I get tired of hearing this! Rant!

[darth tang]

Here is where a term limit I think would be good. Let's take Senator Kennedy for instance. His area always places him in office because he is a democrat. No democrat will run against him there. Why? Because it will split the democratic vote and possibly place a republican in office. By doing so Kennedy is pretty much a lock......now term limits would provide the area with a new democratic canidate that will have new ideas and not split the party on which way they wish to vote and ending up with a republican even though the majority do vote democrat. See my point.
The other option is to remove the party titles of democrat, independent, and republican from the game and force them to run on issues instead of party affiliations. But I haven't quite figured out how this could be done without change how things are done to much.
I personally believe many just vote a party line no matter what and that in itself is very dangerous.

 

[dogstar]

Still, will not address my issue that the special intrest and the money is the problem. If you dont think so , thats fine.
THEY are the reason for the two party system because they control both. Easier. They make the rules and let the politians play the game. According to their rules. They know the country is not that far apart so they promote the few issues that each think will excite the people to their side so they can win the game with depending on what team they want to play on on. Think they can win on. When elected they dont really care about the issue anymore and do very little about them but every press/photo opt they give the retoric and spin as if they do.
Behind the closed doors is where the real rules come into play and thats where the money sits. They get their way because they have bought both teams anyway and if a player dosnt play by the rules then they dont play. New player or old.
They sometimes throw out little crumbs to the people related to the issues so the people will continue to vote for that team but the big slices of the pie goes to.......

 

[darth tang]

I understand what you are saying and agree. But I think if we made it more of an individual (instead of a party) election race with limited terms....the politicians would be more inclined to PROVE they are helping the people instead of following the money. Plus this will limit the influence companies have as they will no longer be able to donate to a "party" fund. The parties would be gone. It won't eliminate all of the money and coruption, but I feel it will be a big step in the right direction.
Does that make sense? I am actually having a hard time getting what I envision in my head in writing.
Darth (vote for me) Tang

 

[dogstar]

Make perfect sense, and I can understand the idea behind term limits for congress, I just dont know if it will help that much. If a politician did, as you say PROVE that he was for the people then he would not be able to serve after the term and then what ?
This is one reason why I feel it would take power from the people.
If the contributions/money were more limited and as you say, let the politicians run more on their own merits/actions instead of just lip service to the people then would help more.
Of all the money used/spent/contributed/bought in the country every two years from $1000s for every Sheiff or Commisioner race in every little town in every state to $100,000s for mayors and every states senate and congresman to Millions spent for Goveners and national senators and President races. ect. ect. Think about. Where does it come from? we all know and why? we know why too. Im not talking about a $50 or $100 here and there from THE people. You know the money Im talking about. And alot matched out of federal funds too. That could bring us back to the original topic of the thread. haha
You do great explaining you ideas, many times I know them befor even reading sometimes
I think, much better than I.
This is an intresting thread, covering many topics.

 

[darth tang]

I feel a 2 or 3 term limit would be good. Senator Kennedy is my best example......he has been elected to 7 full terms and a senator since 1962......That is over a 40 year reign. This is what I disagree with...I find many like this in both parties....Kennedy is just the easiest as everyone knows he has been around forever.
If he was limited, we may have had new ideas by now and not a guy corrupted by money as many of them get when they become...career senators.

 

[dogstar]

Currently, the 109th...
The average length of service of members in the house is 9.3 yrs ( 4.5 terms of 2 yr each term )
In the Senate, 12.1 yrs ( 2 terms of 6 yrs each )
Seems like its around what you want anyway, so...
If you think that time in the congress gives one power over the procsess, the members with more terms are mostly Dems. Thurman, Byrd, Kennedy as you mentioned but Reps. control the power now and members like Delay and others who are willing to go to the extreams with the special intrest and play dirty and greedy with the power, for the power, is my point.
Again, Im not saying term limits want help, Im saying its not the main problem with the system. It would just be another ploy tactic by the REAL powers to be to make the people think somethings being done if they were to do them.
I know as many Dems would do the same if they could and do, and its all about the money. And who THEY give it to to help win the game for them.

 

[beth]

Originally Posted by Darth Tang
I feel a 2 or 3 term limit would be good. Senator Kennedy is my best example......he has been elected to 7 full terms and a senator since 1962......That is over a 40 year reign. This is what I disagree with...I find many like this in both parties....Kennedy is just the easiest as everyone knows he has been around forever.
If he was limited, we may have had new ideas by now and not a guy corrupted by money as many of them get when they become...career senators.
Have to agree with this one. If anyone needs to retire, its him. Should not have been voted in, considering all of his problems....including alcoholism. Its bizarre how he has the nerve to throw so many stones, considering he lives in the biggest glass house in Washington.

 

[wbilton]

Now that elections are coming up, and there is no end in sight in Iraq, and it seems the republicans are going to a big hit. Lets revisit this thread.

 

[scubadoo]

I would have agreed with the big hit until that certain Dem made his ill-advised comment or joke as he called it earlier this week.
Kerry has felt like this and has made similar comments in the past regarding the military.
Comments such as this sometimes grow legs and can mobilize folks to vote.
It also serves as a reminder that the Dems are weak on defense, the miltary in general and have no plan fighting the war on terror. kerry probably killed any chance of a presidntial run...Hillary is probably smiling.
Actually he ended up in the militay..so I guess his comments regarding intellignece comes from his first hand analysis of his own intellect

There is serious doubt the Repb will hold on to the House...but the Senate looks doable.
It is up to the country to speak on election day...and we all have to accept the outcome and move forward.
His comment in general is in poor taste and inexcuable when the country is at war. Joke or not.
We should expect and demand better from our political leaders.

 

[1journeyman]

Hey Scuba, where ya been?
Also, where's Darth Tang been?
And I agree, Kerry said what he thought and in so doing mobilized his opposition.

 

[dogstar]

There are people which who are willing to twist what someone says into a lie, thats is who they are and their right to try to do so....but Kerry was talking clearly about the President in that speech....never mentioned troop or service personel, ect. in that comment/joke......of course many feel that people should not be able to make negative comments abour the President, or at least THIS one...and thats even more scary to me....
simular, I know of no statements where he has refered to the 'troops' of being uneducated....can you explain?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
There are people which who are willing to twist what someone says into a lie, thats is who they are and their right to try to do so....but Kerry was talking clearly about the President in that speech....never mentioned troop or service personel, ect. in that comment/joke......of course many feel that people should not be able to make negative comments abour the President, or at least THIS one...and thats even more scary to me....
simular, I know of no statements where he has refered to the 'troops' of being uneducated....can you explain?
No way dog... he was talking about education and said "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” If you watch the video you see the pause is when he LOOKS DOWN and reads his notes...
He went to the same school as President Bush and made slightly worse grades than the President... how could he insult the President's education?
Kerry has a long history of being anti-military.

 

[jerthunter]

On a similar note, I can't stand listening to all the political ads on tv and radio that tell me to vote for someone for the sole reason that they don't like Bush. I know it is a popular idea right now to hate the current president and blame everything on him but I am sure there are better reasons to vote for someone then just the fact that they are in a different political party then Bush. The idea of voting agianst someone scares me, just because you don't like one person doesn't mean that someone opposed to him/her is good.
It is my uneducated opinion that we need better candidates for all political parties but that we will not see any unless both major parties recieve a wakeup call in the form of a third party earning a significant portion of the popular vote in a major election.
So that is my rant.... sorry if it wasn't on the same line as the orignal topic.

 

[petjunkie]

I'm firmly of the opinion that there really is no difference between the parties once you hit the higher ups. I'm not a fan of Bush but this country has become so divided once he got in office, it's terrible. I can't believe all the slander ads in the mail and tv, no one runs honestly anymore. Overthrow!!!

Hopefully I don't disappear tomorrow for that statement.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
There are people which who are willing to twist what someone says into a lie, thats is who they are and their right to try to do so....but Kerry was talking clearly about the President in that speech....never mentioned troop or service personel, ect. in that comment/joke......of course many feel that people should not be able to make negative comments abour the President, or at least THIS one...and thats even more scary to me....
simular, I know of no statements where he has refered to the 'troops' of being uneducated....can you explain?
I'll let Kerry's own words explain..and here are his comments from the past...you decide what he believes..
WASHINGTON (AP) - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.
After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities
Kerry apologized Wednesday for the 2006 campaign trail gaffe that some took as suggesting U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq were undereducated. He contended the remark was aimed at Bush, not the soldiers.
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

 

[scubadoo]

More comments from Kerry...and what he calls our GREAT military and the honrable folks that serve this country.....
"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation," he said. "It isn't happening now, but I will tell you - there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq."

 

[dogstar]

I think what Kerry has said about vietnam was true......threr was atrosities committed there and the public became aware and as a result, the opinions of many people were negative about the returning troops....he never outright blamed the troops themselves. He blamed the circumstances of that war, the lack of clear missions, lack of moral leadership on the ground or accountability of the commanders, ect, ect. That war had a detremental effect on nearly every soilder that served there......His consern was not only for the soilder, but the reputation of our nation, the reputation of the military and the way it was to be ran in the future....spin it as one will, thats mine.....
As for Iraq....IMO not much has changed....sounds much the same...what the leaders are doing to the soilders.....ofcourse now the media coverage is so much more controled by the military that we only hear the half of it....if that.
I understand that many hate to admitt that their beloved country's leaders can be so neglectfull and incompetent and ignorant in fighting a war ( or even representing the people ) and some will refuse to, but I will because its true.

 

[scubadoo]

To use the term "muderous" in defining the actions of a troops is shameful. His comments earlier in the 70's further supports his recent comment/joke. I'm still trying to figure out the punch line.
What a piece of garbage.

 

[dogstar]

If an american soldier commits murder....what do you call it.....? It happened, beleive it. Its happening now....in Iraq. Or dont beleive it...or say its not
true...whatever......your choice. If its not shamefull in some manner to you, then again, your choice.
I myself, dont so much hold the soldier at fault as much as I do the leadership. But to ignore it, or say it never happens or we shouldn't care or it doesn't matter or to try to cover it up or slam someone for speaking about it or whatever your beleive or a mission is in spinning this is not going to ''help the soldiers'' when another is again faced with those situations or thoughts or confusions or personal demons that can lead to more ''shamfull actions'' being committed.....

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
If an american soldier commits murder....what do you call it.....? It happened, beleive it. Its happening now....in Iraq. Or dont beleive it...or say its not
true...whatever......your choice. If its not shamefull in some manner to you, then again, your choice.
I myself, dont so much hold the soldier at fault as much as I do the leadership. But to ignore it, or say it never happens or we shouldn't care or it doesn't matter or to try to cover it up or slam someone for speaking about it or whatever your beleive or a mission is in spinning this is not going to ''help the soldiers'' when another is again faced with those situations or thoughts or confusions or personal demons that can lead to more ''shamfull actions'' being committed.....
I beleive Kerry claims the current military in Iraq is the most murderous in HISTORY and the most violent in HISTORY. Really?