On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:19:38 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:50:29 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:57:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:07:48 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:51:47 -0700, jps wrote:


That's one of the funniest descriptions of Romney I've heard.

“Herman Cain says funny things. He’s not going to be the Republican
nomination for president. I mean, what he is is a national
distraction. Maybe not a bad one in this horrific recession, but let’s
be real.”

Carville also blasted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
for being “a serial windsock” who was destined to win the nomination.

“Any time that you turn around, he’s — it’s something else,” Carville
explained. “Once he uses any kind of adjective in front of it, you
know he’s getting ready to flip-flop. If he’s very committed to it,
that means that he’s going to change positions. And if he’s 110
percent for something, that means that he's changing positions.”

Romney is the quintessential empty suit.

It is really pretty hard to find a rational republican to take on
Obama since he has staked out most of the traditional GOP positions
for himself
It is hard to make the case that Obama as anti business when he has
done just about everything the 1% wants him to do and went back on
virtually every campaign promise that set him apart from GWB.
This is Bush 44.
Even is much vaunted health care reform was nothing but a big handout
to the insurance companies. That is not surprising since a couple of
Well Point lobbyists wrote the bill in Max Baucus' office. (not me
saying that. Howard Dean says it)
The wars continue to grind on, following the Bush timetable. Too bad
Bush did not establish an exit plan for Afghanistan.

Which is why I'm completely flabberghasted that the Republicans won't
go along with a single thing he does. He, like Clinton, are good
friends of the Republicans.

I think what it comes down to is that they don't like him ****ing
things up when they can do it better themselves.


I agree. I liked Obama in 2007 but it was clear by 1q08 that he had
drunk the KoolAde. He abandoned his public financing pledge and just
became another empty suit, for sale to the highest bidder. In Obama's
case. Goldman Sachs was the highest bidder (fact)
I also agree about Clinton. He was Bush 42.

I'm not as cynical about Obama as you but he was clearly overwhelmed
with the enormity of the job and the responsibilities it required. He
was smart enough to understand the gravity of his decisions. I think
Bush had the advantage of a thick skull and uncle Dick at his side.

Obama has refound his balls more recently and may end up doing some
serious good if he can stomach a good fight. The Republicans can be
pantsed if he's smart about it -- they have the potential to retake
the house.

His problem still lies within his own party, as it always has. You
can't pass legislation if a good percentage of your own people are
owned by special interests who won't go along.

Get the money out is the single most important thing we could
accomplish as a nation. There may be enough passion and momentum
towards that goal to see something earnest happen but that's where my
cynicism starts rolling in. Humans are not into change and campaign
finance reform is going to be a bitter pill for a lot of folks.

Add term limits and we would agree for a change.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 07:20:41 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:19:38 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:50:29 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:57:45 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:07:48 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:51:47 -0700, jps wrote:


That's one of the funniest descriptions of Romney I've heard.

“Herman Cain says funny things. He’s not going to be the Republican
nomination for president. I mean, what he is is a national
distraction. Maybe not a bad one in this horrific recession, but let’s
be real.”

Carville also blasted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
for being “a serial windsock” who was destined to win the nomination.

“Any time that you turn around, he’s — it’s something else,” Carville
explained. “Once he uses any kind of adjective in front of it, you
know he’s getting ready to flip-flop. If he’s very committed to it,
that means that he’s going to change positions. And if he’s 110
percent for something, that means that he's changing positions.”

Romney is the quintessential empty suit.

It is really pretty hard to find a rational republican to take on
Obama since he has staked out most of the traditional GOP positions
for himself
It is hard to make the case that Obama as anti business when he has
done just about everything the 1% wants him to do and went back on
virtually every campaign promise that set him apart from GWB.
This is Bush 44.
Even is much vaunted health care reform was nothing but a big handout
to the insurance companies. That is not surprising since a couple of
Well Point lobbyists wrote the bill in Max Baucus' office. (not me
saying that. Howard Dean says it)
The wars continue to grind on, following the Bush timetable. Too bad
Bush did not establish an exit plan for Afghanistan.

Which is why I'm completely flabberghasted that the Republicans won't
go along with a single thing he does. He, like Clinton, are good
friends of the Republicans.

I think what it comes down to is that they don't like him ****ing
things up when they can do it better themselves.


I agree. I liked Obama in 2007 but it was clear by 1q08 that he had
drunk the KoolAde. He abandoned his public financing pledge and just
became another empty suit, for sale to the highest bidder. In Obama's
case. Goldman Sachs was the highest bidder (fact)
I also agree about Clinton. He was Bush 42.

I'm not as cynical about Obama as you but he was clearly overwhelmed
with the enormity of the job and the responsibilities it required. He
was smart enough to understand the gravity of his decisions. I think
Bush had the advantage of a thick skull and uncle Dick at his side.

Obama has refound his balls more recently and may end up doing some
serious good if he can stomach a good fight. The Republicans can be
pantsed if he's smart about it -- they have the potential to retake
the house.

His problem still lies within his own party, as it always has. You
can't pass legislation if a good percentage of your own people are
owned by special interests who won't go along.

Get the money out is the single most important thing we could
accomplish as a nation. There may be enough passion and momentum
towards that goal to see something earnest happen but that's where my
cynicism starts rolling in. Humans are not into change and campaign
finance reform is going to be a bitter pill for a lot of folks.

Add term limits and we would agree for a change.

===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic voters
support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously electing
the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.

On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

On 30/10/2011 6:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Don't wory, I hear 0bama contributions are down huge. Most people
smarten up.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat "easier" but still would be opposed by lawmakers for the same
reason term limits would be opposed.
Career politicians makes for corrupt politicians and we have a Congress full
of them on both sides.
It's really no longer a question of "ease". It's a question of "how" and
the only realistic way is for voters to stop
automatically re-electing them.

Stop and think about it for a second. Almost all of the controversial
issues .... political and economic .... would
be much easier to solve if we didn't have such a partisan system. Boot
them out and start all over.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:26:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"X ` Man" wrote in message
...

On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat "easier" but still would be opposed by lawmakers for the same
reason term limits would be opposed.
Career politicians makes for corrupt politicians and we have a Congress full
of them on both sides.
It's really no longer a question of "ease". It's a question of "how" and
the only realistic way is for voters to stop
automatically re-electing them.

Stop and think about it for a second. Almost all of the controversial
issues .... political and economic .... would
be much easier to solve if we didn't have such a partisan system. Boot
them out and start all over.

Even those who aren't (relatively) corrupt would be averse to changing
an election and campaign system that they've spent years learning to
master.

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:01 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


===

I think that congressional term limits are something a high percentage
of the population would agree on - left, right and moderate. How do
we get it enacted? It might actually bring the country together for
a change.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of both Republican and Democratic
voters support Congressional term limits.
Problem is, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish. The
largest group(s) that oppose term limits
include the incumbents, big business that are in bed with them and ...
(sorry Harry) ... labor unions.
Even if seriously proposed, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to
pass. Fat chance.

So ... voters be dammed. It won't happen by legislation in Congress. The
only way to impose term limits is for
us peons to vote them out once in a while instead of continuously
electing the same corrupt *******s to another
term. Means we need more Independent voters who vote the person rather
than Democrats and Republicans that just vote the party.





It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

One of his many.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:30:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:27:08 -0400, Drifter wrote:

On 10/30/2011 8:58 PM, X ` Man wrote:


It would be difficult but easier to get the big bucks out of politics,
by severely restricting lobbying and donations.

Didn't Bam Bam promise to do that?

Mr Obama turned his back on that public financing pledge in 1q2008 and
then took $16 million from Wall Street as part of his $745 million
sellout.

It's nice that so many heeded the words of Martin Luther King and voted for Obama because of his
character and not the color of his skin.

Of course, his character was indeterminate.