(02-05-2018 05:17 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372208...politician

At least he's honest. One lemming down. Many to go.

Yep, I agree. If they all just admitted this things would probably work out for the best.

Gowdy prolly couldn't stand being in the same room as those two worms Schiff and Swallowell.

(02-05-2018 06:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 06:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 05:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 05:17 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  http://thehill.com/homenews/house/372208...politician

At least he's honest. One lemming down. Many to go.

Too good for politics.

XACLY!

cb and the other 'party before country' on there knees only understand 'their' game.....

hence, #termlimits that work towards a long term logical solution....

pay 'em their worth to write solid laws and legislate on the front end....eliminate insider leveraging, and let's see how those chips fall moving forward.....

it's amazing how too many get caught up in what DJT simply exposed......

as I knew I would, I've grown tired of this bs banter......

I'm not happy with what I've seen of term limits in Arkansas. Guys are coming in grabbing what they can fast as they can. After three terms people with mediocre resumes before becoming elected are suddenly landing great jobs in the industries they helped or worse getting in doing things designed to bolster their own business.

Term limits HAS to be tied to much tougher ethics laws is what I've learned or else they are in panic trying to snag everything they can before they term out.

I've been saying this for years in the old Tigers religious-political forum.

If we invoke term limits we'd see a rapid escalation of corruption.

How long a person is in office isn't necessarily the problem. Rather, it's the kind of person in office.

This exercise in self-governance does have pre-requisites.

Quote:Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams
Founding Father
1st Vice President
2nd President

If you follow our nation's timeline you'll see that the colonies became states.
Those states each had their own constitution.
Each constitution had an oath of office.
Each state sent representatives to the Constitutional Convention.

Were there any requirements at the state level before a person could represent the state?

Of course there were. Each state constitution included an Oath of Office which was taken by those who served in elected or appointed positions.

These oaths differed from state to state but they maintained a common theme:
A belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and a place of eternal reward or punishment.

These oaths were not bound to any particular denomination but they were decidedly Christian. The oaths were acceptable to Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholic, etc.


Of course, that was then and this is now. The point is the farther away we shift from traditional objective morality and closer to moral relativism, we should expect people to behave in all sorts of ways.

And if we honestly adhere to moral relativism then each of us individually should have no issue with how others behave.

Of course that's not the case, though, because each of us do have an objective basis of basic right and wrong.

Our Founders relied on our common belief in Christianity to serve as that objective moral standard.

Quote:Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(02-06-2018 05:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 12:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The ethics limitations are the critical element. Shepherd through "banking reform" and you end up in a high paying banking job when you leave or you push Medicaid "reform" and your wife owns a company that profits you've got a problem, or as we had, a guy who owned several daycares pushed deregulation of daycares and no one noticed until a kid died at one when left in a van in the summer when the driver failed to have the required alarm (when the van is turned off it makes a terrible noise, you have to go to the back to turn it off so it forces you to see if there are any kids still on the van). Term limits push you to act fast and act big instead of playing the long-game like the old time legislators did. They didn't try to get everything they needed to benefit in six years.

I just think it is wildly improbable that an amendment would ever make it through at the Federal level.

Right now I'd settle for changing House terms to four years and Senate to eight and making them line up with presidential elections ending off the year elections. I think it would dial down the crazy because elections wouldn't be so frequent and it cuts down the pressure to constantly fund-raise.

no question the ethics issue is a monster.....

I like that last posit.....it would still require an amendment.....no differently than the 22nd amendment....you'd be changing the term periods for both and would have to extend some existing house/senate terms to achieve that synergy.....

however, that's a pretty dayum good idea relative to today's scenario....

I'm hardly a constitutional laureate, but I would assume the 2 yr limit for the house was due to what became gerrymandering.....

My four and eight year term proposal linked to presidential elections is something that is viable to pass.

I was talking to a friend who is from the UK and I was complaining about the constant crazy and he pointed out that UK elections are just about as nutty but the critical difference is they do national elections every five years instead of every two.

When a member is sworn into the House, he or she is facing a primary election in roughly 15 months.

It creates the eternal campaign.

When the Founders created the House of Representatives, no Congressional district was to contain more than 30,000 free people. Today it is up around 650,000.

The House the Founders imagined was populated by people who could receive a letter from a constituent and either know who that person was, or they knew someone who knew that person.

The average House district was about 1/7th the population of a single city council district in Houston today.

To have the representation imagined by the Founders, the House would have to have nearly 11,000 members today.

We can't functionally have a House that large unless we set up some sort of electronic work space, so we need to pull back the re-election pressure a bit and let the public elect a president who has to work with the same Congress for their entire term.

(02-06-2018 04:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 12:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The ethics limitations are the critical element. Shepherd through "banking reform" and you end up in a high paying banking job when you leave or you push Medicaid "reform" and your wife owns a company that profits you've got a problem, or as we had, a guy who owned several daycares pushed deregulation of daycares and no one noticed until a kid died at one when left in a van in the summer when the driver failed to have the required alarm (when the van is turned off it makes a terrible noise, you have to go to the back to turn it off so it forces you to see if there are any kids still on the van). Term limits push you to act fast and act big instead of playing the long-game like the old time legislators did. They didn't try to get everything they needed to benefit in six years.

I just think it is wildly improbable that an amendment would ever make it through at the Federal level.

Right now I'd settle for changing House terms to four years and Senate to eight and making them line up with presidential elections ending off the year elections. I think it would dial down the crazy because elections wouldn't be so frequent and it cuts down the pressure to constantly fund-raise.

no question the ethics issue is a monster.....

I like that last posit.....it would still require an amendment.....no differently than the 22nd amendment....you'd be changing the term periods for both and would have to extend some existing house/senate terms to achieve that synergy.....

however, that's a pretty dayum good idea relative to today's scenario....

I'm hardly a constitutional laureate, but I would assume the 2 yr limit for the house was due to what became gerrymandering.....

My four and eight year term proposal linked to presidential elections is something that is viable to pass.

I was talking to a friend who is from the UK and I was complaining about the constant crazy and he pointed out that UK elections are just about as nutty but the critical difference is they do national elections every five years instead of every two.

When a member is sworn into the House, he or she is facing a primary election in roughly 15 months.

It creates the eternal campaign.

When the Founders created the House of Representatives, no Congressional district was to contain more than 30,000 free people. Today it is up around 650,000.

The House the Founders imagined was populated by people who could receive a letter from a constituent and either know who that person was, or they knew someone who knew that person.

The average House district was about 1/7th the population of a single city council district in Houston today.

To have the representation imagined by the Founders, the House would have to have nearly 11,000 members today.

We can't functionally have a House that large unless we set up some sort of electronic work space, so we need to pull back the re-election pressure a bit and let the public elect a president who has to work with the same Congress for their entire term.

I completely agree......not that it means anything other than opinion, but I can't shoot a hole through it in today's scenario....

I'd love to hear a valid argument against.....I simply can't find one....

sounds like it's time to start planting more bugs in some ears....

All republicans are terrible politicians. That's why they are republicans. That's why they have a hard time winning any election that becomes a popularity contest. They have to win on issues.

As a Brit friend of mine once said, "Of course Labour have more attractive candidates. If they didn't they couldn't win elections because Tories have better ideas." This friend is a Labour party member, by the way.

(02-06-2018 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All republicans are terrible politicians. That's why they are republicans. That's why they have a hard time winning any election that becomes a popularity contest. They have to win on issues.

As a Brit friend of mine once said, "Of course Labour have more attractive candidates. If they didn't they couldn't win elections because Tories have better ideas." This friend is a Labour party member, by the way.

assuming you were alive during the JFK years, just look at dems moving forward

cankles/sanders/DJT could possibly be the ugliest collection in history.....I actually view that as progress...

it's plausible that JC vs. Ford could enter the ugly arena.....JC was simply toooooooooooooooooooo much of a humanitarian relative to Ford's principles to overcome in the TV era and the stigma of the trickster dickster....

I really would've liked to see what would've happened if Ford would've been elected....I believe he would've been a great one....

oh wellzy, can't get it back.....

(02-06-2018 06:01 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All republicans are terrible politicians. That's why they are republicans. That's why they have a hard time winning any election that becomes a popularity contest. They have to win on issues.

As a Brit friend of mine once said, "Of course Labour have more attractive candidates. If they didn't they couldn't win elections because Tories have better ideas." This friend is a Labour party member, by the way.

assuming you were alive during the JFK years, just look at dems moving forward

cankles/sanders/DJT could possibly be the ugliest collection in history.....I actually view that as progress...

it's plausible that JC vs. Ford could enter the ugly arena.....JC was simply toooooooooooooooooooo much of a humanitarian relative to Ford's principles to overcome in the TV era and the stigma of the trickster dickster....

I really would've liked to see what would've happened if Ford would've been elected....I believe he would've been a great one....

oh wellzy, can't get it back.....

Ford vs Carter is a phenomenal "what if". It's one I've tried to play out a few times just because it was such a huge turning point. Ford losing after the Reagan challenge made Reagan the fairly heavy favorite (though not a shoe in).

That was a close election and a Ford win might have prevented a Reagan presidency in 1980.

Bob Dole would have been the likely Republican standard bearer in 1980 if Ford didn't run for a third term because he would have been eligible for a third.

(02-06-2018 06:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 06:01 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All republicans are terrible politicians. That's why they are republicans. That's why they have a hard time winning any election that becomes a popularity contest. They have to win on issues.

As a Brit friend of mine once said, "Of course Labour have more attractive candidates. If they didn't they couldn't win elections because Tories have better ideas." This friend is a Labour party member, by the way.

assuming you were alive during the JFK years, just look at dems moving forward

cankles/sanders/DJT could possibly be the ugliest collection in history.....I actually view that as progress...

it's plausible that JC vs. Ford could enter the ugly arena.....JC was simply toooooooooooooooooooo much of a humanitarian relative to Ford's principles to overcome in the TV era and the stigma of the trickster dickster....

I really would've liked to see what would've happened if Ford would've been elected....I believe he would've been a great one....

oh wellzy, can't get it back.....

Ford vs Carter is a phenomenal "what if". It's one I've tried to play out a few times just because it was such a huge turning point. Ford losing after the Reagan challenge made Reagan the fairly heavy favorite (though not a shoe in).

That was a close election and a Ford win might have prevented a Reagan presidency in 1980.

Bob Dole would have been the likely Republican standard bearer in 1980 if Ford didn't run for a third term because he would have been eligible for a third.

the oil embargo/crisis guilt by association did him in also......I still remember those lines for 0.55/gal (lol).......bring in JC and his inflationary socialist policies that took hold and it's the crux why we continue to have the wealth divide we see to this day......

#whatamonumentalmistake

and ZERO managed to top it off with a cherry......I honestly didn't think it was possible......but he did by doubling the debt with little return.....

skyrocketing inflation/interest rates will only happen now if the USD crumbles.......right now, I'm very confident that will NOT happen......we're too embedded in the dependency of others.....

IMO, the scariest long term residual impact is the foreign influence on lobbyists.....

as Owl, I, and others have mentioned, it's going to take a VAT to begin working on reducing that guy....

however, there are too many other things that need to be put in place first......

this is why DJT had to come out of the gate fast and furious......he only has so long to implement the master plan.....

I can't give him enough credit for his policy moves across the board......

ol' boy knows what he's doing.....and he'll stomp the pea shite out of anyone that gets in his way......

it's his legacy that is on the line.......and he's way tooooooooooooo proud and smart to fail!

#MAGA

Gowdy is the librocrite's biggest nightmare...he owns those losers