"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat "easier" but still would be opposed by lawmakers for the same
reason term limits would be opposed.
Career politicians makes for corrupt politicians and we have a Congress full
of them on both sides.
It's really no longer a question of "ease". It's a question of "how" and
the only realistic way is for voters to stop
automatically re-electing them.

Stop and think about it for a second. Almost all of the controversial
issues .... political and economic .... would
be much easier to solve if we didn't have such a partisan system. Boot
them out and start all over.

-----Original Message-----
From: Canuck57
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:41 PM Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject:
Serial windsock

On 30/10/2011 6:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:



I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.

Agreed. Makes sense too.

Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits

Why does it have to be a constitutional amendment? Nothing says you get
to sit forever. Make it a law. Or if it must be an amendment, revise
the 22nd amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------

It has to be a Constitutional Amendment based on a decision by the Supreme
Court back in the 90's.
The Constitution does not specify any max number of terms in Congress. It
took a
Constitutional Amendment to limit the President's number of terms to two.

Eisboch

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:26:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat "easier" but still would be opposed by lawmakers for the same
reason term limits would be opposed.
Career politicians makes for corrupt politicians and we have a Congress full
of them on both sides.
It's really no longer a question of "ease". It's a question of "how" and
the only realistic way is for voters to stop
automatically re-electing them.

Stop and think about it for a second. Almost all of the controversial
issues .... political and economic .... would
be much easier to solve if we didn't have such a partisan system. Boot
them out and start all over.

Even those who aren't (relatively) corrupt would be averse to changing
an election and campaign system that they've spent years learning to
master.

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

One of his many.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.

On 10/31/11 3:39 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.


Herring voted for Mr. Senile and Ms. Moron. :)

On 31/10/2011 1:41 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/31/11 3:39 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and
voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.


Herring voted for Mr. Senile and Ms. Moron. :)

Nope, just used his brain for something other than greed, bias and
entitlement.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

On 10/31/11 3:59 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 31/10/2011 1:41 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/31/11 3:39 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of
politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and
voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.


Herring voted for Mr. Senile and Ms. Moron. :)

Nope, just used his brain for something other than greed, bias and
entitlement.

Please...the GOP *is* the party for greed, bias and entitlement.

On 31/10/2011 2:00 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/31/11 3:59 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 31/10/2011 1:41 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/31/11 3:39 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of
politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and
voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.


Herring voted for Mr. Senile and Ms. Moron. :)

Nope, just used his brain for something other than greed, bias and
entitlement.

Please...the GOP *is* the party for greed, bias and entitlement.

Not at all, GOP is a party of common sense. Not the debt welshing
corrupt democritter types.

Fleabaggers have no morals or ethics. Just slap the kids with more debt
for their greed today.

--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.