Unless you define "working" as "making themselves look terrible and accomplish nothing".

Which I suppose might be the end goal of electing people to offices they don't believe should exist at all.


The ordinary citizens preferred cockroaches to the 112th Congress. Least productive and most disliked in history.


EDIT - What exactly was the "Tea Party Revolution". What changed? Aside from the aforementioned holy cow.

When Harry Reid refuses to allow legislation to pass through, nothing gets accomplished. If any anger should be directed at anybody, it should be at him. Liberals know nothing other than "take, take, take" and "mine, mine, mine", and when you have politicians that benefit off of this - both politically and financially (fun fact: there's far more millionaires in Congress on the left, than there is the right).

Why is that? Simple...Liberal Democrats control nearly every major city and brainwash and pit the less-well off folks against the better off folks because that's how the left consolidates their power. I mean look at these numbskulls....Jerry Brown, Cuomo, Bloomberg, de Blasio....there's a reason why this country is turning into a joke. They also control the media, the entertainment industry, the edumacation system....

The goal is to turn people into drones and keep them naive, because when someone is kept naive, they are able to be controlled with that carrot at the end of the stick.

In regards to the Tea Party, people rose up and elected candidates that they felt represented the individual. I'm for anybody that's anti-political establishment, because those are the nutjobs that are running our society into the ground. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz get deemed as nuts because people are perplexed that these folks have the gall to take on the big money establishment, whether it be Democratic or Republican. And both establishment types go out of their way to smear these folks.

Why? Because they are dangerous. Not to you or me, but to the status quo. Anytime the status quo gets scared, that's a good thing for the ordinary citizen.

Heaven forbid we live in an American society where people are mature enough to make their own choices that benefit - or don't benefit - their daily lives or even be allowed to defend themselves.

In conclusion, the establishment, particularly the left in this country, are systematically destroying it. Social policies are for the most part fantasy. It's divide and conquer....and the folks that fight against that get smeared.

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, heard that one before. Everything that's wrong with the country is aways the fault of the "other side". It's just what your opponents do, and they're just as convinced they're right as you are. Me, I don't have a side. Would you care to discuss the subject, or is a tirade the preferred method of communication these days?