18 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyActually what I claimed is that you make a ridiculous exaggerated claim as you do in practically every single one of your hysterical posts.
So you claim that spending is under control? The debt will probably reach $25 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. In fact, the democrats in the Senate can't even pass a budget dingleberry.
I would much rather leave it to the average citizen to gauge whether Washington has a spending problem.
It's funny; you don't want the "average citizen" to be able to vote for who represents them in the US Senate; why do you trust them to decide whether there is a spending problem? In truth, every single poll suggests that the public thinks there is both a spending problem and a problem of the rich not being taxed enough.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI think we can both agree that the average person has no idea what is really going on. That is why we wind up with Presidents like "W" and Obama.
Actually what I claimed is that you make a ridiculous exaggerated claim as you do in practically every single one of your hysterical posts.
It's funny; you don't want the "average citizen" to be able to vote for who represents them in the US Senate; why do you trust them to decide whether there is a spending problem? In truth, every singl ...[text shortened]... public thinks there is both a spending problem and a problem of the rich not being taxed enough.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyYour last post stated:
I think we can both agree that the average person has no idea what is really going on. That is why we wind up with Presidents like "W" and Obama.
I would much rather leave it to the average citizen to gauge whether Washington has a spending problem.
Now the average person has no idea what is going on! Which is it?
18 Mar 14
Its funny that the 2 loudest big mouth pundits on each side...Glenn Beck and Ed Shultz both agree we should have term limits in Congress. Since we cant make them vote for the will of the people....Im afraid the only way we can reverse the path is through a real revolution... it will require the spilling of blood.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by pete3246We have term limits.
Its funny that the 2 loudest big mouth pundits on each side...Glenn Beck and Ed Shultz both agree we should have term limits in Congress. Since we cant make them vote for the will of the people....Im afraid the only way we can reverse the path is through a real revolution... it will require the spilling of blood.
They're called elections.
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderYou think congress is going to pass a term limit bill?
I note you didn't address the substance of my posts. Anything out of the Convention would still have to be ratified by the States anyway, so it's a waste of time. If the States favor specific amendments like the ones proposed by Levin, they should just pass them. Surely Congress would easily pass such popular measures.
19 Mar 14
Originally posted by sh76What we have are career politicians that create a society in which they don't have to participate.
We have term limits.
They're called elections.
It would be nice if they were forced to create a world in which they would soon have to live in outside the confines of Washington.
19 Mar 14
Originally posted by no1marauderTake the most mentally damaged and deranged person on the planet and they can tell you that Washington has a spending problem. However, knowing what is really going on in Washington is somethinge else altogether.
Your last post stated:
I would much rather leave it to the average citizen to gauge whether Washington has a spending problem.
Now the average person has no idea what is going on! Which is it?
19 Mar 14
6 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaThere are a number of ways to subvert the voting process.
Aren't those of you claiming that general elections are natural, built-in "term limits" also disregarding the effects of incumbency, campaign finance laws, and voter registration restrictions?
If it were an even playing field, I'd say forget any notion of term limits. But it's hardly even.
You can do it via the two party system. Essentially both parties decide who is electable. This is a very small elite group of people who have sworn to maintain the satus quo. Then you can tamper with the press. I'll never forget how they treated Ron Paul. Both CNN and Fox News talked all around him and pretended he did not exist. It was so bad that Jon Stewart did a skit about it and was one of my all time favorites. There is also Gerrymandering, voter fraud, keeping the population stupid via the public education system, attacking people with the IRS and the list goes on and on.
Essentially democracy is a tool for dictators who have the system rigged, much like a dictator of North Korea. It given them an air of legitimacy, which is laughable at best.
To drive home my point, just watch the next election cycle. There will be very little turn over in Congress and whoever wins the Presidency in 2016 will be their for two terms.
I gaurantee it.
So why do I support the Article V movement if I'm so cynical? I suppose at least is generates some hope. And even though I'm pretty confident people like me will be beaten back with the whip by the powers that be, it is just enough for me to see the sweat on their brow form as they strain to whip us back to put a smile on my face. 😵
19 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyOne thing I will never understand about you, whodey, is why you insist on describing political issues in such all-or-nothing rhetoric, even if it is all just one great big hyperbolic troll persona.
There are a number of ways to subvert the voting process.
You can do it via the two party system. Essentially both parties decide who is electable. This is a very small elite group of people who have sworn to maintain the satus quo. Then you can tamper with the press. I'll never forget how they treated Ron Paul. Both CNN and Fox News talked all around ...[text shortened]... o see the sweat on their brow form as they strain to whip us back to put a smile on my face. 😵
Yes, gerrymandering, biased journalism, etc., are problems, but that doesn't warrant exaggerations like "democracy [in the United States] is a tool for dictators...much like a dictator of North Korea."
20 Mar 14
Originally posted by wittywonkaI'd answer that all those issues could be addressed by legislation (even State legislation) rather than by radically restricting democratic choice.
Aren't those of you claiming that general elections are natural, built-in "term limits" also disregarding the effects of incumbency, campaign finance laws, and voter registration restrictions?
If it were an even playing field, I'd say forget any notion of term limits. But it's hardly even.
20 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaObama is a collectivist and collectivists naturally gravitate towards dictatorships. It's just common sense man. You keep centralizing power until it is just one man running the show.
One thing I will never understand about you, whodey, is why you insist on describing political issues in such all-or-nothing rhetoric, even if it is all just one great big hyperbolic troll persona.
Yes, gerrymandering, biased journalism, etc., are problems, but that doesn't warrant exaggerations like "democracy [in the United States] is a tool for dictators...much like a dictator of North Korea."
In the US we have a president who shoves health care down our throats and then single handedly exempts his buddies from it. What kind of a fool country would you call that?
I have no interest in playing the collectivist game of trying to choose the most benevolent dictator. Instead, I seek to spread the power and thus spread the wealth. This 1%'er poo is for the birds.