Which reminds me tomorrow morning is my Fox free morning. I can’t stand that sactimonious whiny ass WhoreAldo ever since his screechin over the dumbasses in New Orleans.

OK, so we have all sorts of personal freedoms, just not the freedom to form our government the way we see fit. Wonderful.

That’s not a personal freedom. That’s the exercise of power over others.

We deliberately restrain the power that government holds over us.

Your argument is illogical. If voter is an office then everyone’s an officer. How about a term limit on the lowest ranking officers? Sounds like a good idea?

We do put term limits on the office of “juror”. If you’ve already served on many juries, when that’s revealed in voir dire, you’ll almost certainly be stricken from the pool rather than be allowed on another.

The office of “voter” doesn’t hold much power, so there’s little reason to limit how often one can exercise it. Instead, we limit the range of choices a voter has, by not allowing the vote to go to a candidate for House under 25 years of age, for Senate under 30….

That explanation sounds ridiculous to me. Why would bills “evolve through the legislative process” any more frequently in even-numbered years?

mikeyboss on May 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM

It’s bullshit. NOTHING passes in an election year, except for pork-laden appropriations bills.

Congressional rules prohibit sending franked mass mailings within 60 days of an election. But you should see the basement of the Cannon Building in August. Stacks and stacks of franked “constituent newsletters.” And before that, they use franked mail to send out invitations to townhall meetings, which are little more than campaign events funded by taxpayers.

Absolutely wrong. Your exercise of personal freedom ends the moment you step into the voting booth. At that point, you are wielding power over others, in one of the two lowest-ranking offices in a republic (voter and juror).

OK, so we have all sorts of personal freedoms, just not the freedom to form our government the way we see fit. Wonderful.

Your argument is illogical. If voter is an office then everyone’s an officer. How about a term limit on the lowest ranking officers? Sounds like a good idea?

I agree that term limits are unconstitutional and stupid. To see the latter one has to realize that members of Congress don’t work by themselves. They have staff, which is not subject to any limits.

To expect that simply by changing a figurehead you will achieve any sort of policy change is naive.

It’s crap like this that crys out for term limits on these cretins who think their royalty instead of public servants.

TrickyDick on May 7, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Term limits are not the answer, as another poster pointed out, we have term limits on the Presidents and it still doesn’t do any good.
Revert back to what the founding fathers had in mind…a part time job, with most all the decisions at the state level.
Get rid of all lobbyists, make it illegal to lobby…take the money out of the hands of congress, or at least limit their access to it.
Then put a cap on the number of bills they can pass in a session.
Force a balance budget amendment…it is the money, not the length of time in power.

“well Senator, The Honorable Senator McCain once came on my show and said Republicans suck and need to get a clue and let the illegal aliens have their amnesty what do you think Senator FogHorn LegHorn?”

Well Cattie not to be impolite or anything but since I am term limited I think you suck, your journalistic abilities are that of a third grader and your IQ must be in the high single digits!

By the way how is the Honorable S,enator doing these days now that his ranch down in Arizona is now the property of Mexicazona?

It seems trivial, but voters get more exercised about politicians raising their pay than almost anything else. Pennsylvanians threw out 26 incumbents, including the Senate Majority Leader, two years ago after they voted themselves a pay raise in the last minute of the session.

This is the stuff more Tea Parties are made of.

I don’t agree that term limits are any sort of answer. First, it is a restriction on freedom. I should be free to vote for whomever I choose and anyone should be free to run for office as often as he or she chooses to do so.

Absolutely wrong. Your exercise of personal freedom ends the moment you step into the voting booth. At that point, you are wielding power over others, in one of the two lowest-ranking offices in a republic (voter and juror).

The main goal of the constitution for a free people is to limit the power of government, and restricting someone’s ability to have power over others for extended periods of time is appropriate.

If they pass Barney Franks initiation of course!

Unfortunately, we’re the ones who go through the initiation ritual every damn time and we don’t even get a thank you.

We have a cohort of some of the wealthiest people in America and we’re stuck paying for their car leases. Gee, I didn’t know there were so few job applicants for Congress that we needed to sweeten the deal with a free car. Who knew?

Republicans want to get elected? Then start taking notes because Americans are fed up. I’m fed up! You want to run the show? Then you can start by getting your own damn house in order and leave us the Hell alone until you do.

Then tell me why we let them rule over us.