Question for the Board...

[ABQCOWBOY]

It strikes me that many of us are getting wrapped up in the politics of our Government and not really looking at it for what it is. I touched on this in another thread but I thought I might bring it up as a point of discussion to see if we might examine where we are at in todays society. Do you consider yourself to be for the people or do you consider yourself to be more closely aligned with a political party?

Sometimes I have a hard time keeping in straight in my own head. Think about it. Would you do whats best for the American people or would you side with a political strategy first?

Open for discussion.

[Sam I Am]

I tend to judge for myself on each issue rather than lean towards a political party's views. I find myself agreeing with points for both major parties and disagreeing with all political figures as a whole on other issues.

In the end, I try to choose between the least of two evils when a decision has to be made on my part as a voter...

[zrinkill]

I am for the people.

Thats why I have tried to give Obama the benefit of doubt until he proves what others are saying about him.

I consider myself a Conservative but I disagree with the Conservative mainstream about a great many things.

Many of us end up arguing points against certain posters instead of our true beliefs. I am very guilty of that.

3 things really set me off

If you attack my religion, my country, or the men I served with and still feel like I am a part of.

.
.
.
.

[trickblue]

I'm definitely pro people... I don't care for either party...

Being a conservatarian, I more closely align with the Republicans on social issues, but neither one of them have a clue about budgetary spending or control...

Neither of the two parties care for us except for the fact that they need us to stay in power. I think that makes them resent us even more. "How dare those peons have a say in my desire to serve the people"...

Only financial contributors matter to either party...

[Sam I Am]

If you attack my religion, my country, or the men I served with and still feel like I am a part of.

I see how any of these can bother people, but if it upsets you. Step back and ask yourself how it's actually hurting me?

Your beliefs are important to you. What do other people's beliefs have to do with you? If you get angry, walk away. It's better (less stressful) for you.

Like Darwin's theories and how some people get so upset by them. If you don't believe it, then don't subscribe to it. Just because "Jim", "Bob", or "Jennifer" believes in it, why does "Jason" have to get all bent out of shape about it?

It's stupid. Wasting way to much energy on something that has zero effect on how someone lives their life...

[iceberg]

It strikes me that many of us are getting wrapped up in the politics of our Government and not really looking at it for what it is. I touched on this in another thread but I thought I might bring it up as a point of discussion to see if we might examine where we are at in todays society. Do you consider yourself to be for the people or do you consider yourself to be more closely aligned with a political party?

Sometimes I have a hard time keeping in straight in my own head. Think about it. Would you do whats best for the American people or would you side with a political strategy first?

Open for discussion.

i'm conservative by nature, can be a moderate in many issues, but i would never go way out of my way to make people believe like i do. it either happens by my own actions or words, or it doesn't.

it's not my place, for example, to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. if i'm the father i have a role in it and we'll come to a mutual decision - but i'd be totally against abortion. but i'm not judge/jury here, that's between their religion and them when they die.

gay marriages. who cares? go screw it up as bad as the traditional sense has. then again i've never been or ever wanted to be married so this is like a non-issue to me.

i do tire of "subset rights" being tossed about as if the law has to and should fix everyone's personal issues. i get tired of every ethnic culture having to put "something-american" in front of their title. why? pride? i have no problem with that except that if you push the white mans point of view you're racist.

history damns the future far too often. in the end i simply want to be proud of my country and my cultures (whatever that is) accomplishments also.

i want people to work for what they get and am all for helping people up but very against handing "value" out as if it has no value. why? because when you do it, it doesn't. when you make everyone a winner why work for it? come in 5th you're still a winner.

we've taken it to the point of we have to bring the best down to feel better about ourselves vs making ourselves work to get better and that's dangerous. so very dangerous.

no one owes us a living and human rights only exist by a culture that places a value upon them to protect them. having those rights is as much a fault of birth as being born itself.

born in a 3rd world country that leaders starve the people or worse, you life will suck and be a constant challenge. but you have ZERO rights cause no one will fight for them and protect them.

born here people think base human rights are an entitlement, not a gift we continue to protect. being gay doesn't entitle you to any subset of rights but it shouldn't keep you from rights either, but again, the culture can and will decide that as it evolves and is allowed to by their own progression. so while i understand the push for subset rights, i often wonder if we're pushing the whole "rights" thing too far. how much can or should we guarantee?

we have what we do because of a hell of a lot of work and determination that we need so desperately to find as a country again. i see it, but the people willing to do that are not normally the whiners who demand attention for their personal booboo.

if we tend to that booboo and fix it for them, that's how they'll fix it again later - whine. if we let them bleed, survival will kick in soon enough and they'll fix it on their own.

so my values are conservative by and large. anyone surprised? but i want to listen and i want to understand and if you put it no a spectrum of say 10 - 0 - 10 for being the far radical to center to far radical to the other side i'd likely be in the 5-6 range to the conservative side but i want to find a way to put a bridge between the two to help both sides realize many times we say the same thing from another perspective and the message gets lost in titles and stereotypes because those are easier to argue against than people.

so i want to help people regardless of the stereotypes involved with labels.

no idea if i answered the question or not.

[iceberg]

I see how any of these can bother people, but if it upsets you. Step back and ask yourself how it's actually hurting me?

Your beliefs are important to you. What do other people's beliefs have to do with you? If you get angry, walk away. It's better (less stressful) for you.

Like Darwin's theories and how some people get so upset by them. If you don't believe it, then don't subscribe to it. Just because "Jim", "Bob", or "Jennifer" believes in it, why does "Jason" have to get all bent out of shape about it?

It's stupid. Wasting way to much energy on something that has zero effect on how someone lives their life...

if they're attacking him for his beliefs or who he served with, the whole "zero effect" goes out the window.

like when either side tries like crazy to put their values on the other person. force, if you will. still "zero effect"?

[bbgun]

What politician doesn't think his policies and actions are in the best interests of the US, if not the world? It's the central conceit of politics.

[theogt]

I'm for myself.

[theebs]

I'm for myself.

:laugh2:

[Sam I Am]

if they're attacking him for his beliefs or who he served with, the whole "zero effect" goes out the window.

like when either side tries like crazy to put their values on the other person. force, if you will. still "zero effect"?

That becomes harrasment, and you can do something about that. Well, unless your a public figure, but then. You put yourself in the public eye and are susceptible to what that brings.

It's like the movie An Amercian President. Michael Douglas (as the president) said, "This is NOT the business of the American people!" Martin Sheen replied. "With all due respect, sir, the American people have a funny way of deciding on their own what is and what is not their business."

[iceberg]

That becomes harrasment, and you can do something about that. Well, unless your a public figure, but then. You put yourself in the public eye and are susceptible to what that brings.

It's like the movie An Amercian President. Michael Douglas (as the president) said, "This is NOT the business of the American people!" Martin Sheen replied. "With all due respect, sir, the American people have a funny way of deciding on their own what is and what is not their business."

so then where do i file an injunction to stop liberals from trying to tell me how to live my life all the time because they know better?

[Sam I Am]

so then where do i file an injunction to stop liberals from trying to tell me how to live my life all the time because they know better?

Ignore them, just like I ignore those that I believe are preaching bull****. If I see Joel Olsteen on TV, I just pass right on by. :laugh2:

[DallasEast]

I'm a registered independent, but that has never prevented me from voting liberally, conservatively and/or moderately. I have voted for issues and candidates of various parties for what I believed best benefitted my community, my city, my parish, my state or my country.

That's as far as I'll comment. Politics is a emotional subject for practically everyone and I'm by no means an exception to that particular rule. :)

[CowboyDan]

I'm a registered Republican, who has voted nothing but Democratic and who's stance on the issues are pretty much right down the middle. :D

[Sam I Am]

I'm a registered Republican, who has voted nothing but Democratic and who's stance on the issues are pretty much right down the middle. :D

So you're a Demopublican? :laugh2:

http://images9.cafepress.com/product/192645819v6_240x240_Front.jpg

[PullMyFinger]

Thats how the Crusades started. Too many people try to force beliefs on others, especially religious beliefs. Im very opinionated, but I dont try to force my beliefs on others, if they dont believe what I believe then so be it. That doesnt mean either of us is wrong though.

[DFWJC]

I'm absolutey for the people above any party affiliation. No real thought required from me on that one.

[JBond]

I'm definitely pro people... I don't care for either party...

Being a conservatarian, I more closely align with the Republicans on social issues, but neither one of them have a clue about budgetary spending or control...

Neither of the two parties care for us except for the fact that they need us to stay in power. I think that makes them resent us even more. "How dare those peons have a say in my desire to serve the people"...

Only financial contributors matter to either party...

We have veered far off the road our founding fathers set out for us.

[Temo]

I try to stay as non-political as possible. It's an exhausting process, politics.

[vta]

Well, the truth is, you're not going to find many willing to say they're for a party, (I do remember only one claiming himself something of the sort, but he flew the coop and doesn't post here anymore), because it runs contrary to what is trying to be achieved, which is change in an ideology.

If anyone plainly stated such a thing, it would most certainly be a plain faced statement against the U.S. stands for (a Government by the people, for the people) and they would get no where.

Political subversion works much deeper than this, giving people the impression they formulated an idea on their own, instead of having been indoctrinated with soft coercion. The people that stringently follow a political party will look you straight in the face, clear eyed and honest and declare that they are not loyal to a party.

How do you wrestle power out of the people's hands? Divide them.
How do you divide the people? Create two opposing parties, with opposing ideologies, create 'hot button issues' and watch them choose sides.

Would anyone in their right mind admit to being duped this badly?

[JBond]

Well, the truth is, you're not going to find many willing to say they're for a party, (I do remember only one claiming himself something of the sort, but he flew the coop and doesn't post here anymore), because it runs contrary to what is trying to be achieved, which is change in an ideology.

If anyone plainly stated such a thing, it would most certainly be a plain faced statement against the U.S. stands for (a Government by the people, for the people) and they would get no where.

Political subversion works much deeper than this, giving people the impression they formulated an idea on their own, instead of having been indoctrinated with soft coercion. The people that stringently follow a political party will look you straight in the face, clear eyed and honest and declare that they are not loyal to a party.

How do you wrestle power out of the people's hands? Divide them.
How do you divide the people? Create two opposing parties, with opposing ideologies, create 'hot button issues' and watch them choose sides.

Would anyone in their right mind admit to being duped this badly?

Just like with Jimmy Carter, eventually they will have to admit they screwed up big time.

[ABQCOWBOY]

VTA,

Your post, IMO, was excellent. I posted this question knowing that most would not believe they are in support of a political party. I believe most of us are, wheather we know it or not.

Why do I like George Bush? I like him because, right or wrong, I believe that he believed he was doing what was right.

We can debate the correctness of his position all day and half the night but he believed it IMO. Now, you can make the point that Charles Manson believed as well and you may be right.

The point is that we could all probably stand back a few paces and just look around at what is going on it our worlds. What is actually happening and do we really want this as a society? The answer may be yes but if it is yes, lets be sure that it's yes because it's what we want and not what somebody is telling us we want.

[JBond]

So you're a Demopublican? :laugh2:

http://images9.cafepress.com/product/192645819v6_240x240_Front.jpg

DIAF has a case of these at home. He keeps a few spares in his glove box and his desk at work, just in case.:D



Just messing with ya DIAF.

[zrinkill]

Well, the truth is, you're not going to find many willing to say they're for a party, (I do remember only one claiming himself something of the sort, but he flew the coop and doesn't post here anymore), because it runs contrary to what is trying to be achieved, which is change in an ideology.

If anyone plainly stated such a thing, it would most certainly be a plain faced statement against the U.S. stands for (a Government by the people, for the people) and they would get no where.

Political subversion works much deeper than this, giving people the impression they formulated an idea on their own, instead of having been indoctrinated with soft coercion. The people that stringently follow a political party will look you straight in the face, clear eyed and honest and declare that they are not loyal to a party.

How do you wrestle power out of the people's hands? Divide them.
How do you divide the people? Create two opposing parties, with opposing ideologies, create 'hot button issues' and watch them choose sides.

Would anyone in their right mind admit to being duped this badly?


Darn you VTA!

Please stop making me stop to think with your infuriatingly spot on posts!

;)

[Avaj]

I try to stay as non-political as possible. It's an exhausting process, politics.

:signmast: Yeah that. I try to align my thoughts is what is best for my children and their future. As for which party I am, Democratic.

[vta]

VTA,

Your post, IMO, was excellent. I posted this question knowing that most would not believe they are in support of a political party. I believe most of us are, wheather we know it or not.

Why do I like George Bush? I like him because, right or wrong, I believe that he believed he was doing what was right.

We can debate the correctness of his position all day and half the night but he believed it IMO. Now, you can make the point that Charles Manson believed as well and you may be right.

The point is that we could all probably stand back a few paces and just look around at what is going on it our worlds. What is actually happening and do we really want this as a society? The answer may be yes but if it is yes, lets be sure that it's yes because it's what we want and not what somebody is telling us we want.

Darn you VTA!

Please stop making me stop to think with your infuriatingly spot on posts!

;)

Thanks for saying so. :)

We're all vulnerable to subversion, we all have that instinct that pulls us to gravitate to our own kind, be it in race, ideology or religion.

[Doomsday101]

It strikes me that many of us are getting wrapped up in the politics of our Government and not really looking at it for what it is. I touched on this in another thread but I thought I might bring it up as a point of discussion to see if we might examine where we are at in todays society. Do you consider yourself to be for the people or do you consider yourself to be more closely aligned with a political party?

Sometimes I have a hard time keeping in straight in my own head. Think about it. Would you do whats best for the American people or would you side with a political strategy first?

Open for discussion.

Neither and yet both. I'm not sure how many put country 1st any longer it is more about what is in it for me

[DIAF]

DIAF has a case of these at home. He keeps a few spares in his glove box and his desk at work, just in case.:D



Just messing with ya DIAF.

Except I don't vote for Democrats!

[Viper]

Except I don't vote for Democrats!

0BaP2S0YSzg


:D

[hairic]

This can be tested, btw.

Take speeches, quotes, stuff from the Congressional Record, etc about policy, and take the name and party off of the quotes, and see if you agree or disagree and guess which party said it.

My guess is, partisans will say quotes they don't agree with will more often than not say an opposing party said it a greater percentage than those who don't care about party.

[ABQCOWBOY]

This can be tested, btw.

Take speeches, quotes, stuff from the Congressional Record, etc about policy, and take the name and party off of the quotes, and see if you agree or disagree and guess which party said it.

My guess is, partisans will say quotes they don't agree with will more often than not say an opposing party said it a greater percentage than those who don't care about party.

This, to me, is a pretty good idea. If you care to take the time, I would be happy to participate.

[vta]

This can be tested, btw.

Take speeches, quotes, stuff from the Congressional Record, etc about policy, and take the name and party off of the quotes, and see if you agree or disagree and guess which party said it.

My guess is, partisans will say quotes they don't agree with will more often than not say an opposing party said it a greater percentage than those who don't care about party.

This, to me, is a pretty good idea. If you care to take the time, I would be happy to participate.

Howard Stern played this beautifully, when he had peopled questioned about McCain's policies, asked as if they were Obama's. It was a great barometer for how easily influenced some people truly are.

[Temo]

This, to me, is a pretty good idea. If you care to take the time, I would be happy to participate.

I've actually attempted to test myself this way. I found it was pretty hard to actually get anything WRONG, because most speeches have a political purpose behind them. So it's rare that you find a speech that doesn't have something like "Unlike my Democratic/Republican colleagues, we care about the ordinary Americans" or some nonsense like that.

I'm sure there's some good speeches you can pick out there, but slim pickings indeed.

[Future]

I'm a registered independent, but that has never prevented me from voting liberally, conservatively and/or moderately. I have voted for issues and candidates of various parties for what I believed best benefitted my community, my city, my parish, my state or my country.

Me too...just did it and took a lot of flak. I think that the only way that people should vote is what they think is best for their country. Unfortunately I don't think that happened this year...particularly amongst college-aged students.

[iceberg]

Me too...just did it and took a lot of flak. I think that the only way that people should vote is what they think is best for their country. Unfortunately I don't think that happened this year...particularly amongst college-aged students.

people vote on whats best for themselves.

it sucks.

[theogt]

people vote on whats best for themselves.

it sucks.Rational self-interest is such a bad thing.

[jrumann59]

I guess I am for people. I tend to look at policies and see how they would affect me or people above and below me in class system we have. I want to know what benefits someone that makes $10K less then me gets for making less and then I look to see how someone that makes $10K more then me gets for making more. Really I think the grand mistake many people make is they think about how policies affect them now instead of when they may be in the sphere of influence of that policy in 4 years. I consider myself a conservative, not a diehard more liberterian. I am a Christian just don't believe in the "Church". Ultimately my faith will have to be enough for heaven or I better buy sunscreen.

[jrumann59]

people vote on whats best for themselves.

it sucks.


So if everybody voted what was best for there neighbor this world would be better. Individuals vote individually, first rule of nature is survival, looking out for oneself. That is the reason why man will never experience utopia, and if man does experience utopia man will no longer be man because the essence of man will be lost.

[Hoofbite]

Heres a question?

Do you think the majority is for the people or party driven?

[Doomsday]

I tend to go towards a party because I believe that overall Republicans founding principles coincide more with my beliefs. Though there are a lot of issues I disagree with, I still vote Republican ALMOST exclusively regardless. Unfortunately politicians care more about their own personal agendas then anything else, so the lines are getting more and more blurred, but they are still the lesser of 2 evils in my opinion.

Like someone mentioned people vote based on what is in for them. Too many people think they are entitled to something or owed something, life doesnt work that way. Rich people don't owe the rest of us anything because they are rich, and poor people aren't any more entitled to handouts then the next guy. Until we get the federal government the heck out of our day to day lives and make them fiscally responsible for how they spend OUR money, nothing is going to change. Like a lot of us, the people who make the decisions and have the power to institute change are only in it for themselves and they aren't about to cut their own throats, instead they just find new and more creative ways to become more and more entrenched in our lives and pockets.

[iceberg]

Rational self-interest is such a bad thing.

So if everybody voted what was best for there neighbor this world would be better. Individuals vote individually, first rule of nature is survival, looking out for oneself. That is the reason why man will never experience utopia, and if man does experience utopia man will no longer be man because the essence of man will be lost.

no i think we should put a country ahead of ourselves. if we make our country great, then our own lives are better by default, is it not? if we run around going ME ME ME we get what we have now.

[Future]

no i think we should put a country ahead of ourselves. if we make our country great, then our own lives are better by default, is it not? if we run around going ME ME ME we get what we have now.
well put

[ABQCOWBOY]

Rational self-interest is such a bad thing.

I think Ice would agree with me that short sided rational self-interest is a bad thing.

[ConcordCowboy]

Getting things better for the people is my goal.

I don't give a crap for either party.

They both disappoint way more than they ever seem to solve things if they ever really solve anything at all.

The Democrats happen to be more in line with the way I think most of the time but hardly all the time.

There really should be term limits.

[Doomsday101]

Getting things better for the people is my goal.

I don't give a crap for either party.

They both disappoint way more than they ever seem to solve things if they ever really solve anything at all.

The Democrats happen to be more in line with the way I think most of the time but hardly all the time.

There really should be term limits.

I agree with you however I have one issue with term limits it is like saying we the people are incapable of electing our representative so we will put term limits because we are incapable of fulfilling our own duty as Americans.

[arglebargle]

no i think we should put a country ahead of ourselves. if we make our country great, then our own lives are better by default, is it not? if we run around going ME ME ME we get what we have now.

:thumbup:

[arglebargle]

I agree with you however I have one issue with term limits it is like saying we the people are incapable of electing our representative so we will put term limits because we are incapable of fulfilling our own duty as Americans.


Good idea in prinicple, but actual effect shows that once in, incumbents are almost guaranteed a continuing seat, barring major sea changes. The advantages of incumbency also start to snowball, as incumbents approve rules that favor incumbents. The guys (and gals) in charge got there by successfully manipulating the system: they don't want anything that rocks their boats.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with you however I have one issue with term limits it is like saying we the people are incapable of electing our representative so we will put term limits because we are incapable of fulfilling our own duty as Americans.

I agree with CC here Dooms. I completely see your point but if I look at where American politics have gone in the last 20 years, I have to wonder if we can? Not so much President as Congress as I honestly believe that they have stopped listening to the people. I believe that stopped when it became very lucrative to be a politician. Term and Campaign limits would, IMO, go a long way towards solving that problem.

JMO

[Doomsday101]

Good idea in prinicple, but actual effect shows that once in, incumbents are almost guaranteed a continuing seat, barring major sea changes. The advantages of incumbency also start to snowball, as incumbents approve rules that favor incumbents. The guys (and gals) in charge got there by successfully manipulating the system: they don't want anything that rocks their boats.

They still require people to vote for them don't vote for them they can't get around one simple fact they need the votes to win, why take away other peoples choices? Yes incumbents have an advantage but you and others can vote them out instead you want a law to prevent them from running. That is what I call lazy democracy

[Doomsday101]

I agree with CC here Dooms. I completely see your point but if I look at where American politics have gone in the last 20 years, I have to wonder if we can? Not so much President as Congress as I honestly believe that they have stopped listening to the people. I believe that stopped when it became very lucrative to be a politician. Term and Campaign limits would, IMO, go a long way towards solving that problem.

JMO

They have not changed the fact that people voting for them or not. No matter how much money you throw out there in your campaign it still requires people going out and casting a vote. Simple fact is many morons vote on name they recognize not based on what that person has done or did not do in office. I would rather have a say in who wins instead of a law that just says well you can't run and I don't think you make anything better by doing it. We The People have to wake up and take our duty seriously for a change and so many don't. Heck I work for the County many people do not even know what the county does and consistently confuses us with the city. People got lazy is all that happened

[ABQCOWBOY]

They still require people to vote for them don't vote for them they can't get around one simple fact they need the votes to win, why take away other peoples choices? Yes incumbents have an advantage but you and others can vote them out instead you want a law to prevent them from running. That is what I call lazy democracy

The bigger problem, as I see it, is who gets party support and what they will do to get it. For example, is there any good reason a person like Nancy Pelosi should be where she is in our Country? She oversees who the Democratic Party supports and who gets funded. Because of this, she holds a great deal of power. People support her against the best interests of the Country and probably their own party. She will never get voted out because of the Geo she represents but because she is there for so long, she has managed to get herself into a position that is pretty scary to me.

[Doomsday101]

The bigger problem, as I see it, is who gets party support and what they will do to get it. For example, is there any good reason a person like Nancy Pelosi should be where she is in our Country? She oversees who the Democratic Party supports and who gets funded. Because of this, she holds a great deal of power. People support her against the best interests of the Country and probably their own party. She will never get voted out because of the Geo she represents but because she is there for so long, she has managed to get herself into a position that is pretty scary to me.

People in her district support her I don't like it either but it is her district and people do have a choice but for so many it is easy to cast a straight ticket or vote for a person you know than to really take your duty as an American voter seriously. We have a choice and when people want to send a clear and loud message they do and we have seen them do that as the power shifts in the congress and the house even in hardcore republican districts which is why we have seen a power shift in Washington today. I just have a real problem with a law saying who will represent us when it should be the voter who determines that.

[theogt]

no i think we should put a country ahead of ourselves. if we make our country great, then our own lives are better by default, is it not? if we run around going ME ME ME we get what we have now.Typically what's best for the country will in the long run correlate pretty highly with what's best for an individual's own interest.

Assuming they're voting in the own rational self interest, then I don't see how your comment has any merit.

[ConcordCowboy]

I agree with you however I have one issue with term limits it is like saying we the people are incapable of electing our representative so we will put term limits because we are incapable of fulfilling our own duty as Americans.

Unfortunately there is truth in that.

Along with the fact that has been talked about already....incumbents have an advantage...now combine that with the unfortunate truth and you get the same people back year after year if not decade after decade.

[CowboyDan]

So you're a Demopublican? :laugh2:

http://images9.cafepress.com/product/192645819v6_240x240_Front.jpg

I prefer Powell Republican

http://imgsrv.kmbz.com/image/kmbz/UserFiles/Image/ejs%20pix/Colin_Powell.jpg

[Doomsday101]

Typically what's best for the country will in the long run correlate pretty highly with what's best for an individual's own interest.

Assuming they're voting in the own rational self interest, then I don't see how your comment has any merit.

I don't believe in soaking the wealthy and business in America but yet I'm not rich nor do I own a business but I know that is not good for this country. I could jump on the bandwagon and holler rich people are bad and do not need that much money so over tax them so I can have more in my pocket. Heck that would be in my self interest but not in the interest of my country

[jrumann59]

They still require people to vote for them don't vote for them they can't get around one simple fact they need the votes to win, why take away other peoples choices? Yes incumbents have an advantage but you and others can vote them out instead you want a law to prevent them from running. That is what I call lazy democracy


The thing is most voters believe the Congress is corrupt, except their Congressmen so multiple that over 50 states and what do you get 97% incumbency winning percentage. I have been a proponent of term limits because in the long run it promotes new ideas and causes a shake up in the power base of Congress. I also think it will make Congressmen more accountable for their track record. I think it will also keep the media honest when they have to cover both sides every 2 or 4 years. The one thing that will stop is the constant redistricting that both parties use to guarantee their incumbents re-election.

[theogt]

I don't believe in soaking the wealthy and business in America but yet I'm not rich nor do I own a business but I know that is not good for this country. I could jump on the bandwagon and holler rich people are bad and do not need that much money so over tax them so I can have more in my pocket. Heck that would be in my self interest but not in the interest of my countryNo, over-taxing businesses and high wealth individuals would not be in your own self-interest. The long-term effects very likely would have a net negative impact on you.

[Doomsday101]

The thing is most voters believe the Congress is corrupt, except their Congressmen so multiple that over 50 states and what do you get 97% incumbency winning percentage. I have been a proponent of term limits because in the long run it promotes new ideas and causes a shake up in the power base of Congress. I also think it will make Congressmen more accountable for their track record. I think it will also keep the media honest when they have to cover both sides every 2 or 4 years. The one thing that will stop is the constant redistricting that both parties use to guarantee their incumbents re-election.

I'm sorry I still see it as lazy on the part of voters, when they want change they vote for that change if not the power would not shift from republican to democrat and back. We the people through our vote should determine a political race if you have to enact a law to get people out of office then you are taking away the right of the voter to decide who represents them. Believe me I have had mixed feeling on this but when push comes to shove I still think it is the right of the American voter to determine the outcome of their representation