Challenge: Let's discuss the 10 points of The Contract from America

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Foxfyre, Jul 17, 2010.

?

Would you or would you not sign the Contract?

  1. I would sign The Contract from America as shown.

    7 vote(s)
    38.9%
  2. I would not sign The Contract from America as shown.

    8 vote(s)
    44.4%
  3. I can't support it all and will explain why.

    3 vote(s)
    16.7%
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Challenge: To discuss the 10 issues contained in the most recent draft of The Contract from America without criticizing ANY group. More than 130 candidates for Congress have now signed the contract and more will no doubt do so.

    Is it possible for USMB members to discuss the pros and cons of the 10 points of the Contract without mentioning GOP, the Democrats, the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, the Tea Parties, the NAACP, the religious right, the leftwing fringe, opinion of ideologies, or accordian players?

    If nobody responds, I guess I'll take that as a no. :)

     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2010
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    They say it, but they don't have the stones to do it.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Okay Dude. As a USMB candidate for Congress, would you sign the Contract? Why or why not?
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Absolutely not.

    I'd give my constituents the credit for having a long term memory about how they got chumped the last time around.
     
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    So you disagree with the 10 points? You don't think you would be ethical signing a pledge to work to implement any of them?
     
  6. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Just like before....generalities on complicated issues and no substance or specifics about how they are "pledging" to accomplish it. It's talking points.

    No, thank you.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    All I can see now is wind. I would support rejecting cap and trade, that is a given. And the defund of government health care. Those are a given.

    What is comprehensive tax reform. We get promised that every election cycle, and it only gets worse. Define that, and i might change my mind.

    One man's pork is another man's important infrastructure needs. I think limiting federal public transit subsidies to anything more than 3x the fairbox is a good start. There should also be a minimum ridership level. Transit in general in Portland does about 40%, but light rail only does around 15%.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Disagreeing with the points isn't the point....Action is the point.

    Last time this happened, what got passed either was timid, got killed off in the Senate, or was vetoed and subsequently left to die off with no more than a shrug and a wimpy milquetoasty "we tried". Then, they just went back to being capitulators, enablers and door mats.
     
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,681
    Thanks Received:
    10,792
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,387
    Dude, in 1994, those who signed the Contract with America agreed only to bring all ten items to a vote within the first 100 days after the 1995 Congress was sworn in. They did exactly that and nine of them became law. The term limits item failed by a few votes but they did debate it honestly and openly and gave an honest effort to the process.

    They didn't promise to pass everything. They did promise to give it a fair chance with open debate and a full vote. I think they did an amazing job with that.

    What is on this new list that should not be dealt with and debated early in the next Congress?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

    Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

    Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.
     

Share This Page