On 12/4/11 9:20 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 12/4/11 5:12 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...


I hope the nominee is Newt. I'd love to see Obama win in a walk and in
the process just about skewer any future presidential hopes for the GOP.

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

I could never vote for Newt, but the last part of your sentence
bothers me.
As an independent voter, it disturbs me to see people so married to a
particular party
that future, highly qualified and capable people will never be given any
thoughtful
consideration .... simply because of their party affiliation.

Right now we happen to have a bunch of politicians populating Wash DC
that
are behaving like school children wanting lollipops. They all chant the
same
representative BS of their party mantra, and the vast majority of them
are
political whores chasing $$ contributions. Even Obama is involved, giving
populist speeches full of anti big-business rhetoric while accepting
re-election
contributions from the same business groups he is castigating in the
speeches.

This country needs a strong, two party system as a check and balance
safety net.
Right now we just don't have enough honest, mature people in either.

Eisboch




The current GOP is so far to the right that it will take a string of
election results disastrous for it before what remains of the party
rebuilds on a center-right frame. If it can't return to the
center-right, it'll become and remain a fringe party full of nutcases
and nutcase candidates. As far as the anti-big-business rhetoric goes,
yeah, I agree...big business in collusion with big banks and big
brokerage houses and big politicians have created a situation in which
this country is being stripped clean of assets. The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

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

Even more reasons for a strong, two party (minimum) political system.
The current extreme far right position of the GOP is largely a result of
the influences
of the "TeaParty" group. The Democratic politicians could just as
easily go overboard as a whole, influenced by the "Occupy Everything"
group. Neither is good overall for this country.

Conservatives should embrace only the thoughtfully considered components of
the Teabagger's positions that are justified and beneficial ... not the
whole package.
The Dems should do the same with those justified issues represented by
the Occupy crowd.

Instead, we currently have all joining each representative causes, in
whole.
When you listen to a Republican or a Democrat giving a speech or being
interviewed
you could very easily just record and play the same audio for everyone
featured.
It's all the same. You can read it here in this newsgroup for cripe's sake.
Each side repeating the same arguments in the same manner, using the same
words.

Whatever happened to being an individual with unique and different ideas
and prospectives?





I don't see or hear a majority of Democratic national officeholders
espousing many economic views that are different from traditional middle
class values, nor do I see or hear those officeholders espousing
radicial views aimed at corporations, banks, brokerage houses. I for one
would like to see some stringent regulations enacted against the looting
shenanigans of the latter, but I don't see it happening.

The GOP these days is far, far, far to the right of center. The Dems are
a little left of center.

I'm not sure what in the Teabagger package is "justified" or
"beneficial" to our society.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

On 12/4/11 9:06 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:20:08 -0500, X `
wrote:

The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

===

Term limits would be a good start.


What limits do you have in mind? Why do you think limits would stop the
flow of funds? What evidence do you have to offer?

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 12/4/11 9:20 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 12/4/11 5:12 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...


I hope the nominee is Newt. I'd love to see Obama win in a walk and in
the process just about skewer any future presidential hopes for the GOP.

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

I could never vote for Newt, but the last part of your sentence
bothers me.
As an independent voter, it disturbs me to see people so married to a
particular party
that future, highly qualified and capable people will never be given any
thoughtful
consideration .... simply because of their party affiliation.

Right now we happen to have a bunch of politicians populating Wash DC
that
are behaving like school children wanting lollipops. They all chant the
same
representative BS of their party mantra, and the vast majority of them
are
political whores chasing $$ contributions. Even Obama is involved, giving
populist speeches full of anti big-business rhetoric while accepting
re-election
contributions from the same business groups he is castigating in the
speeches.

This country needs a strong, two party system as a check and balance
safety net.
Right now we just don't have enough honest, mature people in either.

Eisboch




The current GOP is so far to the right that it will take a string of
election results disastrous for it before what remains of the party
rebuilds on a center-right frame. If it can't return to the
center-right, it'll become and remain a fringe party full of nutcases
and nutcase candidates. As far as the anti-big-business rhetoric goes,
yeah, I agree...big business in collusion with big banks and big
brokerage houses and big politicians have created a situation in which
this country is being stripped clean of assets. The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

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

Even more reasons for a strong, two party (minimum) political system.
The current extreme far right position of the GOP is largely a result of
the influences
of the "TeaParty" group. The Democratic politicians could just as
easily go overboard as a whole, influenced by the "Occupy Everything"
group. Neither is good overall for this country.

Conservatives should embrace only the thoughtfully considered components of
the Teabagger's positions that are justified and beneficial ... not the
whole package.
The Dems should do the same with those justified issues represented by
the Occupy crowd.

Instead, we currently have all joining each representative causes, in
whole.
When you listen to a Republican or a Democrat giving a speech or being
interviewed
you could very easily just record and play the same audio for everyone
featured.
It's all the same. You can read it here in this newsgroup for cripe's sake.
Each side repeating the same arguments in the same manner, using the same
words.

Whatever happened to being an individual with unique and different ideas
and prospectives?





I don't see or hear a majority of Democratic national officeholders
espousing many economic views that are different from traditional middle
class values, nor do I see or hear those officeholders espousing
radicial views aimed at corporations, banks, brokerage houses. I for one
would like to see some stringent regulations enacted against the looting
shenanigans of the latter, but I don't see it happening.

The GOP these days is far, far, far to the right of center. The Dems are
a little left of center.

I'm not sure what in the Teabagger package is "justified" or
"beneficial" to our society.

If you don't think the left has moved left as much as the right has
moved right, just look at our national debt.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:01:31 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

===

Term limits would be a good start.


What limits do you have in mind? Why do you think limits would stop the
flow of funds? What evidence do you have to offer?

=====

Most, if not all, of the money in politics comes in the form of
re-election contributions. The reason is simple: Direct bribes are
illegal but re-election assistance is not only legal but necessary.
Media advertising costs a lot and that is not going to change.

With some reasonable term limit (something like 2 terms, same as the
presidency) there would presumably be less need for re-election
funding and less opportunity for establishing an entrenched power
base.

Too many of our current legislators look at it as a career
opportunity.

On 12/4/11 1:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:01:31 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

===

Term limits would be a good start.


What limits do you have in mind? Why do you think limits would stop the
flow of funds? What evidence do you have to offer?

=====

Most, if not all, of the money in politics comes in the form of
re-election contributions. The reason is simple: Direct bribes are
illegal but re-election assistance is not only legal but necessary.
Media advertising costs a lot and that is not going to change.

With some reasonable term limit (something like 2 terms, same as the
presidency) there would presumably be less need for re-election
funding and less opportunity for establishing an entrenched power
base.

Too many of our current legislators look at it as a career
opportunity.



Thanks to the Supreme Court, there's virtually no limit corporations can
spend to support the election of a *new* congressman/woman they can own.
Getting the money out of politics is the answer.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:51:19 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

Thanks to the Supreme Court, there's virtually no limit corporations can
spend to support the election of a *new* congressman/woman they can own.
Getting the money out of politics is the answer.

===

With term limits the "ownership" is also limited. It's important to
note that not all of the money comes from corporations. There are
many other powerful and well funded special interest groups.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...
On 12/4/11 1:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:01:31 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The only possibility for
change is to get the money out of politics...and how the hell is that
supposed to happen?

===

Term limits would be a good start.


What limits do you have in mind? Why do you think limits would stop the
flow of funds? What evidence do you have to offer?

=====

Most, if not all, of the money in politics comes in the form of
re-election contributions. The reason is simple: Direct bribes are
illegal but re-election assistance is not only legal but necessary.
Media advertising costs a lot and that is not going to change.

With some reasonable term limit (something like 2 terms, same as the
presidency) there would presumably be less need for re-election
funding and less opportunity for establishing an entrenched power
base.

Too many of our current legislators look at it as a career
opportunity.



Thanks to the Supreme Court, there's virtually no limit corporations can
spend to support the election of a *new* congressman/woman they can own.
Getting the money out of politics is the answer.


It's not just campaign financing though. It's influence peddling for
projects,
contracts, legisation and more. By limiting the terms of people serving in
Congress they have less time to develop cozy relationships with companies
and
other organizations with special interests.

12 years (two terms) for the Senate.
6 years for the House.

Eisboch

Eisboch