An argument for term limits
 

Keyser Soze wrote:

On 9/28/18 10:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


http://funkyimg.com/i/2LBVw.jpg


Feinstein still seems to have some marbles.

I think the qualifications required to be a US Senator should
include have *all* your marbles.

That would certainly disqualify a whole bunch of them.

An argument for term limits
 

On 9/28/2018 8:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:57:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 10:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


http://funkyimg.com/i/2LBVw.jpg


Feinstein still seems to have some marbles. The other three are
embarrassments. Take the big money out of politics and you'll have term
limits. Limit donations to no more than $100 from an individual,
corporation, or group, and mandate plenty of free air and debate time on
broadcast and cable TV, and I think that would assure turnover.


Democrats would not go for open debates. Neither would the Republicans.
They all remember being embarrassed by Perot.



Well, then, that would encourage a new crop of candidates who can
debate. Oh...Perot...the crazy man.

It was Perot who buried them with the bitter truth about the debt, bad
trade deals that drove the Clinton/Gingrich tax hikes and spending
cuts.
It was Harry Browne who asked the questions that embarrassed them.
At any rate, after that, nobody but the machine candidates were
allowed to debate.



"The giant sucking sound"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdaitZx3njw

An argument for term limits
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:17:26 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 8:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:57:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 10:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


http://funkyimg.com/i/2LBVw.jpg


Feinstein still seems to have some marbles. The other three are
embarrassments. Take the big money out of politics and you'll have term
limits. Limit donations to no more than $100 from an individual,
corporation, or group, and mandate plenty of free air and debate time on
broadcast and cable TV, and I think that would assure turnover.


Democrats would not go for open debates. Neither would the Republicans.
They all remember being embarrassed by Perot.



Well, then, that would encourage a new crop of candidates who can
debate. Oh...Perot...the crazy man.

It was Perot who buried them with the bitter truth about the debt, bad
trade deals that drove the Clinton/Gingrich tax hikes and spending
cuts.
It was Harry Browne who asked the questions that embarrassed them.
At any rate, after that, nobody but the machine candidates were
allowed to debate.


I recall Perot as nothing more than a gadfly, and his choice of
Stockdale as his running mate was something to behold. I have no memory,
and for good reason, of Harry Browne.


You have no memory of Harry Brown because of that "la la la" thing
that goes on in your mind when you refuse to listen to anyone who is
not a machine Democrat.
In the debates he diced up both the democrats and republicans for
spouting the same basic bull**** and he actually proposed another
path.

An argument for term limits
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:36:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/28/2018 8:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:57:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 10:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


http://funkyimg.com/i/2LBVw.jpg


Feinstein still seems to have some marbles. The other three are
embarrassments. Take the big money out of politics and you'll have term
limits. Limit donations to no more than $100 from an individual,
corporation, or group, and mandate plenty of free air and debate time on
broadcast and cable TV, and I think that would assure turnover.


Democrats would not go for open debates. Neither would the Republicans.
They all remember being embarrassed by Perot.



Well, then, that would encourage a new crop of candidates who can
debate. Oh...Perot...the crazy man.

It was Perot who buried them with the bitter truth about the debt, bad
trade deals that drove the Clinton/Gingrich tax hikes and spending
cuts.
It was Harry Browne who asked the questions that embarrassed them.
At any rate, after that, nobody but the machine candidates were
allowed to debate.



"The giant sucking sound"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdaitZx3njw

When you look at the exit of jobs and money to Mexico and China since
then, it was an accurate assessment.

An argument for term limits
 

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 22:03:21 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 20:36:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/28/2018 8:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:57:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/28/18 3:53 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/28/18 10:23 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


http://funkyimg.com/i/2LBVw.jpg


Feinstein still seems to have some marbles. The other three are
embarrassments. Take the big money out of politics and you'll have term
limits. Limit donations to no more than $100 from an individual,
corporation, or group, and mandate plenty of free air and debate time on
broadcast and cable TV, and I think that would assure turnover.


Democrats would not go for open debates. Neither would the Republicans.
They all remember being embarrassed by Perot.



Well, then, that would encourage a new crop of candidates who can
debate. Oh...Perot...the crazy man.

It was Perot who buried them with the bitter truth about the debt, bad
trade deals that drove the Clinton/Gingrich tax hikes and spending
cuts.
It was Harry Browne who asked the questions that embarrassed them.
At any rate, after that, nobody but the machine candidates were
allowed to debate.



"The giant sucking sound"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdaitZx3njw

When you look at the exit of jobs and money to Mexico and China since
then, it was an accurate assessment.

===

Perot was a smart guy but a lousy politician, i.e., he never sugar
coated the cold hard facts.