Wow. Some real good responses on this page. Stink fist hit a triple up there. Darn near legged out an inside the park.

(06-28-2015 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:23 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  I think the era of bad banking is one of the main reasons we are in such sucky economic times. Just IMO.

It is for sure one of the dominos that have fallen. Ironically though....If you are an investor? This schitty economy has been wonderful. My portfolio has benefited handsomely during the Obama administration.

Exactly. I identify closely with the social conservatism of 1950s America. Unfortunately, as a minority, there was no place in the republican party for my parents. To this day, we tolerate the liberal aspects of the Democratic party over the veiled discrimination of the republican party. It is the lesser of two evils.

So all white conservatives aren't racist, eh?

You just can't help exposing yourself can you.

(06-28-2015 10:58 AM)Pellet Wrote:  The chance that a woman burns in hell for having an abortion is exactly the same as a jihadi actually gets his 72 virgins.
Both are slightly less than the odds that I will have sex with Taylor Swift this afternoon.

Those are your opinions, and you have every right to them.

But they are not facts. You have zero factual basis upon which to state them, except maybe the part about Taylor Swift. So do not state them as facts.

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Demonizing's easy. Solutions are hard.

The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

I agree; although term limits may help with that.

(06-28-2015 08:52 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Going from moral to amoral doesn't seem like a good idea.

IMHO.

But it's the people that determine that, not federal policy. For instance, whatever your position on abortion might be, if one were truly interested in seeing more reductions they should advocate for more female OB/GYN's as well as the creation of a reliable male birth control. Same thing for the federal marriage issue, where is the call for Christians to get divorced in the eyes of the gov't and reaffirm their union in church?

(06-28-2015 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:23 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  I think the era of bad banking is one of the main reasons we are in such sucky economic times. Just IMO.

It is for sure one of the dominos that have fallen. Ironically though....If you are an investor? This schitty economy has been wonderful. My portfolio has benefited handsomely during the Obama administration.

Exactly. I identify closely with the social conservatism of 1950s America. Unfortunately, as a minority, there was no place in the republican party for my parents. To this day, we tolerate the liberal aspects of the Democratic party over the veiled discrimination of the republican party. It is the lesser of two evils.

That assumes there are no racists in the DNC. Also you could try and join people like me to change that POV.

(06-29-2015 06:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Demonizing's easy. Solutions are hard.

The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

I agree; although term limits may help with that.

Fo Shizzle.

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Demonizing's easy. Solutions are hard.

The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

A modern politician isn't going to piss off his/her constituents in the near term. They like getting reelected.

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Demonizing's easy. Solutions are hard.

The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

I agree; although term limits may help with that.

Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Demonizing's easy. Solutions are hard.

The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

I agree; although term limits may help with that.

Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The solutions are easy. Having the guts to do what you know you must do is hard. These clowns in Washington are for the most part totally gutless.

I agree; although term limits may help with that.

Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 06:56 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree; although term limits may help with that.

Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

(06-29-2015 07:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 10:54 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 05:23 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  I think the era of bad banking is one of the main reasons we are in such sucky economic times. Just IMO.

It is for sure one of the dominos that have fallen. Ironically though....If you are an investor? This schitty economy has been wonderful. My portfolio has benefited handsomely during the Obama administration.

Exactly. I identify closely with the social conservatism of 1950s America. Unfortunately, as a minority, there was no place in the republican party for my parents. To this day, we tolerate the liberal aspects of the Democratic party over the veiled discrimination of the republican party. It is the lesser of two evils.

That assumes there are no racists in the DNC. Also you could try and join people like me to change that POV.

Democratic Senator Byrd was a former leader of the KKK. The Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act (around 80%). Democrats were around 60%.

Being against racial preferences as the Republicans mostly are, does not make you a racist.

(06-27-2015 09:50 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Agree 100% with every word Owl said, with one exception ... abortion isn't over.

Abortion is to the 21st century what slavery was to the 19th century. We need to win the hearts & minds of the American people and that is slowly happening. Gays changed our hearts and minds on gay marriage; they've given us the blueprint on how to win.

I don't think we'll be able to outlaw all abortions, but there's a lot of progress to be made. Late term abortions should nearly always be illegal; those done simply for convenience should result in jail time for the doctor and mother.

I'm not giving up.

I agree with this.

There are moderates and baby blue liberals (read: classical ones that haven't gone crazy) that could be convinced regarding abortion.

I'm emphatically behind gay marriage because marriage is an honest attempt at building a stable family. Marriage is a net positive for the community - and if gay people would like to contribute towards building stable households then I am all for it.

On the contrary, abortions not done in cases of rape/incest/abuse are often the removal of responsibility from the society. Unprotected sex has consequences, and children are NOT the end - they are actually a way forward in life.

Socially speaking, I see casual abortions as the opposite of gay marriage. One side wants to add responsibility, and the other wants to throw it away. Just because you have a child, it does not mean that your enjoyment of life will come to a bitter end. You will LIVE, and probably THRIVE.

(06-29-2015 09:45 AM)samandrea Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

People get out of touch and have too many resources. It makes it very difficult to defeat them. Serious contenders avoid those races. So you get powerful, arrogant politicians who grow out of touch with their constituents but are almost impossible to remove barring scandal.

Its more important to have the 1 term limited than the 1 of 100 or 1 of 435, but it would be good to have all.

I also think the same out of touch issue and desire for power should lead us to limit the Supreme Court justices to a 20 year term instead of life. I don't think the founders really envisioned justices staying on until they died or could no longer function.

(06-29-2015 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:45 AM)samandrea Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

People get out of touch and have too many resources. It makes it very difficult to defeat them. Serious contenders avoid those races. So you get powerful, arrogant politicians who grow out of touch with their constituents but are almost impossible to remove barring scandal.

Its more important to have the 1 term limited than the 1 of 100 or 1 of 435, but it would be good to have all.

I also think the same out of touch issue and desire for power should lead us to limit the Supreme Court justices to a 20 year term instead of life. I don't think the founders really envisioned justices staying on until they died or could no longer function.

They are only there because the people keep voting for them. That is how elections work. Also, maybe people elect them because they like what they do for their district. They are after all their representative. Term limits for Congress would take away the right for people to choose who represents their interest.

(06-29-2015 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:45 AM)samandrea Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

People get out of touch and have too many resources. It makes it very difficult to defeat them. Serious contenders avoid those races. So you get powerful, arrogant politicians who grow out of touch with their constituents but are almost impossible to remove barring scandal.

Its more important to have the 1 term limited than the 1 of 100 or 1 of 435, but it would be good to have all.

I also think the same out of touch issue and desire for power should lead us to limit the Supreme Court justices to a 20 year term instead of life. I don't think the founders really envisioned justices staying on until they died or could no longer function.

Some of these Supreme Court Justices make my 85 year old Grandmother look young ............. I'm not sure how some of them can even think straight!

(06-29-2015 09:45 AM)samandrea Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Fo Shizzle.

I still don't understand how it is legal for the legislative branch to put term limits on the executive branch.

The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

All 3 should be term limited. 12 years for everybody. 3 presidential terms, 2 senatorial terms, 6 congressional terms and one 12 year judicial term.

(06-29-2015 10:07 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:45 AM)samandrea Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 09:31 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 08:33 AM)dfarr Wrote:  The executive branch term limits are in the constitution, which takes a bit more than just the legislative branch passing a law. Prior to the 22nd Amendment presidents had just traditionally only served for 2 terms since that's all that Washington served for, until FDR got elected 4 times.

It'd probably take another constitutional amendment to term limit the legislative branch.

All 3 branches should be term limited or none of them should be term limited.

There should be no term limits in the House. This is the representation for people of a certain district. It is their voice. If they like that voice, they have a right to have them represent them as long as they choose.

People get out of touch and have too many resources. It makes it very difficult to defeat them. Serious contenders avoid those races. So you get powerful, arrogant politicians who grow out of touch with their constituents but are almost impossible to remove barring scandal.

Its more important to have the 1 term limited than the 1 of 100 or 1 of 435, but it would be good to have all.

I also think the same out of touch issue and desire for power should lead us to limit the Supreme Court justices to a 20 year term instead of life. I don't think the founders really envisioned justices staying on until they died or could no longer function.

Some of these Supreme Court Justices make my 85 year old Grandmother look young ............. I'm not sure how some of them can even think straight!

I thought RBG would retire.

She was drunk at the last SOTU Address. Zero f*cks given by RBG