Will You Join The Revolution? Sign The Pledge!!!

[drsmith1072]

as long as they ban union money I agree.

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

What's to say that the new guys won't be just as corrupt or more so than the old ones?

IMO, little experience with term limits would lead to short term senators and representatives grabbing as much as they can before they are required to leave. Furthermore, who actually believes a set up like this will make any short term elected senator do anything for his constituency better than a long term congressperson?

Seems to me that it would lead to more corruption because what are you going to do, vote them out when they know they are leaving anyway?? LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they ban union money I agree.

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

 

[drsmith1072]

Seriously though, I was reading about an elementary classroom project in which the kids would nominate two people to be 'president' and those two would campaign for the office.

Kid No. 1 read his well prepared speech outlining all the practical ways that the school could be improved. He received enthusiastic applause.

Kid #2 got up and said, "If you elect me, I will give everybody ice cream.

Much discussion ensued. The first kid had already explained how improving the school could be done. The other kid gave no specifics, no details, and the other kids didn't seem to care where she would get the ice cream or how she was going to pull it off.

But ice cream sounded really good.

She won in a landslide.

And that is our problem. Our government has made far too many people dependent or two hopeful that this guy or that guy would be able to make their lives wonderful for far too long now. And promising them ice cream sounds much better than limited government and personal responsibility.

LOL you do know that is basically what W did when he ran in 2000 except in W's speech his "ice cream" was called tax cuts. LOL

I also remember a story of a high school election shortly after W won in 2000 where one of the students running for one of the seats promised "if you elect me, I will give you a cookie." The high school called it a bribe and removed him from the election. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I think you should all kick out your elected representative..

Mine is doing a good job so I think I will keep him

This is the problem we have. Most people at least trust the devil they know more than the devil they don't know who is running against him or her, so they keep re-electing their own representatives while hoping everybody else will dump theirs.

It doesn't work that way though, does it?

This is why Tip O'Neil said, "All Politics is local."

It's funny how the right was initially applying "all politics is local" to brown's victory until they realized it ran counter to their "his victory had a national message" propaganda. LOL It's also funny how the right continues to expand the scope of what that message supposedly includes. LOL

Not meant to change the subject. just thought it was funny and your quote made me think of it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

as long as they ban union money I agree.

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.

CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.

Pretty easy solution guys.

Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.

 

[drsmith1072]

I can't vote on other state's senators and congressmen. I dont think you should leave anyone in for more than a term or two, even if they are doing a good job. The position of power we give to them should be temporary in order to stave off corrupting influences.

You don't see any problem with how our politicians are governing and who they let influence their decisions?

I'm not vilifying special interests or lobbyists, i'm calling them out for what they have been doing. To tell the truth, even if the truth is ugly for them, is not villifying.

However when the politicians listen to rich special interests because they need the wealth of those interests to get reelected the people have no power. If we start voting them out the politicans will see a clear choice....listen to the people over the corporate sponsored lobbyists or be fired by the people you are supposed to represent.

Too many politicians seem more concerned with re-election than with doing their jobs.

Thats EXACTLY why i'm so behind this idea. If we keep voting them out they will realize it is us the people that re-elect them and not their lobbyists/corporate sponsors.

Part of the elected's "job" is catering to their constituency back home, which is part of what helps them keep their "job." If the elected don't give the electors what they want then the electors should vote the elected out of office. Unfortunately the electors don't.

Unfortunately most of the electors don't look much further than the R or the D that is attached to the candidate's name. They don't take the time to know how the elected actually voted in the past and most vote for a candidate based on one or more issues that they believe their candidate supports or is disagrees with.

IMO, these people will not vote out anyone and will continue to vote for the devil they think they know.

 

[drsmith1072]

You miss the point. You can replace democrats with new democrats for all we care just get rid of EVERYONE who is in there now.

And what will stop those same lobbyists from corrupting them the same way. Kicking them all out is not the solution. And the problem is not with Congress. The problem is us. We want lobbyists lobbying our politicians. We just don't want the lobbyists that we disagree with lobbying out politicians. We are conflicted.

Lobbyists dont corrupt people.

No it's the money that lobbyists use to buy votes that corrupts people. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

What's to say that the new guys won't be just as corrupt or more so than the old ones?

Oh not if they're Libertarians...those guys can't never be corrupted.

Uh, timothy mcveigh and terry nichols considered themselves libertarians and they blew up the federal building in OKC. Hardly what I would call incorruptible.

 

[drsmith1072]

And what will stop those same lobbyists from corrupting them the same way. Kicking them all out is not the solution. And the problem is not with Congress. The problem is us. We want lobbyists lobbying our politicians. We just don't want the lobbyists that we disagree with lobbying out politicians. We are conflicted.

Lobbyists dont corrupt people.

Greed does and it is inevitable for these people in power...hence the reason I agree with the general premise of kicking them all out every term or two.

Do you actually believe that they will be less greedy knowing that they will be out of a job in one or two terms??

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Too many politicians seem more concerned with re-election than with doing their jobs.

Thats EXACTLY why i'm so behind this idea. If we keep voting them out they will realize it is us the people that re-elect them and not their lobbyists/corporate sponsors.

Part of the elected's "job" is catering to their constituency back home, which is part of what helps them keep their "job." If the elected don't give the electors what they want then the electors should vote the elected out of office. Unfortunately the electors don't.

Unfortunately most of the electors don't look much further than the R or the D that is attached to the candidate's name. They don't take the time to know how the elected actually voted in the past and most vote for a candidate based on one or more issues that they believe their candidate supports or is disagrees with.

IMO, these people will not vote out anyone and will continue to vote for the devil they think they know.

This is exactly right - and one person's pork is another person's home district getting more money. What you might see as corruption (say, a military base in their home district) - the people who vote for that rep see it as jobs and money being brought to their town.

 

[drsmith1072]

Lobbyists dont corrupt people.

Wow! That might be be your most ignorant statement ever on this MB. Or...your most disengenuous.

They don't. The politicians are corrupt to begin with or the lobbyist wouldnt be able to do his job. It's not power and lobbyiest that corrupt politicians. It's corrupt politicians who corrupt everything else.

The idea that it's the lobbyist's fault is just an excuse by the politician to justify his behavior. He cant do anything wrong, it's those other guys or the system. That's the problem. But it's not. Its the politicians. And to some extent, the people for letting them get away with it.

That's what is so ridiculous about so called "reform" of the political system. You have a bunch of politicians saying "hey, we are so corrupt that the system needs to change. So let me fix it" and the people saying "Oh, well they may be corrupt, but they are honest about it so let the corrupt people fix the problem" without ever asking: "What is it about these reforms that actually benefit the people?"

You trust the corrupt people to fix the problems they created and when they supposedly do this you think its all well and good and dont realize that they just screwed you out of more power and made their job more secure.

What do you think McCain Fiengold was about? It wasnt about getting money out of politics. It was about protecting incumbants by making it more difficult for their opposition to raise money and by criminalizing anyone from critisizing an incumbant right before an election. So called Campaign Finance Reform was nothing but an a bipartisan attempt by the politicians to keep themselves in power.

Which is why I say bipartisanship is when politicians from both parties get together in an attempt to screw over the people.

I would actually say that it's both the lobbyist and the politicians fault.
The crackwhores couldn't score some rock if the dealers weren't dealing and the dealers wouldn't deal if the crackwhores weren't buying.

 

[HUGGY]

And what will stop those same lobbyists from corrupting them the same way. Kicking them all out is not the solution. And the problem is not with Congress. The problem is us. We want lobbyists lobbying our politicians. We just don't want the lobbyists that we disagree with lobbying out politicians. We are conflicted.

Lobbyists dont corrupt people.

No it's the money that lobbyists use to buy votes that corrupts people. LOL

Ya... a real laugh riot. Lets take medicare part D where the lobbests wrote the bill and the representratives mostly repub..took millions in 05 I believe to pass a pharm bill in the middle of the night not allowing americans to buy the same meds in canada at sometimes a tenth the cost. How many granmas died or went bankrupt for these pigs? It isn't always about pork. Unless grandma was a pig. Sometimes it is just the sheer greed brought on by lobbiests chumming the water with millions of dollars. If it was my grandma I would have to pay a visit to K street...just sayin.

 

[drsmith1072]

as long as they ban union money I agree.

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

I honestly don't understand how you relate government benifitting individuals, etc to lobbyists?? "corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else" are not the federal government so how does your prohibition on the federal government apply to them??

For example, Oil companies lobby for expanding drilling, so IF the government decides to support such expansion, including opening up federal land for drilling after being lobbied, how can your prohibition on the federal government prevent the oil companies from benefitting from the expansion gained through their lobbying??
I just don't see how a restriction on the federal government that does not affect or limit lobbying can remove all the payola from the system.

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL and yet according to the recent Supreme Court decision don't they have the RIGHT to spend their money how they see fit?
Right leaning court with a right leaning activist decision. If you have a problem with these activist justices and their decision then blame the republicans that put them there. LOL

This is the problem we have. We either throw out the First Amendment and deny free speech to corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else we think is abusing the system. . .

or. . .

We reform the system so that the Federal government is prohibited from directly benefitting any individual, entity, group, etc. Whatever laws they pass applies equally to everybody and all. Thus, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, unions, activist groups, and/or anybody else cannot specificially or directly benefit from lobbying efforts. They will be like all other Americans informing their elected representatives of what would be useful and helpful for them to function better and more effectively, but they would know that if they are benefitted, so is everybody else.

And that removes all the payola from the system right there.

The solution is so simple it blows my mind neither one of you 2 suggest it.

CAP THE AMOUNT YOU CAN DONATE. Say $5,000 is the MAX an individual can donate to one specific politician. Therefore GE can only give $5,000 to a canidate if htey want to support said canidate and I can give a canidate up to 5,000 also.

Pretty easy solution guys.

Unless you see a big hole in it I am missing.

Isn't there already an individual limit to how much one can donate to a candidate?

IMO the problem isn't with the individual limit that an individual or entity that counts as an individual can donate to a candidate but that an entitiy that counts as an individual with billions of dollars in funding could flood the airwaves, press and internet with ads supporting or railing against a candidate and it is all protected under freedom of speech. Isn't that what the recent supreme court decision was all about??

 

[Modbert]

You say you want a revolution..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eat-ron-paul-for-not-supporting-the-wars.html

 

[MaggieMae]

Replacing remocrats with depublicans isn't kicking anyone out.....It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

That's very good. I even have to rep you for a good laugh.

 

[MaggieMae]

Replacing remocrats with depublicans isn't kicking anyone out.....It's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

You miss the point. You can replace democrats with new democrats for all we care just get rid of EVERYONE who is in there now.

So do you have some sort of guarantee that newbies would act any differently without a complete restructure of how the House and Senate operate? Eventually they all learn to play the game, as even the new hero of the right, Scott Brown, will.

What needs to happen is a concerted bipartisan effort to get rid of big monied influence peddling (professional lobbying). When both parties realize that is the real problem, then the people elected won't be such a big problem because they won't be asked for votes on certain bills in return for favors.

 

[MaggieMae]

Kill all the lobbiests. Turn off the money faucett. Eliminate by any means available any media whore or politician that willfully lies to the public. Cap a handfull of these vermin and the bullshit will stop abruptly. What do you expect thieves to do when they don't have to suffer for stealing our money? I doubt they would do it if they thought they would have to pay the ultimate price.

Exactly. I hadn't read that before I posted mine basically saying the same thing.

 

[MaggieMae]

How about we vote out our own representatives if they are doing a bad job every election? I have no wish to "kick them all out", as far as I know my representative is doing a fine job.

Also, why is it we have to vilify 'special interests' and 'lobbyists'? People will always 'lobby' their own interests to their elected representative, that's the whole point of having a representative, so he/she can represent your best interests.

You just nailed the problem. Even with Congress approval sitting somewhere in the 20's, when asked how people feel about their own representatives, they will almost always say they like them just fine. So...it's everyone else's fault. Get it? When everybody's right, nobody's wrong.