Regarding the comments about term limits, I have to say I'm not totally sold on the concept, except perhaps in the office of the President. My first major objection is the first amendment and the right to vote for whomever we wish. But that doesn't satisfy many people (as I think it ought, anyway).
Rotating the knaves in Congress does nothing to address a far bigger, far more difficult problem: Lifetime Bureaucrat Appointees.
On the one hand, I think it's a very good thing to keep and retain genuine talent, like the White House Curator and the White House Chief Usher, and the people who operate the Library of Congress. Continuity and dedication to a craft is vitally important in running the Republic, just as it is in the Department of Defense.
But we have a massive cadre of petty bureaucrats who work in bloated departments and agencies, and they are left in place from Administration to Administration.
For some bizarre reason I cannot fathom, Republican Administrations tend to retain Democrat staff much more than Democrats will retain Republican staff. So what happens is that we have a leftist tilt to the overall administration of Government, regardless of who is in office. This is one of George W. Bush's major failings, and one reason why Obama has been so successful at ruining everything on which he lays his hands.
The leftist tilt is reinforced by a vicious linking between frank ownership by the left of non-governmental institutions such as the Universities, the Press, and increasingly, the Clergy, and the nepotism-like friendship of bureaucrats with those same people. The bureaucracy is often staffed from those institutions, and vice-versa.
So while it's awful to put up with "safe" candidates from districts inhabited by leftists, that is a factor which changes with changing demographics and economics. It also changes upon the eventual death of those same entrenched officeholders. (Here I remind you of the happy circumstance that Pelosi is no spring chicken.) But the bureaucracy is nearly permanent.
Until we deal with that, term limits won't make much difference.
WRT Presidential term limits, I think they should have extended the presidential term by one more year when they limited the number of terms. Sure, that would mean possibly suffering ten years of Obama, but in reality, I doubt it. I really believe that after five years of Obama, not even the press would help him get re-elected.
However, a really good president should have a couple of extra years if we can't run him again.
The real reason though, is because a new president only has two years to get anything done. Then the next two years is one long campaign.
Now, if we limited the silly season to just six weeks, including ALL commercials and campaign speeches, then I'd say the current term length is fine. But we'll never do that.
MyGB, these are the songs I have so far:
Brothers in Arms- Dire Straits
These Colors Dont Run- Iron Maiden
Life of My Own- Three Doors Down
Fight for Freedom- Manowar
Wait for Me- Theory of a Dead Man
And the one that Sober_ posted a bit ago.
I appreciate the one you just sent- lyrics wise, but it's kind of a lot for this project. Toon gave me one earlier much the same, but it's too much- it'd take away from something in the message. If you think of any others though, please, I'd love to hear them!! Thanks!
:-) Evenin' sweetGB.
I understand the Republicans in the house and sanate. They know that they have to reduce spending, but are afraid that if they fight too hard they will loose the next election.
If I were a politician, I would probably feel the same way. The obvious question:
What is the point of serving the country if your not getting anything worthwhile done, anyway? Is it the $174,000 salary? There are better jobs out there that won't be at other people's expanse. Besides, they are good at marketing, let them go start their own business, then at least, they will be getting something done.
Americans want problems to be fixed. They will elect the leaders they think can get the most importent things done. If they don't elect those leaders, good, what the point you should be serving in congress, if you are unwilling to vote for what you think need's to get done.
Yes republicans SHOULD compromise, but on things like taxes and social issues, NOT on spending and issues that will determine whether are country survives or deis.
The Righ Scoop, many of US have asked that you stop posting pics of Obama, we are disgusted with him and don't even want to look at him.
The re-election was rigged, it's all over the internet. Rand Paul is one of the only of a select few who we can rely on.
He also missed one "minor" point if we keep spending money this way. There could very well be a time when we end up like Greece, where nobody will loan us anymore money because we'll be seen as a bad risk. And we can't just keep printing money like we are doing now, because then either we'll have massive inflation, or our money will be worthless, or both. People really need to start listenting to this, because if we don't do something serious about the debt by 2016, we'll be over $20 TRILLION in the hole and we'll never be able to get out of that. The clock is ticking. I just hope people are listening.
It's always we little guy's that are taking it in the place where the sun doesn't shine. This Boy King has lied so many time to us that it is time for this tyrant and liar along with all the rest of the crooked senate to take a long walk off a short pier ! NOW !!!
"And as it turns out, workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000! " http://wyblog.us/blog/economy/memo-from-hr-yes-taxes-went-up.
So they LIED to us again.
Term limits will have to come from the ground up. Congress will never impose term limits on them selves. The Lobbyists would be apoplectic if they were forced to have to try to bribe a 'fresh' Senator or Representative every 4 or 8 years. ;-)
Remember, Roosevelt had to die in office, during war time, to get Presidential term limits and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Obama 'machine' wasn't looking for a way around that, right now.
Rand Paul makes sense. Wonder where he stands on drugs, prostitution, human trafficking (hopefully not like his Dad) gold-backed currency and the FED (hopefully like his Dad on this).
Sounds like he means business on entitlements and spending and the debt.
Google his name but I can tell you quickly he wants to stop the drug war. No idea on human trafficking, on gold is money he would repeal legal tender laws and yes he means business on entitlements and spending. He has a budget that would cut 500 billion in the 1st year and balance in 5, it eliminates entire departments.
I wish more people would talk about term limits. Interestingly enough, Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate actually spoke a length about term limits and it's part of the parties platform.
If the founders made one mistake in writing the Constitution it's, as Rand Paul says, not put term limits on congress.
Two mistakes IMO, (1) no term limits on Congress; and (2) no way for We The People to launch impeachment proceedings or charge POTUS and Administration with murder
You're right, but Jefferson said that the Constitution is the chain restricting the power of the government. Term limits would have been one more link in the chain.
I (sort of) understand how your present government works. Back in the 1700's if the Monarch said it, you did it. ;-)
The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see what their Republic has turned into now. We seem to have an 'elected -for-life' Monarchy in the Congress. It's a shame we can't use the old English way and just say "Off With Their Heads". ;-) ;-)
No - we cannot put term limits on the Queen - and thank God for that! She has been representing all that was and still is good for country, people and British character, one of the things being doing one's duty - a concept more and more foreign to many people across the globe.
60 years on the throne - and we all, even the socialists, adore her.
Generally, Kings and Queens can abdicate, or made to abdicate by others (barons in the Middle Ages; cutting the head off in 1648 by Cromwell; by politicians in the 1930s in the case of Edward-would-have-been VIII). That's it. Otherwise, it is indeed 'until death'.
But as we have what is called a Constitutional Monarchy, where the Monarch acts more like a Head of State without any legislative powers, and as the Monarch is explicitly forbidden to say anything remotely related to political questions, we'redoing fine.
The words the Queen does say, e.g. at official occasions, or when opening Parliament, are all written for her by the ministries in Whitehall, with the input and agreement of the government du jour.
It was 1789, the war for independence was over. There was no "Government" by aristocracy in the new republic. The framers covened in that summer to amend the Articles of Confederation and decided to start anew with a clean sheet of paper. Limiting the power of the state was a paramount concern to assure the states to radify the new document. Separation and limits on state power are it's hallmark. With their distrust of human nature it's just too bad they didn't forsee the "career politician" and put in safeguards.
The 'Government' of the time was an Aristocracy, a 'bloodline' passed down from father to son. Can the Brits put 'term limits' on the Queen?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Our government (at the time) consisted of 'Gentleman Farmers' and the like who had jobs, they couldn't forsake. I agree, it it would have been in our best interests if they had the foresight to see that this government has turned into exactly what they were trying to get away from.
A bit OT:
Rightscoop - suddenly the font of this whole site has become so small I cannot read it.
Enlarging it on my PC doesn't work.
What happened - or is it just me?
We are currently testing out a new iPhone and iPad theme for the website that works on top of the Website browser theme.
Can you please be specific with the type of machine you are using (iphone, ipad, pc, mac), and your browser.
Right Scoop Tech Support ;)
You're an angel, Joe! You caught me just as I was leaving - so here goes:
I'm on a MacBook Pro, about three years old now, running MacOs 10.6.8.
The browser is google chrome, no idea what version, the current one, I suppose.
Hope this helps!
I love you tech guys - you're life savers!
Now I better deal with that housewolf - I've been given 'the eye' already ..
That's it - back to how it was - perrrrfect!
You're an angel - or, in Brit language: you're a brick! (that's an endearment!)
Thank you so much!
Yep - no change, sorry.
I should mention that during all this the 'reply' box is fine: what I type is in the size I used to see, it just goes minuscule, as the rest of the site, as soon as I post.
No, ABiC - and the strange thing is that I can type my comments in the font size I'm used to.
I'm on an Apple, if that's of any use? I'm not that PC-literate ...
My nose was one foot from the screen - and now it's three inches!
I refuse to crawl right into the screen!
Anyway - the housewolf just got up and we know what that means .... time to go outside ...
Here's the problem. You've inadvertently scooted your chair 20 feet away from the screen. Scoot it back up. That should change your perspective a bit.