Now is the time to strike!!

Originally posted by whodey
You dolt. The approval rating is down to 5%!. That means that things like acne, strep throat, and diarrhea have more appeal.

Is this a democracy or an insane asylum?

What the hell is your solution moon? One party rule? How about a one man rule and eradicate all obstructionism altogether. That way people in Obama's own party that rail against him ...[text shortened]... g things like waging war against Libya without Congressional approval can all be done away with.

I think it bad for the country that the Tea Party has hijacked the GOP, and driven the favorability rating of Congress so low.

Favorable minus Unfavorable in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Oct. 7-9

President Obama +6
Democrats -1
Boehner -25
Tea Party -26
GOP -29 (yep, that's a minus 29)

By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), the public blames the Republican Party more for the shutdown than the President.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

Originally posted by JS357
"Why is it we never hear progressives give a damn about the Constitution unless it steps on the toes of those who violate the Constitution?"

So you admit you would be violating the constitution to enforce term limits on the US congress without a constitutional amendment. Well, I am sorry that this requirement steps on your toes.

I am admitting no such thing. It simply is not in the Constitution.

What IS in the Constitution, however, is that we are to have due process under the law. What IS in the Constitution, is the ability of the states to amend the Constitution as I suggest they do. It was put there for a reason, the same reason we face today.

Originally posted by moon1969
I think it bad for the country that the Tea Party has hijacked the GOP, and driven the favorability rating of Congress so low.

Favorable minus Unfavorable in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Oct. 7-9

President Obama +6
Democrats -1
Boehner -25
Tea Party -26
GOP -29 (yep, that's a minus 29)

By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), ...[text shortened]... n than the President.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

The GOP does not represent conservatives like me. If they do, what exactly have they done for conservatives?

They are nothing more than a source of drama and blame with the conservative tag attached to them. "W" is a prime example. He ran up debt, created massive entitlements, and waged war across the globe, all under the label "conservative". Whatever.

How about you take your poll and shove it? How about we take a poll on term limits moon?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying the Congress should agree to get rid of themselves? How does that work?
The question I would ask is how they keep getting re-elected if their approval rating is so low. Maybe you should look at that rather than just the term issue.

Many get reelected because they have the money to do so. Lobbyists or big businesses dump money into their campaign funds, so most competitors don't have the resources to maintain a fight against them.

Originally posted by whodey
The GOP does not represent conservatives like me. If they do, what exactly have they done for conservatives?

They are nothing more than a source of drama and blame with the conservative tag attached to them. "W" is a prime example. He ran up debt, created massive entitlements, and waged war across the globe, all under the label "conservative". Whatever.

How about you take your poll and shove it? How about we take a poll on term limits moon?

This has already been proven to be a bogus poll that moon keeps posting from thread to thread and he knows it.
I feel sad for moon.😞

Originally posted by utherpendragon
This has already been proven to be a bogus poll that moon keeps posting from thread to thread and he knows it.
I feel sad for moon.😞

I'm not entirely convinced that any polls are on the up and up, much like I'm not convinced that elections are as well.

I guess it depends on just how free society is today, and based upon how the press is treated by Obama and company and bullied around, it is speculative as to just how free we are.

I liken in to what Nixon did. He stole some information and lost the presidency. However, Obama does the same to every man, woman, and child in the world and it's OK.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
Many get reelected because they have the money to do so. Lobbyists or big businesses dump money into their campaign funds, so most competitors don't have the resources to maintain a fight against them.

Take some of the incentive away for selling their collective souls. Take away the retirement package. After all, if terms were limited then what is there to retire from?

Make them struggle in the private sector like we all do. Make them live in the world they help create for themselves.

Originally posted by whodey
I am admitting no such thing. It simply is not in the Constitution.

What IS in the Constitution, however, is that we are to have due process under the law. What IS in the Constitution, is the ability of the states to amend the Constitution as I suggest they do. It was put there for a reason, the same reason we face today.

How is your campaign going?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
This has already been proven to be a bogus poll that moon keeps posting from thread to thread and he knows it.
I feel sad for moon.😞

Yeah, the extreme fringe right-wingers do not like polls, do they? They hated those bogus polls that said Obama was going to be reelected in 2012.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
This has already been proven to be a bogus poll that moon keeps posting from thread to thread and he knows it.
I feel sad for moon.😞

The Wall Street Journal has a good track record with its polls. In this particular poll, the results cited are based on straightforward questions. Favorable? Unfavorable?

Favorable minus Unfavorable in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Oct. 7-9
President Obama +6
Democrats -1
Boehner -25
Tea Party -26
GOP -29 (yep, that's a minus 29)

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

Originally posted by whodey
How about you take your poll and shove it? How about we take a poll on term limits moon?

Why I think the favorability numbers of the poll I give (and other similar recent poll results) are relevant, is that they show that the GOP are the cause (and experiencing the brunt of) the recent low congressional favorability ratings you want to use as basis to strike for term limits.

Congress favorability ratings have historically been low, and term limits were never successful. Many constitutionalists do not believe that the electorate should be so prevented from electing to represent them who they want.

Now that the Congressional favorability has dropped even lower with additional disfavor of congressional Democrats but the bulk of the additional unfavorability against the GOP, just does not provide improved dynamics for the term limits you want.

Favorable minus Unfavorable in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Oct. 7-9
President Obama +6
Democrats -1
Boehner -25
Tea Party -26
GOP -29 (yep, that's a minus 29)

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

Originally posted by moon1969
The Wall Street Journal has a good track record with its polls. In this particular poll, the results cited are based on straightforward questions. Favorable? Unfavorable?

Favorable minus Unfavorable in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Oct. 7-9
President Obama +6
Democrats -1
Boehner -25
Tea Party -26
GOP -29 (yep, that's a minus 29)

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJNBCpoll10072013.pdf

NBC does not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying the Congress should agree to get rid of themselves? How does that work?
The question I would ask is how they keep getting re-elected if their approval rating is so low. Maybe you should look at that rather than just the term issue.

It's simple really, the incumbent has just over twice the funds on averageto run a campaign, as a challenger does. They spend a good deal of time making or buying friends that will keep the incumbent in office, so to give them some type of advantage. I would be tempted to vote against all incumbents
in the next election, with a rating of only 5% something is not working,, plain to see that. You may put a few back that are even worse..but if you had term limits, you could wed them right back out. Robert Byrd held his seat longer than Fidel Castro was ruling Cuba,, doesn't it make sense to move young thinking into the mix sooner than that?

Originally posted by Sahuaro
Many get reelected because they have the money to do so. Lobbyists or big businesses dump money into their campaign funds, so most competitors don't have the resources to maintain a fight against them.

If that is the case then that should be addressed rather than shorter terms. Although obviously there is nothing wrong with doing both.

Originally posted by whodey
I am admitting no such thing. It simply is not in the Constitution.

What IS in the Constitution, however, is that we are to have due process under the law. What IS in the Constitution, is the ability of the states to amend the Constitution as I suggest they do. It was put there for a reason, the same reason we face today.

The states are too fractious to ever get together to that extent. Besides, by the time the states got around to acting, assuming they even KNOW about this ability, Congress will probably have hashed out a deal to avoid even further fall into history.