Mickalino Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Delay should be in jail solely for the "K Street Project," but that would be asking too much. Gosh, I'd hate to hear what kind of prison term you think Bob Seger should serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Thanks for your fairness, HH. **** you, liberal bastage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Of note, fellow republicans, the first 11 paragraphs of this story are posted in the OP, and not once does the *gasp* Washington Post mention DeLay's party affiliation. It can obviously be inferred, well, with the first mention of Texas and later when it talks about the GOP, but it's not spelled out the way "we" always say it is when it's "us" that's in trouble.Just an observation. Yeah, you like to do this stuff, so you can save up good karma and then be an even bigger ******* in a different thread, dontcha? Jerk. ---------- Post added January-10th-2011 at 07:50 PM ---------- Gosh, I'd hate to hear what kind of prison term you think Bob Seger should serve. Summary execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Yeah, you like to do this stuff, so you can save up good karma and then be an even bigger ******* in a different thread, dontcha?Jerk. Hmm. I hope the penalty for being guilty of THAT charge is fewer than 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Thing is, I think we should all cheer if a crooked politician gets caught and pays the price. It shouldn't matter in the least what letter they put after their name. Delay getting his is a good thing. I think there are a number of others who deserve the same. That Dem who was hiding bribe money in his freezer comes to mind though I'm blanking on his name at the moment. I think Charlie Rangel is a reasonable target on the Dem side. You can add Alcee Hastings to the list. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 He's basically the poster child to the need of term limits on the Hill. How would term limits stop this sort of corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 How would term limits stop this sort of corruption. They wouldn't. If anything, term limits give even more power to lobbyists, because the new congresspeople have to spend so much time getting up to speed on one of the most difficult jobs in the world. They naturally defer to lobbyists and staff, and haven't seen all of the pitfalls of doing that. We have seen that in California, where term limits in our state legislature have led to a bunch of clueless newbies trying to run things. But people love term limits as an easy solution to a complicated problem, so expect to hear more about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We've got the ability to limit terms; every two or six years, depending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We've got the ability to limit terms; every two or six years, depending. Exactly. Our ridiculous inability to limit campaign finances makes it hard, but incumbents CAN be defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 But people love term limits as an easy solution to a complicated problem, so expect to hear more about them. I don't see where limiting congressional terms is better or worse than limiting the presidency. I'm fine with the way things are now but I'm not offended by people who want to limit congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I don't see where limiting congressional terms is better or worse than limiting the presidency. I'm fine with the way things are now but I'm not offended by people who want to limit congress. We limit the Presidency because of a fear of a dictatorship, a Hugo Chavez President-for-Life. That is a reasonable concern that does not apply to individual members of Congress. I'm not offended by people who support term limits, I just think that they fail to understand how it works in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Curious that you think bribery isn't subverting the democratic process...been overseas too much? Absolutely. But it's the ****tails that get you. Delay was convicted for offenses amounting to trying to control the elections. Cherry picking election districts and using illegal money to give GOP candidates money. I think that's worse than selling your vote which is merely scummy. ---------- Post added January-10th-2011 at 11:13 PM ---------- Thing is, I think we should all cheer if a crooked politician gets caught and pays the price. It shouldn't matter in the least what letter they put after their name. Delay getting his is a good thing. I think there are a number of others who deserve the same. That Dem who was hiding bribe money in his freezer comes to mind though I'm blanking on his name at the moment. I think Charlie Rangel is a reasonable target on the Dem side. Dick Cheney is another one that comes to mind. If for no other reason... arson. That was congressman Jefferson. ---------- Post added January-10th-2011 at 11:16 PM ---------- Ah, yeah... though it's never a comfortable feeling when JMS and I are in agreement. Luckily, I'm sure he'll be astoundingly wrong in the near future. . I sneak up on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 We limit the Presidency because of a fear of a dictatorship, a Hugo Chavez President-for-Life. That is a reasonable concern that does not apply to individual members of Congress.I'm not offended by people who support term limits, I just think that they fail to understand how it works in real life. I agree with this. You've got to remember what the framers were fleeing (in part) too. The debate on what to call the president highlights this. They wanted nothing that could even begin to resemble a king. When you're one of 100, or one of 435, you're far less threatening. Like you (I think) I understand why some people want term limits, I just disagree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I agree with this. You've got to remember what the framers were fleeing (in part) too. The debate on what to call the president highlights this. They wanted nothing that could even begin to resemble a king. When you're one of 100, or one of 435, you're far less threatening. Ahh...so that's why the founding fathers put term limits on the presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Wait, Abramoff...murder? [\quote] yep it's a great story. There was a. Greek immigrant who had a riverboat gambling bidness With the GOP in charge he got his gambling liscence revoked for questionable reasons and brought abramof on as a partner in order to fix his liscense problem. Guy had second thoughts and went to the FBI and ended up being gunned down in a running gun fight on a citys main street. Great story look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Ahh...so that's why the founding fathers put term limits on the presidency? If I'm wrong, correct me. It won't be the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Absolutely. But it's the ****tails that get you. Delay was convicted for offenses amounting to trying to control the elections. Cherry picking election districts and using illegal money to give GOP candidates money. I think that's worse than selling your vote which is merely scummy. The difference to me one is a attempt at influencing elections which is far from certain,whereas selling your vote is certain influence and subverting voter power. Neither is good,but to me accepting bribes and overriding your constituency is worse. of course that might be because I'm too cheap to buy the ****s off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 They wouldn't. If anything, term limits give even more power to lobbyists, because the new congresspeople have to spend so much time getting up to speed on one of the most difficult jobs in the world. They naturally defer to lobbyists and staff, and haven't seen all of the pitfalls of doing that. We have seen that in California, where term limits in our state legislature have led to a bunch of clueless newbies trying to run things.But people love term limits as an easy solution to a complicated problem, so expect to hear more about them. Agreed. I like term limits, but i agree with you they aren't a solution to corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If I'm wrong, correct me. It won't be the first time. That was the 22nd amendment. We didn't want any more lousy dictators like Franklin Roosevelt. Limiting the presidential term had some negative consequences on the power of the presidency in the final years of his second term. Limiting congress would have negative consequences, too. And, of course, there would be some benefit just as there was benefit to limiting the presidency. I don't think either side has as compelling an argument as they think they have so I'm fine with the satus quo...but I'd be fine with terms limit, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Term limits don't interest me. Removing the highest bidder atmosphere in Washington interests me more. Term limits won't solve that, in fact you'll just be throwing in experienced rookies into a shark tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Ahh...so that's why the founding fathers put term limits on the presidency? Yep. Not the founding fathers but the founding father. George Washington. He term limited himself to two terms when he could have been president for life. Establishing the precedent which was not broken until FDR and the eve of WWII. ---------- Post added January-10th-2011 at 11:37 PM ---------- The difference to me one is a attempt at influencing elections which is far from certain,whereas selling your vote is certain influence and subverting voter power.Neither is good,but to me accepting bribes and overriding your constituency is worse. of course that might be because I'm too cheap to buy the ****s off Delay was successful, his offense was certain and much more long lasting and subverting of the political process and will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Term limits don't interest me. Removing the highest bidder atmosphere in Washington interests me more. Term limits won't solve that, in fact you'll just be throwing in experienced rookies into a shark tank. cut down on what they can bid on then,the less Washington controls,the less they can sell out on. increasing the size of the tank improves your odds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Ahh...so that's why the founding fathers put term limits on the presidency? No, that's why the Republican controlled Congress wrote an amendment to the Constitution after FDR died, and the people approved it. edit - beaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Yep. Not the founding fathers but the founding father. George Washington. He term limited himself to two terms when he could have been president for life. An old wives tale. Washington himself said he didn't run for a third term because he was old and wanted to retire, not because he was establishing a term limit. In his farewell address, he said he almost retired after his first term. If that had happened, would you then say George Washington established a 4 year term limit? Of course not. Washington's choice to retire at 8 years has nothing to do with term limits. He explains his reasons for retiring in his farewell address: http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 cut down on what they can bid on then,the less Washington controls,the less they can sell out on.increasing the size of the tank improves your odds I'd prefer no donations of any kind ever from anyone at all and a complete ban on lobbying of individual leaders completely. Want to talk to congress on behalf of an organization or industry of any kind? March your ass down to washington and speak on the record to a group of congressman that agree to meet with you on the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.