VOTERS keep bringing up term limits?

[merrill]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits no matter that this call has not furnished a "Damn Right" response from capitol hill. In essence we voters must accept part of the responsibility for the mess we find ourselves sitting. Time to change that = time to think differently = time to vote in new faces.

And do some homework so as to prevent ALEC from invading the democratic party with DINO’s.

The cost of elections is wayyyyyyy out of line compared to many many other issues. Capitol Hill is NOT going to alter that so it must be up to we the voters not to allow big spenders to control our votes with their reckless unacceptable spending. It works for them however those big spenders are NOT as important as the 99% or we the voters.

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

Tax dollar control may not be as vicious as we think if we were to consider how much as cost of living increases by way of the special interest increases on cars we buy, groceries, gasoline, electricity, natural gas etc etc etc. Surely corporate control funding of our elections is being passed on to we the voters which in fact increases our sales taxes as we spend.

• DO WE THE VOTERS WANT MORE CONTRO? OVER COST OF LIVING? OR NOT?

 

[August West]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits no matter that this call has not furnished a "Damn Right" response from capitol hill. In essence we voters must accept part of the responsibility for the mess we find ourselves sitting. Time to change that = time to think differently = time to vote in new faces.

And do some homework so as to prevent ALEC from invading the democratic party with DINO’s.

The cost of elections is wayyyyyyy out of line compared to many many other issues. Capitol Hill is NOT going to alter that so it must be up to we the voters not to allow big spenders to control our votes with their reckless unacceptable spending. It works for them however those big spenders are NOT as important as the 99% or we the voters.

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

Tax dollar control may not be as vicious as we think if we were to consider how much as cost of living increases by way of the special interest increases on cars we buy, groceries, gasoline, electricity, natural gas etc etc etc. Surely corporate control funding of our elections is being passed on to we the voters which in fact increases our sales taxes as we spend.

• DO WE THE VOTERS WANT MORE CONTRO? OVER COST OF LIVING? OR NOT?

What mess are you sitting in? I`m a retired factory worker enjoying my life.

 

[the watcher]

What mess are you sitting in? I`m a retired factory worker enjoying my life.

Me too, the problem is that slowly (maybe not so slowly) the opportunity for some to make responsible decisions is being eliminated and replaced with mandatory subsistence nanny doles for everyone. I feel sorry for the generation to come that accepts this as normal and knows nothing different.

 

[the watcher]

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

You will vote for one of the two engineered names on the ballot and that's that. Term limits might have worked before Citizens United, but I doubt it.

 

[1srelluc]

You will vote for one of the two engineered names on the ballot and that's that. Term limits might have worked before Citizens United, but I doubt it.

Worst SCOTUS decision ever in the past 100 years!

 

[Votto]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits no matter that this call has not furnished a "Damn Right" response from capitol hill. In essence we voters must accept part of the responsibility for the mess we find ourselves sitting. Time to change that = time to think differently = time to vote in new faces.

And do some homework so as to prevent ALEC from invading the democratic party with DINO’s.

The cost of elections is wayyyyyyy out of line compared to many many other issues. Capitol Hill is NOT going to alter that so it must be up to we the voters not to allow big spenders to control our votes with their reckless unacceptable spending. It works for them however those big spenders are NOT as important as the 99% or we the voters.

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

Tax dollar control may not be as vicious as we think if we were to consider how much as cost of living increases by way of the special interest increases on cars we buy, groceries, gasoline, electricity, natural gas etc etc etc. Surely corporate control funding of our elections is being passed on to we the voters which in fact increases our sales taxes as we spend.

• DO WE THE VOTERS WANT MORE CONTRO? OVER COST OF LIVING? OR NOT?

The only way to get costs down for elections is to limit their ever-increasing power.

The more money that is riding on elections the more that will be spent, whether it is spent legally or illegally.

But no, every Leftist like yourself keeps wanting to empower these fools further.

 

[August West]

The only way to get costs down for elections is to limit their ever-increasing power.

The more money that is riding on elections the more that will be spent, whether it is spent legally or illegally.

But no, every Leftist like yourself keeps wanting to empower these fools further.

Stereotype much? How about every rightist is an assault rifle toting KKK wannabe? You`re not smart enough to know what I want.

 

[martybegan]

Worst SCOTUS decision ever in the past 100 years!

How so?

Sorry, but any attempts to restrict political speech inevitably ends up helping Democrats.

 

[deannalw]

Stereotype much? How about every rightist is an assault rifle toting KKK wannabe? You`re not smart enough to know what I want.

We're smart enough to be able to read the leftist crap you've spewed out for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits no matter that this call has not furnished a "Damn Right" response from capitol hill. In essence we voters must accept part of the responsibility for the mess we find ourselves sitting. Time to change that = time to think differently = time to vote in new faces.

And do some homework so as to prevent ALEC from invading the democratic party with DINO’s.

The cost of elections is wayyyyyyy out of line compared to many many other issues. Capitol Hill is NOT going to alter that so it must be up to we the voters not to allow big spenders to control our votes with their reckless unacceptable spending. It works for them however those big spenders are NOT as important as the 99% or we the voters.

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

Tax dollar control may not be as vicious as we think if we were to consider how much as cost of living increases by way of the special interest increases on cars we buy, groceries, gasoline, electricity, natural gas etc etc etc. Surely corporate control funding of our elections is being passed on to we the voters which in fact increases our sales taxes as we spend.

• DO WE THE VOTERS WANT MORE CONTRO? OVER COST OF LIVING? OR NOT?

I favor taking away government funded pensions, healthcare, automatic raises, require those in government to experience all consequences of the laws they pass, and such and force those elected to high office to be public servants instead of having ability to increase their personal wealth.

That way only public servants will run for office and they will likely term limit themselves out. And those who truly love their government positions and are good at it may choose to stay which isn't a bad thing as they can provide experience, knowledge and ability that the newcomers won't yet have.

 

[1srelluc]

How so?

Sorry, but any attempts to restrict political speech inevitably ends up helping Democrats.

Nope, can't agree with you on that one.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, can't agree with you on that one.

So what's the other option? No money in politics?

How does that work?

 

[1srelluc]

So what's the other option? No money in politics?

How does that work?

No PAC donation limits is the devil....You know Big Pharma, MIC, etc that simply buy our politicians.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

VOTERS keep bringing up term limits no matter that this call has not furnished a "Damn Right" response from capitol hill. In essence we voters must accept part of the responsibility for the mess we find ourselves sitting. Time to change that = time to think differently = time to vote in new faces.

And do some homework so as to prevent ALEC from invading the democratic party with DINO’s.

The cost of elections is wayyyyyyy out of line compared to many many other issues. Capitol Hill is NOT going to alter that so it must be up to we the voters not to allow big spenders to control our votes with their reckless unacceptable spending. It works for them however those big spenders are NOT as important as the 99% or we the voters.

YES WE CAN REDUCE THE COST OF ELECTIONS by NOT voting for big spenders and/or by tax dollar funding of elections.

Tax dollar control may not be as vicious as we think if we were to consider how much as cost of living increases by way of the special interest increases on cars we buy, groceries, gasoline, electricity, natural gas etc etc etc. Surely corporate control funding of our elections is being passed on to we the voters which in fact increases our sales taxes as we spend.

• DO WE THE VOTERS WANT MORE CONTRO? OVER COST OF LIVING? OR NOT?

Thank you, Captain, Obvious!

 

[martybegan]

No PAC donation limits is the devil....You know Big Pharma, MIC, etc that simply buy our politicians.

And the counter is banning groups from political speech. Sorry but the cure is worse than the disease, especially now that information is being spread out via social media.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I favor taking away government funded pensions, healthcare, automatic raises, require those in government to experience all consequences of the laws they pass, and such and force those elected to high office to be public servants instead of having ability to increase their personal wealth.

That way only public servants will run for office and they will likely term limit themselves out. And those who truly love their government positions and are good at it may choose to stay which isn't a bad thing as they can provide experience, knowledge and ability that the newcomers won't yet have.

You do realize that you cannot retire after 1 term, don't you?

 

[1srelluc]

And the counter is banning groups from political speech. Sorry but the cure is worse than the disease, especially now that information is being spread out via social media.

Landing a .gov contract/favorable legislation and then kicking back to the PACs of the politicians that helped land it is no way to run a country.

 

[Foxfyre]

You do realize that you cannot retire after 1 term, don't you?

I think you didn't read my post. And anybody can retire from Congress anytime they want to.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think you didn't read my post. And anybody can retire from Congress anytime they want to.

They do not draw a retirement until they have served a specific number of years and last time I checked it was 8 years I believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

They do not draw a retirement until they have served a specific number of years and last time I checked it was 8 years I believe.

I recall that it is five years, but thatis irrelevant to what I posted.