Time to kick ALL the trash out of Washington

Areyouforreal · #11 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 07:08 PM

Alright I just could not stay away.
Kix I like your Idea. I think that it is great. Only one problem ....... Congress would never pass it.

oceanbreeze · #12 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 10:32 PM

Real: welcome back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Areyouforreal

Alright I just could not stay away.
Kix I like your Idea. I think that it is great. Only one problem ....... Congress would never pass it.

Areyouforreal · #13 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyofmts

Real: welcome back.

I just couldn't stay away from a good debate. I am addicted to this forum

cat's meow · #14 (**permalink**) 10-03-2006, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

So, why do we not demand, or even expect our representatives in Washington DC to pass any sort of “TEST” before heading to their offices to govern the most powerful country in the world; our country! We just watch them campaign, vote for our favorite party or whoever looks the least evil, and then hand them a lifetime paycheck. Afterwards we sit back and complain that they're all crooks, liars, drunks, thieves, perverts and deviants. You name the crime and it’s most likely been committed by someone WE VOTED for to govern our country.

I have found two things that we totally agree on ...this must be a record today...

What you are refering to is the difference between a STATESPERSON and a POLITICIAN...our founding father used the term STATEMAN and I think we have lost the concept.

Honestly, with all the problems that we have with the PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS I am not sure we benefit that much from the 'collective, institutional wisdom' these guys like to tout so much. The problems seem to outwiegh the advantages of this great wisdom we are supposed to be reaping the benefits from. I am convinced we should have term limits all the way around for all elected officials, I have thought this for a while.

Kix · #15 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Areyouforreal

Alright I just could not stay away.
Kix I like your Idea. I think that it is great. Only one problem ....... Congress would never pass it.

Oh, forgive me, did I say we were going to "ASK" Congress to agree to it?

I believe a more appropriate term would be DEMAND? I figure if 12 million people can invade this country illegal and start making major demands that are proving to cripple this nation, then those of us whose ancestors have been here for hundreds, if not thousands of years can certainly make a few minor demands like this one that will prevent this great nation from falling apart at the seams.

Kix · #16 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

I have found two things that we totally agree on ...this must be a record today...

What you are refering to is the difference between a STATESPERSON and a POLITICIAN...our founding father used the term STATEMAN and I think we have lost the concept.

Honestly, with all the problems that we have with the PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS I am not sure we benefit that much from the 'collective, institutional wisdom' these guys like to tout so much. The problems seem to outwiegh the advantages of this great wisdom we are supposed to be reaping the benefits from. I am convinced we should have term limits all the way around for all elected officials, I have thought this for a while.

I think we're on a roll here..

Areyouforreal · #17 (**permalink**) 10-04-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Oh, forgive me, did I say we were going to "ASK" Congress to agree to it?

I believe a more appropriate term would be DEMAND? I figure if 12 million people can invade this country illegal and start making major demands that are proving to cripple this nation, then those of us whose ancestors have been here for hundreds, if not thousands of years can certainly make a few minor demands like this one that will prevent this great nation from falling apart at the seams.

Now that I can agree with.
Stand up people and stop being Democrat, Republican and Independant and start being Americans remember this is the UNITED States of America

Prisoner1 · #18 (**permalink**) 10-10-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Well George, I think you've pretty much proven with your response that your mind isn't one we'd want in Washington.

I guess you've never heard of the test that Law Enforcement officers throughout the U.S. are routinely required to pass in order to get and/or keep their job? It's called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2; MMPI-A). It's a written psychological assessment, or test, used to diagnose mental disorders, personality and psychosocial disorders and/or criminal tendencies.

Gee, I took that test several times and always "passed" it with flying colors but the Nazi government kept insisting I was crazy because I kept accusing them of rigging a Federal Trial for the benefit of the wealthy few. And when they said I couldn't prove it, I showed them I could and they proceed to try to "neutralize" me - that's Nazi speak for eliminate.

But my experience is if people in the government had to be found sane, moral and non-psychopathic, you would have to form an entire new government - which is probably a good idea. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida told me to leave the country when I approached him with the problem of government harassment. How's that for moral, ethical conduct? And another deceased representative from Missouri, whose wife is now in congress tried to get me locked up when I sought his help - aren't these wonderful people we have in Washington, DC? Let's hope a natural disaster whips them all out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

steve k · #19 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 08:59 AM

October 10, 2006
Frivolous Politics
By Thomas Sowell

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

Prisoner1 · #20 (**permalink**) 10-11-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve k

October 10, 2006
Frivolous Politics
By Thomas Sowell

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

The problem is that the CHOICES
are terrible. In Florida, the race for the Senate has 2 of the most worthless candidates for which to vote. So no matter who wins, the people lose.