Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Replace 'Em

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    We need citizen legislators, not career politicians. By enacting term limits on every elected position and time limits on unelected positions, we can clear away the **** every few years. Some may ask what this has to do with guns, but figure the math. If term limits ere enacted, we would have been free of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi long ago.

  2. #2
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    But we'd open the door for more radical individuals with nothing to lose because they know their time is fleeting and they have to make their name known.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    But we'd open the door for more radical individuals with nothing to lose because they know their time is fleeting and they have to make their name known.

    Not to mention you'd be undoing a few very important checks and balances. Federal judicial seats (at every level) are an appointed position, for life. There's a very good reason; neither Congress nor the President can clear out the judiciary and replace it with their cronies. If you put a term on that unelected position, a party that stays in power long enough will get enough judicial muscle to stay in power.

    Here in Texas, practically everyone is elected; the Sheriff of each county, all State judicial positions from the J.P. to the State Supreme Court, Constables,all members of the Legislature, etc. So we can easily clear out the trash from state government. The problem is there is such a long ballot to fill out that fatigue sets in and you simply vote a straight-party ticket (definitely easier than thinking). Also, unless you spend a lot of time listening to candidates you're not going to know the face and position on the issues behind the name, only the party affiliation.

    People like familiar faces. Besides, being a politician with a term limit in office is like being a pop star; you're actually doing things and making money for only a couple of years, and then you're a drain on society for the rest of your life.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I am in favor of term limits for everyone but those I like.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    We need citizen legislators, not career politicians. By enacting term limits on every elected position and time limits on unelected positions, we can clear away the **** every few years. Some may ask what this has to do with guns, but figure the math. If term limits ere enacted, we would have been free of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi long ago.
    Here in California they are putting forth a proposition laughingly refered to as "term limits" for the State House/Senate.

    Current limits for the House are 3 ea 2 year terms = 6 years

    Current limits for the Senate are 2 ea 4 year terms = 8 years

    There is nothing that keeps someone from serving in the House and then the Senate, so it is "possible" for someone (rare to non-existant) to serve for 14 years.

    They propose to "lower" the limit to 12 years, which can be served in either the House or the Senate, or a combination of both.

    So, this "Term Limit" proposition is effectively increasing the House limit by 6 years and the Senate limit by 4 years.

    The Lords of Deception are hard at work.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    .40 Cal wrote:
    But we'd open the door for more radical individuals with nothing to lose because they know their time is fleeting and they have to make their name known.

    Not to mention you'd be undoing a few very important checks and balances. Federal judicial seats (at every level) are an appointed position, for life. There's a very good reason; neither Congress nor the President can clear out the judiciary and replace it with their cronies. If you put a term on that unelected position, a party that stays in power long enough will get enough judicial muscle to stay in power.

    Here in Texas, practically everyone is elected; the Sheriff of each county, all State judicial positions from the J.P. to the State Supreme Court, Constables,all members of the Legislature, etc. So we can easily clear out the trash from state government. The problem is there is such a long ballot to fill out that fatigue sets in and you simply vote a straight-party ticket (definitely easier than thinking). Also, unless you spend a lot of time listening to candidates you're not going to know the face and position on the issues behind the name, only the party affiliation.

    People like familiar faces. Besides, being a politician with a term limit in office is like being a pop star; you're actually doing things and making money for only a couple of years, and then you're a drain on society for the rest of your life.
    You are absolutely right. I wasn't thinking about the judiciary. Thank you for pointing that out. But do you agree that we should have term limits on the House and Senate?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    It still turns politicians into pop stars. If they've got only2, 3, or 4 termsto do what they were elected to do, the entire House and Senate would be in a constant state of uproar and nobody else could get a word in edgewise. That could very quickly turn ugly. Besides, what happens when a "good" politician, whose viewpoints and voting history you agree with,leaves office on term limitsand you're stuck between the lesser of two evils to replace him/her?

    Your argument may be well-meant, especially in a climate such as on this board, but basically you want Pelosi, Obama, Kerryand Clinton out of Congressionaloffice and cannot vote them out yourself. So, you want the law changed so you won't have to; they'll eventually have to leave anyway. I call bull. They were elected to Congressby their state, and if your rep is of the same party they were put into positions of power within Congress because ofthe vote of that rep. That's the equitable solution the Framers came up with, and good or bad IYHO, a rep is elected by their constituency to act in THEIR best interest regardless of yours.

    How do you effect change? Voter education. Not propaganda; Obama's supporters for instance are largely Gen-Yers (like me)who are cynical of any overt mudslinging (I happen to be cynical of the entire process; there's nobody in the running who speaks in my voice). You have to show the voters in the state that elected the person you want out that their rep isn't acting in their best interests. You find out how, and I'll back ya; there are idiots in both parties I do not want to have making my decisions for me.

    You could also try to get legislation passed that would ban all corporate and special-interest funding, from which ALL candidates get the majority of their campaign donations, and cap the dollar amount per household and the amount allowed to be contributed by candidates themselves. It is quite simply bribery;big interests buy politicians.Campaign funding would then be based solely on individual contributions and with the caps neitherold money norlobbyistscould steal the show. You'd have a return to grassroots campaigning. Good luck with that though; politicians live on their campaign funds during election years and, oddly enough, they make the laws regarding campaign donations and spending.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I suspect stronger constitutional safeguards might be better.

    Box them in enough and their terms of service will be less of an issue.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.
    It's amazing how many people think I'm crazy for advocating that...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.
    It's amazing how many people think I'm crazy for advocating that...
    Yeah, they think that us believers in the Constitution are anarchists. I say the hell with em. This country stood for over 150 years just fine by following the Constitution. When the federal government took center stage, everything started to crumble. The more laws they pass, the more f****ed the system is.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.
    It's amazing how many people think I'm crazy for advocating that...
    Yeah, they think that us believers in the Constitution are anarchists. I say the hell with em. This country stood for over 150 years just fine by following the Constitution. When the federal government took center stage, everything started to crumble. The more laws they pass, the more f****ed the system is.
    Now, if we could just find a new land to colonize to escape tyranny... oh wait, haven't we done this already?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.
    It's amazing how many people think I'm crazy for advocating that...
    Yeah, they think that us believers in the Constitution are anarchists. I say the hell with em. This country stood for over 150 years just fine by following the Constitution. When the federal government took center stage, everything started to crumble. The more laws they pass, the more f****ed the system is.
    Now, if we could just find a new land to colonize to escape tyranny... oh wait, haven't we done this already?
    There is new land for us. Let's invade Canada. They dont have guns!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This seems to all come back to an essential point: extremely limited government. On at least the federal level, if the judiciary bitch-slapped the executive and legislative branches into the very limited roles they were assigned, it would not be too big of an issue how we elected politicians because they would have so little power. It wouldn't matter who has the best social security plan because... the government has no power to run such a program. Who has the best gun control policy? Well, there's only one constitutional gun "control" policy... The best welfare reform? No power to do that, either...

    It's the same reason why I laugh a little at how much people get worked up over the US presidential elections. The president should not be an elected monarch, like most of the American population likes to think.
    Very true, my friend. I was reading a little bit on the history of the Constitution and the document itself and it's absolutely amazing how overgrown and bloated the federal government is. The federal government should really just provide for the military and national defense and stay the hell out of everything else. That's what what we have state governments for.
    It's amazing how many people think I'm crazy for advocating that...
    Yeah, they think that us believers in the Constitution are anarchists. I say the hell with em. This country stood for over 150 years just fine by following the Constitution. When the federal government took center stage, everything started to crumble. The more laws they pass, the more f****ed the system is.
    Now, if we could just find a new land to colonize to escape tyranny... oh wait, haven't we done this already?
    There is new land for us. Let's invade Canada. They dont have guns!
    Or Britan. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events!

  16. #16
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    I_Hate_Illinois wrote:
    There is new land for us. Let's invade Canada. They dont have guns!
    Or Britan. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events!
    LoL!! I like that idea! :celebrate

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    First repeal the 17th amendment. Then the 16th and replace it with the Fair Tax. The "progressives" got those both shoved through under Taft and Wilson and we have headed in the wrong direction since then. In the last few decades the progressive movement has moved towards critical mass necessary to finish the socializing of America. If the several state legislatures elected the senators as originally set out, we wouldn't have unfunded mandates and the constant violations of the 10th amendment we see.

    If we hadn't screwed with the original so much we wouldn't have all these issues and we wouldn't need term limits.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    I've often looked at the map and wondered why in the hell our northern border doesnt just go straight across? Screw it. Let's take it over and then they can leave us gunowners in that area that is now canada and watch as we have a crime free society. Wow. I could be onto something here. Or they could just give us 'gun crazies' our own state and they can watch how society should be. Amen to that.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I am in favor of term limits for everyone but those I like.
    I think we all feel that way... But I would love it if we could get rid of the old blood and get people with fresh and new ideas in office.

    You will almost never get any change unless you get new people running the show with different ideas and opinions.



  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    SNIP You will almost never get any change unless you get new people running the show with different ideas and opinions.
    Just playing off the idea, not contradicting.

    This has been the problem for the last 218 years--new ideas.

    We need to get some in there who will use the old ideas--limited government, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Just playing off the idea, not contradicting.

    This has been the problem for the last 218 years--new ideas.

    We need to get some in there who will use the old ideas--limited government, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence.
    YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely correct!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...plate=nextpage

    INSIDE THE BELTWAY - Inflation-proof
    Given that the nation is at war, unemployment is up, home sales are down, and the national debt stands at more than $9 trillion, somebody ought to give freshman Rep. Harry E. Mitchell, Arizona Democrat, a medal for trying.

    Trying, that is, to save us taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars currently going into the pockets of members of Congress in the form of annual pay raises.

    Along with Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Mr. Mitchell this week introduced the Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act of 2008, to block the automatic pay raise members are scheduled to receive next year.

    "I introduced a similar bill last year seeking to prevent an automatic pay raise for members from taking effect this year," said Mr. Mitchell, who for 28 years taught American government and economics in high school. "Unfortunately ... last year's bill failed to reach the floor."

    Each member is now receiving $169,300, a $4,100 increase from last year.


  23. #23
    Regular Member ChadW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Abingdon, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    39

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    First repeal the 17th amendment. Then the 16th and replace it with the Fair Tax. The "progressives" got those both shoved through under Taft and Wilson and we have headed in the wrong direction since then. In the last few decades the progressive movement has moved towards critical mass necessary to finish the socializing of America. If the several state legislatures elected the senators as originally set out, we wouldn't have unfunded mandates and the constant violations of the 10th amendment we see.

    If we hadn't screwed with the original so much we wouldn't have all these issues and we wouldn't need term limits.
    Don't stop with just those two admendments. Get rid of every admendment that was passed after the Bill of Rights. They are not needed any more.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    ChadW wrote:
    Don't stop with just those two admendments. Get rid of every admendment that was passed after the Bill of Rights. They are not needed any more.

    I don't think you've considered what you're suggesting.

    You're suggesting there be no constitutional prohibition on slavery, no guarantee for women and minorities to have the right to vote, no term limits for presidents, no provisions to replace a president if he should go insane

    It would also get rid of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights


  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    ChadW wrote:
    Don't stop with just those two admendments. Get rid of every admendment that was passed after the Bill of Rights. They are not needed any more.

    I don't think you've considered what you're suggesting.

    You're suggesting there be no constitutional prohibition on slavery, no guarantee for women and minorities to have the right to vote, no term limits for presidents, no provisions to replace a president if he should go insane

    It would also get rid of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights
    In a rare turn of events, I agree with ama-gi. :P

    Of all the amendments, I think the 16th and 17th, much more than any others, transfers power from the people to the federal government. Which makes sense considering that both were passed under so-called progressive administrations by the so-called secular-humanist/progressive movement, which in reality is a world government, internationalist "workers" movement professing socialist and communist ideals (see Barak Obama's and Hillary Clinton's presidential platforms for clarification of what the movement now professes). I'm not saying that as some sort of conspiracy theory, just identifying what they are, although it is pretty easy to see a boogy-man lurking in the machinations of the movement over the last 100 years.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •