Congress versus a Term limit?

[Texanmike]

The funny thing is that the voter CAN set the term limit. Honestly, if you have a bad representative and you continue to elect them, you get what you voted for... touch @#^@.

The problem is all other representatives are ‘bad’ except one’s own.

But agreed: amending the Constitution to limit congressional terms is a bad idea, it’s incumbent upon the voters to compel members of Congress to do their jobs.

I know what you're saying, and in reality, I have no say in what the person in the district next to mine represents. I am saying that elections have consequences and that if a certain portion of the electorate has someone they consider to be a bad representative they should get rid of them. If they don't... oh well.

Mike

 

[Big Fitz]

"Congressmen and Diapers both need to be changed quickly and often, and both for the same reason"

The reason term limits are needed is most corrupt politicians are often with more than 2 terms of tenure. The more terms in office, the more votes being bought, and the more corruption seems to build.

Take the money out of running for office there goes most of the corruption. I don't like the idea of someone telling me who I'm allowed to vote for. I can't believe the CONS would accept that, but whine about what lightbulbs they're allowed to buy!!!

Small problem. Money = Free Speech. Ask the supreme court. The real issue is that need for total transparency for giving. No PACs no groups... only personal donations and every donation should have a real name and person attached to it. This should be public information and you can then see who bought your candidate.

 

[konradv]

"Congressmen and Diapers both need to be changed quickly and often, and both for the same reason"

The reason term limits are needed is most corrupt politicians are often with more than 2 terms of tenure. The more terms in office, the more votes being bought, and the more corruption seems to build.

Take the money out of running for office there goes most of the corruption. I don't like the idea of someone telling me who I'm allowed to vote for. I can't believe the CONS would accept that, but whine about what lightbulbs they're allowed to buy!!!

Small problem. Money = Free Speech. Ask the supreme court. The real issue is that need for total transparency for giving. No PACs no groups... only personal donations and every donation should have a real name and person attached to it. This should be public information and you can then see who bought your candidate.

So what? The plan would require a Constitutional amendment anyway, so the fact that the SC made that ruling now is irrelevant. I don't feel obligated to only put forward ideas that adhere to the Constitution, given that it can be amended.

 

[Big Fitz]

Take the money out of running for office there goes most of the corruption. I don't like the idea of someone telling me who I'm allowed to vote for. I can't believe the CONS would accept that, but whine about what lightbulbs they're allowed to buy!!!

Small problem. Money = Free Speech. Ask the supreme court. The real issue is that need for total transparency for giving. No PACs no groups... only personal donations and every donation should have a real name and person attached to it. This should be public information and you can then see who bought your candidate.

So what? The plan would require a Constitutional amendment anyway, so the fact that the SC made that ruling now is irrelevant. I don't feel obligated to only put forward ideas that adhere to the Constitution, given that it can be amended.

Of course you wouldn't. Your desire for a global ecofascist government has long been established

 

[konradv]

Small problem. Money = Free Speech. Ask the supreme court. The real issue is that need for total transparency for giving. No PACs no groups... only personal donations and every donation should have a real name and person attached to it. This should be public information and you can then see who bought your candidate.

So what? The plan would require a Constitutional amendment anyway, so the fact that the SC made that ruling now is irrelevant. I don't feel obligated to only put forward ideas that adhere to the Constitution, given that it can be amended.

Of course you wouldn't. Your desire for a global ecofascist government has long been established

In other words, "I've been owned, so now I have to start bad mouthing my opponent". WHAT A LOSER!!!

 

[manifold]

So what? The plan would require a Constitutional amendment anyway, so the fact that the SC made that ruling now is irrelevant. I don't feel obligated to only put forward ideas that adhere to the Constitution, given that it can be amended.

Of course you wouldn't. Your desire for a global ecofascist government has long been established

In other words, "I've been owned, so now I have to start bad mouthing my opponent". WHAT A LOSER!!!

If I understand Fitz correctly, I think what he is saying is that as long as money=speech, term limits on Congress won't do fuck all. I don't think they'd do fuck all regardless, but I don't disagree with his point either.

 

[Big Fitz]

Of course you wouldn't. Your desire for a global ecofascist government has long been established

In other words, "I've been owned, so now I have to start bad mouthing my opponent". WHAT A LOSER!!!

If I understand Fitz correctly, I think what he is saying is that as long as money=speech, term limits on Congress won't do fuck all. I don't think they'd do fuck all regardless, but I don't disagree with his point either.

Close Mani. I'm saying that term limits would counter lots of the corruption because it would give it a far shorter lifespan AND prevent corruption from festering in one person for long (Robert Byrd I'm looking at your crusty corpse) You'll still have your occasional Kingfish, Boss Tweeds and George Soros's out there, but their influence would be diminished with rapid turnover and dare we say active competition?

But you are right that if money is divorced from free speech, which I doubt can ever happen due to the nature of trade and economics with freedom, then you could control the situation of political corruption better.

BTW, Konnie, you couldn't pwn someone even if they were bequeathed to you in a will by a daft rich relative.

 

[konradv]

Of course you wouldn't. Your desire for a global ecofascist government has long been established

In other words, "I've been owned, so now I have to start bad mouthing my opponent". WHAT A LOSER!!!

If I understand Fitz correctly, I think what he is saying is that as long as money=speech, term limits on Congress won't do fuck all. I don't think they'd do fuck all regardless, but I don't disagree with his point either.

If that's what he's saying, why not just say it? Basically, it was the same thing I was saying, but somehow it was turned into an attack! Once that happened it was tit-for-tat.

 

[konradv]

In other words, "I've been owned, so now I have to start bad mouthing my opponent". WHAT A LOSER!!!

If I understand Fitz correctly, I think what he is saying is that as long as money=speech, term limits on Congress won't do fuck all. I don't think they'd do fuck all regardless, but I don't disagree with his point either.

Close Mani. I'm saying that term limits would counter lots of the corruption because it would give it a far shorter lifespan AND prevent corruption from festering in one person for long (Robert Byrd I'm looking at your crusty corpse) You'll still have your occasional Kingfish, Boss Tweeds and George Soros's out there, but their influence would be diminished with rapid turnover and dare we say active competition?

But you are right that if money is divorced from free speech, which I doubt can ever happen due to the nature of trade and economics with freedom, then you could control the situation of political corruption better.

BTW, Konnie, you couldn't pwn someone even if they were bequeathed to you in a will by a daft rich relative.

I own you every time you post. It's ALL the money. Term limits are a waste of time and, IMO, more unconstitutional than divorcing money from free speech. Why aren't you as up in arms about being told who you're allowed to vote for, as you are about being told which light bulbs you're allowed to buy?!?!

 

[Big Fitz]

If I understand Fitz correctly, I think what he is saying is that as long as money=speech, term limits on Congress won't do fuck all. I don't think they'd do fuck all regardless, but I don't disagree with his point either.

Close Mani. I'm saying that term limits would counter lots of the corruption because it would give it a far shorter lifespan AND prevent corruption from festering in one person for long (Robert Byrd I'm looking at your crusty corpse) You'll still have your occasional Kingfish, Boss Tweeds and George Soros's out there, but their influence would be diminished with rapid turnover and dare we say active competition?

But you are right that if money is divorced from free speech, which I doubt can ever happen due to the nature of trade and economics with freedom, then you could control the situation of political corruption better.

BTW, Konnie, you couldn't pwn someone even if they were bequeathed to you in a will by a daft rich relative.

I own you every time you post. It's ALL the money. Term limits are a waste of time and, IMO, more unconstitutional than divorcing money from free speech. Why aren't you as up in arms about being told who you're allowed to vote for, as you are about being told which light bulbs you're allowed to buy?!?!

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

 

[konradv]

Close Mani. I'm saying that term limits would counter lots of the corruption because it would give it a far shorter lifespan AND prevent corruption from festering in one person for long (Robert Byrd I'm looking at your crusty corpse) You'll still have your occasional Kingfish, Boss Tweeds and George Soros's out there, but their influence would be diminished with rapid turnover and dare we say active competition?

But you are right that if money is divorced from free speech, which I doubt can ever happen due to the nature of trade and economics with freedom, then you could control the situation of political corruption better.

BTW, Konnie, you couldn't pwn someone even if they were bequeathed to you in a will by a daft rich relative.

I own you every time you post. It's ALL the money. Term limits are a waste of time and, IMO, more unconstitutional than divorcing money from free speech. Why aren't you as up in arms about being told who you're allowed to vote for, as you are about being told which light bulbs you're allowed to buy?!?!

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

 

[rightwinger]

As a voter, I am capable of electing who I want to represent me.

We don't need an amendment to block the people from voting for who they choose

 

[signelect]

Never gonna happen, it is too profitable to be a congressman besides who will employ their families if they are out of office.

 

[Ravi]

As a voter, I am capable of electing who I want to represent me.

We don't need an amendment to block the people from voting for who they choose

Exactly.

Talk about big government stepping in to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Big Fitz]

I own you every time you post. It's ALL the money. Term limits are a waste of time and, IMO, more unconstitutional than divorcing money from free speech. Why aren't you as up in arms about being told who you're allowed to vote for, as you are about being told which light bulbs you're allowed to buy?!?!

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

Ahhhh... under the skin I see.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWYMirWNaGY"]What's the Worst That Could Happen? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

Somebody please stop me from voting for my Congressman!

 

[California Girl]

I own you every time you post. It's ALL the money. Term limits are a waste of time and, IMO, more unconstitutional than divorcing money from free speech. Why aren't you as up in arms about being told who you're allowed to vote for, as you are about being told which light bulbs you're allowed to buy?!?!

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

I am curious as to how you claim to be an adult and claim to 'own' another poster. That 'owning' comment makes your claim of being an 'adult' more than a little ridiculous.

So which is it? Do you 'own' another poster or are you a grown up?

Idiot.

 

[konradv]

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

I am curious as to how you claim to be an adult and claim to 'own' another poster. That 'owning' comment makes your claim of being an 'adult' more than a little ridiculous.

So which is it? Do you 'own' another poster or are you a grown up?

Idiot.

If you're too good for us, stay out of the conversation. I was merely speaking to the poster in a language he'd understand, since he preferred school yard tactics to true debate. Surprised you didn't pick up on that, being so astute and all!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

LOL... make a poll. See what kinds of 'sciencey' results you get on who pwns whom.

I'll watch for it in the romper room or flame section.

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

I am curious as to how you claim to be an adult and claim to 'own' another poster. That 'owning' comment makes your claim of being an 'adult' more than a little ridiculous.

So which is it? Do you 'own' another poster or are you a grown up?

Idiot.

I'm sorry Konnie. I'm not fluent in libberish and translation.com doesn't have that function yet. Maybe if you can provide us with a Rosetta Stone for English to Libberish, we could actually communicate as sentients. Till then, I'll make do mocking the shit out of you since serious discussion with you went by the boards back when you joined up with Chris and Ole Crocks worshiping the great green chicken little god.

 

[konradv]

Are you supposed to be "cool" by writing 'pwns' instead of 'owns'? LOL!!! You really are a douchebag! The romper room sounds like the place for someone of your lack of maturity. I'm an adult, however, and refuse to play your childish games. It's probably just another CON circle-jerk anyway, like so much of the Pos-repping around here.

I am curious as to how you claim to be an adult and claim to 'own' another poster. That 'owning' comment makes your claim of being an 'adult' more than a little ridiculous.

So which is it? Do you 'own' another poster or are you a grown up?

Idiot.

I'm sorry Konnie. I'm not fluent in libberish and translation.com doesn't have that function yet. Maybe if you can provide us with a Rosetta Stone for English to Libberish, we could actually communicate as sentients. Till then, I'll make do mocking the shit out of you since serious discussion with you went by the boards back when you joined up with Chris and Ole Crocks worshiping the great green chicken little god.

Your immaturity makes answering your posts hardly worth my time. Too lazy to to construct a coherent post, so you have to talk nonsense. If you don't understand my posts maybe it's time to go back for that GED.