The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: GOP Budget Hypocrisy is Boundless

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    Don't we have term limits? It's called an election. People just need to get out and vote out their elected official(s) if they don't like them. Unfortunately, too many people aren't going to take the time to research what their elected officials have done while in office.
    where have you been? that was my point in post 15, but elections are guaranteed tenure for officials in gerrymandered districts.

    i'll repeat:

    "gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger" from the opposing party

    i clarified a bit by adding the red

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    So, what percentage of the active voting electorate has any idea who and what they are voting for.

    I mean during the last election several TV shows had a lot of fun asking people on the street particulars about the candidate they had chosen.

    It was hysterically....sad!!



    It's my perseption that most of those who voted for Obama could not elaborate any specifics as to why.

    I'm sure the progressives felt the same way in the previous elections.

    But why have term limits on the Presidency then??
    Because Bush would still be President??

    RK
    My point exactly. So, rather than figure out why they should or shouldn’t vote for someone, they would rather have term limits to help them do the job for them. Most would rather follow some party line or have someone else tell them what to think and who to vote for. It’s easier than thinking for themselves.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    where have you been? that was my point in post 15, but elections are guaranteed tenure for officials in gerrymandered districts.

    i'll repeat:

    "gerrymandering is also a problem. districts are too often drawn so that they are lopsidedly one way or the other - both parties have done it. a more even district helps ensure that there is always a viable challenger" from the opposing party

    i clarified a bit by adding the red
    Actually, I missed your post # 15. It appears we were making a similar point. Now, I'm really scared!

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    Actually, I missed your post # 15. It appears we were making a similar point. Now, I'm really scared!
    you would be surprised how non-ultraconservative i actually am in real life, its just that i dont defend or debate certain issues as vehemently as i may others. afterall, i have a reputation to maintain.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,485

    Default

    How do you go from "Budget Hypocrisy", remain on topic & end up with "Gerrymandering"? while remaining on topic. I guess you call it the POTUS Place Float .

    Here in WA the D's & the R's formal party wise are very protective of their turf. They instituted a choice of ballot thing that left you voting for a party slate, rather than the previous crossover choices we had.

    So an initiative was placed on the ballot & won which allowed the top "2" regardless of party to advance. After surviving court challenges by the political parties it was in effect this last election. Though the district may remain in the particular party camp, they are now represented by someone not an incumbent. Even within parties there is a tramendous difference in philosophy, but that difference is hard to put across during a primary election campaign. What did happen was some of the fringy incumbents were dropped for a more MOTR type newby.

    Only time will tell if it helps!!!!!!!!!!
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  6. #46
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    you would be surprised how non-ultraconservative i actually am in real life, its just that i dont defend or debate certain issues as vehemently as i may others. afterall, i have a reputation to maintain.
    Please tell me David, would that Senator from Houston be in power without gerrymandering? And how often do you get a chance to "vote her out"? Wouldn't it be better to have her limited as to how long she can continue making a fool of herself, and a joke of her representation of Texas?

    Between she and her 'sister' in California, they make a mockery of that august body...equally well as the ignoramus that was concerned about Guam tipping over if it becomes overpopulated. And we worry about the inept empty suit in the WH?

    Sodak voted out a student of the Harry Reid school of dingy leadership, but look what happened. We may be able to vote out our bad apples, but we can't get rid of the pork kings like Byrd. Of course his constituants are gonna keep him in office...none of them were ever weaned off the government tit, so they just keep buying votes.

    Term limits would allow for true Americans to serve their country, and put a stop to those wanting to make a career out of it. It would provide an opportunity for a patriot to bring up his ideas on what would be good for the nation, act on it, and return to his home.

    It would eliminate most of the graft and rip-offs that we have seen our government representatives get into, while they are developing ways to further their careers, or constantly working at buying votes or seeking ways to become lobbyists for special interests.

    As opposed to your views of what type of politician would be in Washington, I believe we would get rid of that type of individual in less than a couple of cycles. Those that ran for office would have a definite purpose for even entering, and dayum sure wouldn't be to get rich, retire with a huge pension, or get on the healthcare dole they now have. All of those bennies need to be removed, so the sole purpose for serving is to make the nation better.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    I believe term limits could potentially lead to more graft and corruption in Washington. If a politician knows they only have 4 or 8 years to be there, wouldn’t they be more likely to get into bed with lobbyists and other special interests that could provide them with a secure future. For many, going back into the private sector after being out of your profession for 4 – 8 years is risky. But, if someone is offering to make them rich or provide them with a lucrative job when they leave office . . . .

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackstone View Post
    I believe term limits could potentially lead to more graft and corruption in Washington. If a politician knows they only have 4 or 8 years to be there, wouldn’t they be more likely to get into bed with lobbyists and other special interests that could provide them with a secure future. For many, going back into the private sector after being out of your profession for 4 – 8 years is risky. But, if someone is offering to make them rich or provide them with a lucrative job when they leave office . . . .
    I don't think term limits is the solution to corruption. Aggressive enforcement and prosecution of graft is what is needed. This is true in all three branches of government. The last two presidents are prime examples. Both should now be residing in Federal Prison.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Please tell me David, would that Senator from Houston be in power without gerrymandering? And how often do you get a chance to "vote her out"? Wouldn't it be better to have her limited as to how long she can continue making a fool of herself, and a joke of her representation of Texas?

    Between she and her 'sister' in California, they make a mockery of that august body...equally well as the ignoramus that was concerned about Guam tipping over if it becomes overpopulated. And we worry about the inept empty suit in the WH?

    Sodak voted out a student of the Harry Reid school of dingy leadership, but look what happened. We may be able to vote out our bad apples, but we can't get rid of the pork kings like Byrd. Of course his constituants are gonna keep him in office...none of them were ever weaned off the government tit, so they just keep buying votes.

    Term limits would allow for true Americans to serve their country, and put a stop to those wanting to make a career out of it. It would provide an opportunity for a patriot to bring up his ideas on what would be good for the nation, act on it, and return to his home.

    It would eliminate most of the graft and rip-offs that we have seen our government representatives get into, while they are developing ways to further their careers, or constantly working at buying votes or seeking ways to become lobbyists for special interests.

    As opposed to your views of what type of politician would be in Washington, I believe we would get rid of that type of individual in less than a couple of cycles. Those that ran for office would have a definite purpose for even entering, and dayum sure wouldn't be to get rich, retire with a huge pension, or get on the healthcare dole they now have. All of those bennies need to be removed, so the sole purpose for serving is to make the nation better.

    UB
    UB, I fail to see what gerrymandering has to do with statewide elections. Don't they vote statewide for senator?

    Also, Byrd is no longer with us.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  10. #50
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    11,036

    Default

    Old Cincinnatus set the bar too high for today's electorate.

    Our electorate has no concept of the citizen/legislature!

    The problem is well beyond term limits/no term limits.

    Only way to get positive change is in making potential voters qualify for the opportunity to vote and I would support a Constitutional Amendment in making it the law of the land!
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •