Super Committee FAILED!!!! Time to FIRE some congressmen and women.

[tRidiot]

Yes.



People that live in her district can vote for/against her and people that don't can worry about THEIR representatives. You really think that ONE rep in a congress can control which law passes and which law doesn't? I don't buy it. If most representatives thought it was a good idea to open carry, then it would happen. Again, I understand the tendency to finger point at "other peoples' " representatives, but we really just need to worry about ours.



The ballot box was designed for this purpose. Term limits are just an excuse to justify not using the ballot box.

You can think that if you want... but rules are in place to protect people, not just from others but from ourselves. No doing drugs, not drinking and driving, not abusing children or women, labor laws, etc. All these things are infringements on our "freedom", and if you think the Constitution has no place governing our day-to-day lives, then you must remove all the above rules and a lot more. Your position (as I read it) of letting people continue to elect people who pander to them and give them money out of others' pockets is what got us into this mess and will continue to make it worse. As I said before... how's that policy worked so far? As the American sheeple become more apathetic and hopeless and the politicians become more craven and self-serving, this country will go downhill until there is no farther to go. If that's your goal, "Let it fail so we can say we told you so!", then you're likely to see it.

And yes... I DO think one person can have ENORMOUS influence over individual bills, when they are put in a position of power. How many times in the last year have we wished Harry Reid would be voted out and replaced? How many times? That guy has stonewalled so many proposals it's ridiculous. Yet his district keeps sending him back, and the rest of the government and the United States suffers for it. Guess we better keep sending our own guy back time and time and time again, so he can have some real power someday, huh? Dang, those poor freshmen congressmen don't have a hope of getting ANYthing done... you gotta be there for 3-4 terms or more before anyone will even listen to you. EFF THAT, MAN!

Yes, we need to vote them out. Totally. But we need to enact rules to prevent the new crop from following in the footsteps of the old. If you think another group of lifelong politicians in Washington is going to change this situation, you're optimistically deluded at best, IMNSHO.

I'll say it again... allowing people to make a lifelong career out of pandering to special interests while placating the masses with an occasional tidbit ONLY when an election is on the line is ONLY going to get us... well... exactly what we have now.

Bottom line... ideologically, it sounds great to let the masses re-elect whomever they wish as many times as they wish. In reality, it leads to complacency on the part of the voting public and corruption by the elected officials.


Communism sounds great, too... on paper.

 

[Billybob]

As Time Ran Out, Super Committee Watched Football, Hung Around in Bars

http://news.yahoo.com/time-ran-supe...BzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

 

[soonerwings]

You can think that if you want... but rules are in place to protect people, not just from others but from ourselves. No doing drugs, not drinking and driving, not abusing children or women, labor laws, etc. All these things are infringements on our "freedom", and if you think the Constitution has no place governing our day-to-day lives, then you must remove all the above rules and a lot more. Your position (as I read it) of letting people continue to elect people who pander to them and give them money out of others' pockets is what got us into this mess and will continue to make it worse. As I said before... how's that policy worked so far? As the American sheeple become more apathetic and hopeless and the politicians become more craven and self-serving, this country will go downhill until there is no farther to go. If that's your goal, "Let it fail so we can say we told you so!", then you're likely to see it.

I didn't see anything in the Constitution about doing drugs or abusing children. The Constitution is an awesome document and the best of its kind in the world. The Constitution already provides for term limits by allowing us to use the ballot box. It does allow us to set our own rules, but just because we set our own rules, doesn't imply that we always do a good job of it. You'll never convince me that it's immoral/unethical/wrong for someone to do drugs if they do it in the privacy of their own home and don't infringe on the rights/safety of others. Is it stupid? Yes it is. People should have the right to be stupid as long as it doesn't affect others. Your logic would dictate that it's fine for the government to mandate that everyone purchase health care. The fact that you label the American people as "sheeple" is indicative of your awareness that many of our citizens have become lazy morons. THIS is the problem.

And yes... I DO think one person can have ENORMOUS influence over individual bills, when they are put in a position of power. How many times in the last year have we wished Harry Reid would be voted out and replaced? How many times? That guy has stonewalled so many proposals it's ridiculous. Yet his district keeps sending him back, and the rest of the government and the United States suffers for it. Guess we better keep sending our own guy back time and time and time again, so he can have some real power someday, huh? Dang, those poor freshmen congressmen don't have a hope of getting ANYthing done... you gotta be there for 3-4 terms or more before anyone will even listen to you. EFF THAT, MAN!

What's his job again??? Oh that's right...he's the MAJORITY leader. That means that as of now he represents the MAJORITY party in the Senate. Give it one more election cycle and he probably won't be in that position any more. If more people in the nation voted conservatively, then he wouldn't be in his position. It sucks, but there's no use in crying over the democratic process even though our opinion is a minority one (at the moment).

Yes, we need to vote them out. Totally. But we need to enact rules to prevent the new crop from following in the footsteps of the old. If you think another group of lifelong politicians in Washington is going to change this situation, you're optimistically deluded at best, IMNSHO

.

Changing the rules to prevent the new crop from following in the footsteps of the old? That's my point. Fix the system without telling someone they can't vote for someone that's doing a good job. If you think the group of people that has gotten us into this mess that we're in over the last 60 years has done so against the will of the people then I'd say that you're the deluded one. People vote for candidates that give them what they want here and now. They never stop to think about the long term consequences of those actions.

I'll say it again... allowing people to make a lifelong career out of pandering to special interests while placating the masses with an occasional tidbit ONLY when an election is on the line is ONLY going to get us... well... exactly what we have now.

I'll say it again. The means for publicly mandated term limits has existed for centuries in the form of the ballot box.

Bottom line... ideologically, it sounds great to let the masses re-elect whomever they wish as many times as they wish. In reality, it leads to complacency on the part of the voting public and corruption by the elected officials.

Ideologically, liberty does sound great. I agree. If you think that liberty is to blame for people getting complacent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Communism sounds great, too... on paper.

BAAAAHAAAHAA...did you just go McCarthy and call me a communist? Communism doesn't even sound good on paper if you actually read about it. NICE red herring though.


[/QUOTE]

 

[tRidiot]

i didn't see anything in the constitution about doing drugs or abusing children. The constitution is an awesome document and the best of its kind in the world. The constitution already provides for term limits by allowing us to use the ballot box. It does allow us to set our own rules, but just because we set our own rules, doesn't imply that we always do a good job of it. You'll never convince me that it's immoral/unethical/wrong for someone to do drugs if they do it in the privacy of their own home and don't infringe on the rights/safety of others. Is it stupid? Yes it is. People should have the right to be stupid as long as it doesn't affect others. Your logic would dictate that it's fine for the government to mandate that everyone purchase health care. The fact that you label the american people as "sheeple" is indicative of your awareness that many of our citizens have become lazy morons. This is the problem.



What's his job again??? Oh that's right...he's the majority leader. That means that as of now he represents the majority party in the senate. Give it one more election cycle and he probably won't be in that position any more. If more people in the nation voted conservatively, then he wouldn't be in his position. It sucks, but there's no use in crying over the democratic process even though our opinion is a minority one (at the moment).

.

Changing the rules to prevent the new crop from following in the footsteps of the old? That's my point. Fix the system without telling someone they can't vote for someone that's doing a good job. If you think the group of people that has gotten us into this mess that we're in over the last 60 years has done so against the will of the people then i'd say that you're the deluded one. People vote for candidates that give them what they want here and now. They never stop to think about the long term consequences of those actions.



I'll say it again. The means for publicly mandated term limits has existed for centuries in the form of the ballot box.



Ideologically, liberty does sound great. I agree. If you think that liberty is to blame for people getting complacent, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Baaaahaaahaa...did you just go mccarthy and call me a communist? Communism doesn't even sound good on paper if you actually read about it. Nice red herring though.

[/quote]

No, I didn't call you a Communist. I was making a point that instituting a governmental system based on idealogy that has next to zero possibility of working in real life is folly. And our system DOES NOT WORK. You lobby the people to vote (again, nothing new, isn't working), and I'll lobby for term limits.

Agree to disagree, fine. Liberty and freedom are nice... and allowing people the freedom to do things that only hurt themselves DOESN'T mean the consequences only affect them. We all pay for drug addicts and smokers and obesity and you name whatever else you want. Your cry of "vote them out" doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It isn't going to work, much as I'd love for it to do so. The American people are rushing headlong into oblivion (as a whole) and nothing is going to stop it (in my opinion). The rest of this is just esoterics and line-dancing.

Ok, I'm done. I wasn't trying to insult you or distract the issue, I was making a real point, and certainly wasn't calling you a Communist. But you do sound much more Libertarian than I am, and I just can't get behind that. Sorry.

 

[vvvvvvv]

RINOs like Sue Tibbs who've been shitting on our firearms rights for years due to "seniority" and being appointed to certain committees? So because people in a liberal district in Tulsa keep electing her and she has power over our firearms rights, that's perfectly ok, huh? So one rep from Tulsa keeping our rights under her thumb is the way the game is played in this system, and it's the people in Tulsa who are to blame for your not being able to open carry a firearm, huh?

That's not a term limit issue. That's a blatant violation of the Oklahoma Constitution. And any State Representative who voted for the House Rules that allow such committees broke their oath to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

Here's a list of those from 2011.

 

[soonerwings]

You lobby the people to vote (again, nothing new, isn't working), and I'll lobby for term limits.

People AREN'T voting and that's part of the problem. Low voter turnout has been shown to encourage candidates to run who cater to ideological bases. Only people that feel strongly one way or the other on any given issues show up at the polls. The guys/gals in the middle stopped showing up at polling stations decades ago. Go ahead and lobby for an additional excuse for people to not do their homework and refuse to go vote.

allowing people the freedom to do things that only hurt themselves DOESN'T mean the consequences only affect them. We all pay for drug addicts and smokers and obesity and you name whatever else you want.

We all pay for drug addicts and smokers huh? Only in a big government utopia.

Your cry of "vote them out" doesn't work. It hasn't worked. It isn't going to work, much as I'd love for it to do so. The American people are rushing headlong into oblivion (as a whole) and nothing is going to stop it (in my opinion). The rest of this is just esoterics and line-dancing.

Voting them out would indeed work if people weren't so damned lazy. That's my whole point. There's no reason to institute term limits that punish those who actually want to stay informed and vote accordingly. I agree though...the chances of the people in this country waking up are slim to none...just look at the 99% protests....

But you do sound much more Libertarian than I am, and I just can't get behind that. Sorry.

I am hardly libertarian. You sound much more pro big government than I am though, and I can't get behind that either. I do acknowledge your right to think that way though.

 

[Street Rat]

Why are you guys talking about term limits? As good an idea that someone has come up with, I just don't see congress voting to be cut loose after a number of years.

 

[soonerwings]

Why are you guys talking about term limits? As good an idea that someone has come up with, I just don't see congress voting to be cut loose after a number of years.

I believe the term limit discussion started with post #3 in the thread.

 

[ripnbst]

He didn't say where did it start. He said why?

Congress would pretty much have to vote for their own termination, and that's not going to happen. It's the equivalent of a nation of kings and queens who are determined by bloodlines one day deciding that they should be voted to be there by the people. Not going to happen.

 

[vvvvvvv]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Notice that when voter turnout has historically trended sharply downward, we got boned. (See especially 1892-1924)

Perhaps the sharp trend upward between 2000 and 2008 means that more Americans are waking up and realizing that they must vote if they want change?

Polls have also been showing a trend toward more likely consideration of third party candidates by voters.