PDA

View Full Version : Vote out every incumbent.



Fraggle145
8/5/2011, 11:06 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.

StoopTroup
8/5/2011, 11:06 PM
OK.

SicEmBaylor
8/5/2011, 11:08 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.

This is actually a very sound idea, but here's the problem...
The people you'd be replacing them with are exactly the same.

StoopTroup
8/5/2011, 11:10 PM
This is actually a very sound idea, but here's the problem...
The people you'd be replacing them with are exactly the same.

Not exactly.....

If they realize we are going to impose term limits....maybe the 2nd or 3rd time they waste a fortune on a job they will never get....they will consider getting or keeping a real job. A small 2-3 term change would be like a High Kalonic.

SicEmBaylor
8/5/2011, 11:12 PM
Not exactly.....

If they realize we are going to impose term limits....maybe the 2nd or 3rd time they waste a fortune on a job they will never get....they will consider getting or keeping a real job. A small 2-3 term change would be like a High Kalonic.

If and when term-limits are imposed, we'll see. It's going to take a constitutional amendment to get it done and if we do that then I hope we throw a balanced budget amendment in and make it a 2-for-1 package deal of greatness.

StoopTroup
8/5/2011, 11:14 PM
If and when term-limits are imposed, we'll see. It's going to take a constitutional amendment to get it done and if we do that then I hope we throw a balanced budget amendment in and make it a 2-for-1 package deal of greatness.

NO no no....by continuing to vote them out term after term we send a Message that enough is enough....

We impose the term limits.

hawaii 5-0
8/6/2011, 01:01 AM
Works for me.

5-0


Trump/ Jimmy 2012

cccasooner2
8/6/2011, 01:45 PM
In.

tommieharris91
8/6/2011, 01:49 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.

This.

OhU1
8/6/2011, 01:49 PM
Wouldn't we just end up with a lot of tea party dim wits?

Fraggle145
8/6/2011, 01:53 PM
Not everywhere it would even out. And if they suck we just vote em out again.

Fraggle145
8/6/2011, 01:56 PM
It could also help cull some of the lobbying influence in DC.

Think about it, if every candidate you spend your *** on to get put in just gets voted out how much influence can you actually have?

tommieharris91
8/6/2011, 01:59 PM
Nah. I'm a big fan of term limits for Congress now.

TIMB0B
8/6/2011, 01:59 PM
Don't forget to vote for the non-establishment politician for president too.


































Ron Paul

Jacie
8/6/2011, 02:02 PM
Hell, I say this every election . . .

TIMB0B
8/6/2011, 02:02 PM
Nah. I'm a big fan of term limits for Congress now.

As much as I'd like term limits I fear that it might cater to even more legislation being passed than ever before, since everyone would want to leave their mark before their term is up.

SicEmBaylor
8/6/2011, 02:18 PM
NO no no....by continuing to vote them out term after term we send a Message that enough is enough....

We impose the term limits.

That just isn't going to happen. At least it won't without term-limits. You only get large historic turnovers in Congress rarely, and once again those replacing them ultimately (at some point or another) fall victim to the same corrupting forces as their predecessors.

No, what has to change is one of the two major parties collapsing ala the Whigs, Federalists, etc. and have it replaced by a liberty-leaning party with strong ideological beliefs instead of a policy "platform" that changes as readily as the current political climate.

The choice today is not between conservatism and liberalism. In fact, there is no real choice. The differences between the two parties are only of the degree to which they believe in state power. It's a choice between tyranny and nothing else. I'm tired of right v. left. I want to be neither left-wing nor right-wing; I want to be "up" toward liberty and away from the tyrannical extremes of both sides.

This country will either soon die because of its lack of a real political alternative or the American people will demand a government that protects their liberty and rules in the cool, collected, and responsible manner that our Founding Fathers hoped it would.

lexsooner
8/6/2011, 02:57 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.

I feel the same frustrations and emotions. However, I also think this would not make any difference, nor could it even happen. Let's say you have an indy candidate who campaigns sincerely with a pledge that he will look out for the people first. The special interests will throw all their money and backing into his or her opponent and the dip **** voters will buy into ads attacking the fact the indy candidate does not sleep with the American flag wrapped around himself in his bed and is therefore a traitor, or some other simple and silly but equally effective smear campaign. Yes, not only are the politicians part of the problem, but we the people are the other part.

the_ouskull
8/6/2011, 03:01 PM
It's because nobody watches actual news anymore. When The Onion and the Daily Show are two of the best news sources out there, it's saying something about the state of our country. Even our NEWS is now available to the highest bidder...

MR2-Sooner86
8/6/2011, 03:03 PM
Here's a better idea, destroy the two party monopoly.

They may fight between each other but they know the pendulum of power swings back and forth between the two of them. How hard is it for third party candidates to get on the ballot? Democrats and Republicans fight each other but they know it's the two of them and they'll close the door on anything else who tries to get in on the party.

It doesn't matter who's in power, they're both laughing all the way to the bank. In this entire debt battle the two sides of just switched sides of the table and it's not the first time they've done it either.

OU_Sooners75
8/6/2011, 03:07 PM
I say dont vote them out, just stop Paying them! No more professional politicians in thefederal government!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/6/2011, 03:11 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.Haha. A tired and transparent strategy from your ilk, Vladimir. You guys are void of creativity. Must want to destroy some things, huh?

badger
8/6/2011, 03:22 PM
I wonder if anyone viable is running against John Sullivan... usually its just that one lady that hates him...

Midtowner
8/6/2011, 03:22 PM
It could also help cull some of the lobbying influence in DC.

Think about it, if every candidate you spend your *** on to get put in just gets voted out how much influence can you actually have?

In the long run, term limits would do the absolute opposite. You'd leave the institutional power structure and memory in the hands of K-Street, not elected officials. If we had the House and Senate turning over every 12 years or so, who do you think would be in the business of deciding who is placed on what committee, who got leadership positions, etc.? K Street.

It's not like if you impose term limits that K Street would just dry up and turn into tumbleweed town, it'd be strengthened significantly.

picasso
8/6/2011, 04:19 PM
Do it. No matter their message, regardless of party, they are all the ****ing same.

Vote out all incumbents. And continue to do it until we get a group of people in there that can get **** done.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If anyone posts in this thread that its one party's fault or the other then you are a brainwashed idiot and I will make sure to tell you so. If you are one of the people then dont post in my ****ing thread.

Its all their faults.

Do it. Vote em all out.

Agreed. And add term limits to all.

Soonerfan88
8/6/2011, 04:30 PM
I think that restrictions should also be placed on staffers. They are as much or more of the problem since they are usually the ones telling the politicians how to vote. Congressmen don't read the bills or have their own opinion. They depend on staffers to filter through everything, meet all the lobbyists (satan's helpers) and then tell them what to do. If an incumbent is voted out, the staffers just move offices or convince the new guy to rehire them and keep the same policies in place.

SicEmBaylor
8/6/2011, 04:41 PM
I wonder if anyone viable is running against John Sullivan... usually its just that one lady that hates him...

Sullivan needs a primary challenge along with EVERY member of Oklahoma's Congressional delegation. Every single one of them voted to sell this nation and their constituents out when they voted for the debt "deal" compromise. They doomed this nation to economic failure because they refused to stand against the House leadership. EVERY single one of them needs to be sent home packing. Only our two US Senators voted against that ****ty *** bill and held firm -- I'm proud of them.

Sullivan
Lankford (highly disappointed in him)
Lucas
Cole
Boren (he isn't running for re-election anyway)

Every single one of those bozos needs to be working at a Dairy Queen by Feburary of '13.

soonercruiser
8/6/2011, 05:35 PM
Wouldn't we just end up with a lot of tea party dim wits?

"Brilliant"!!!
:D

3DPKf7y1F-Q

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi
8/6/2011, 05:38 PM
Term limits are a good start, but the only way they'd work is if you lowered the Senate term to 3 years. As it is, Senators have no accountability for the first 4 years in office.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/6/2011, 06:03 PM
Sullivan needs a primary challenge along with EVERY member of Oklahoma's Congressional delegation. Every single one of them voted to sell this nation and their constituents out when they voted for the debt "deal" compromise. They doomed this nation to economic failure because they refused to stand against the House leadership. EVERY single one of them needs to be sent home packing. Only our two US Senators voted against that ****ty *** bill and held firm -- I'm proud of them.

Sullivan
Lankford (highly disappointed in him)
Lucas
Cole
Boren (he isn't running for re-election anyway)

Every single one of those bozos needs to be working at a Dairy Queen by Feburary of '13.Fershure!:)

Blue
8/6/2011, 06:26 PM
What about this "Super" Congress? Bypassing options to change bills and debate bills. Just up or down votes.

They are just making up new rules and crapping on the constitution every step of the way.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/6/2011, 06:35 PM
This is actually a very sound idea, but here's the problem...
The people you'd be replacing them with are exactly the same.Making it a silly(at best), or diabolical idea, designed to keep the good ones from being re-elected. It's an assault on the Tea Partiers, who voted responsibly.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/6/2011, 06:43 PM
Greatly altering the retirement pension rules for a member of congress would help as well. There's no good reason for a person serving in congress to receive a retirement pension from the govt. For starters, they shouldn't be there very long, and also, a short term "career" doesn't deserve a taxpayer-paid pension.

SicEmBaylor
8/6/2011, 06:55 PM
Making it a silly(at best), or diabolical idea, designed to keep the good ones from being re-elected. It's an assault on the Tea Partiers, who voted responsibly.

Are you talking about term limits? Term limits have been, at least theoretically, a major goal and plank in the GOP's platform. It was part of the Contract with America in '94.

Like I've previously said, it would take a constitutional amendment to instill term-limits. If they do that they might as well try to get a balanced budget amendment ratified as well. The problem is, the GOP doesn't really want either and so it'll never get done.

There was a period of time during the last decade when all 3 branches of the Federal government were controlled by the GOP, most of the governorships, and most of the state legislatures. I believe that's as close to political hegemony in this country than we've ever had in the history of our nation. Ask yourself these questions: Why didn't **** get done? Why did the situation continue to get worse year after year after year? Why did the size and power of the government explode during that decade rather than be reduced? Why are we having to deal with the problems created by a failed political party during the last 10-years? And don't you dare blame it on the Democrats. The GOP was firmly planted in the driver's seat and they drove us right off a cliff.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT THE GOP DID DURING THE LAST DECADE AND CONTINUES TO DO TO THIS DAY. There is no excuse; however, there is an explanation. The explanation is simple: the GOP sold the nation out to big-business and their corporate buddies. The GOP the nation out to the military industrial complex. The GOP sold itself out in order to ensure it remained in power even at the expense of the very nation they have sworn to protect.

There have been good, decent, and principled Republicans doing everything they can to fight the good fight. However, they are very very few. The GOP has been a failure. An absolute f'n failure. That's not to say I don't blame Democrats -- I certainly do. They've been partners in crime. But the reason I don't sit around and harp on the Democrats is because WE EXPECT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR FROM THE DEMOCRATS. Why should I get mad at the Democrats and liberals? They're honest about their intentions. They tell us at every turn exactly what they'd like to do, and I respect that. I respect the fact that they're honest about who they are. Is the Republican party honest about who it is? ****, no!

Here's what I think: At this point, I truly believe we're doomed. I am prepared for some sort of serious social or political collapse within my lifetime. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson was truly radical in his belief in routine social and political revolution. His idea of "generational sovereignty" is a truly radical idea to this day. I tell you all -- be prepared. Be prepared for upheaval the likes of which even the oldest of you *cough* Vet *cough* have never seen.

MamaMia
8/6/2011, 07:14 PM
Spending has gone up EVERY year since the mid fifties. Both parties are guilty. Its nuts. I for one am glad to see this batch of voters from all parties taking a stand against all the spending.

Fraggle145
8/6/2011, 11:53 PM
Making it a silly(at best), or diabolical idea, designed to keep the good ones from being re-elected. It's an assault on the Tea Partiers, who voted responsibly.

Get the **** out of my thread you dumb *******. Read the ****ing first post. Take your blind partisan hackery some ****ing place else. Its bored and tired.

You may be a great person in real life, hell I've never met you. And you can at least think one right thing when you cheer for the sooners, but on the internet you act like a ****ing 5 year old idiot and it makes it impossible to even stand you in any way, shape, or form.

STOP POSTING YOUR STUPID BULL**** IN MY THREAD. READ THE OP.

Fraggle145
8/7/2011, 12:12 AM
Greatly altering the retirement pension rules for a member of congress would help as well. There's no good reason for a person serving in congress to receive a retirement pension from the govt. For starters, they shouldn't be there very long, and also, a short term "career" doesn't deserve a taxpayer-paid pension.

See this is useful. Why did you have to post the 2 posts before that?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/7/2011, 01:02 AM
Get the **** out of my thread you dumb *******. Read the ****ing first post. Take your blind partisan hackery some ****ing place else. Its bored and tired.

You may be a great person in real life, hell I've never met you. And you can at least think one right thing when you cheer for the sooners, but on the internet you act like a ****ing 5 year old idiot and it makes it impossible to even stand you in any way, shape, or form.

STOP POSTING YOUR STUPID BULL**** IN MY THREAD. READ THE OP.KMAMofo. You're far too angry a person to be posting on these message boards, anyway. Go outside and yell for a while. It should do you some good..

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/7/2011, 01:07 AM
I wasn't really motivated to post in such a silly-as*ed thread, except for your personal invitation to do so in post #1. Sorry I took so long to muster the energy.

SicEmBaylor
8/7/2011, 01:15 AM
Personally, I blame Lincoln.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/7/2011, 01:19 AM
Personally, I blame Lincoln.for what, this time?

SicEmBaylor
8/7/2011, 01:21 AM
for what, this time?

I was kidding.
Mostly.

En_Fuego
8/7/2011, 01:45 AM
Personally, I blame Lincoln.



http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t8/uh2214/VaSeal.jpg

"Thus always to Tyrants"

Fraggle145
8/7/2011, 01:49 AM
I wasn't really motivated to post in such a silly-as*ed thread, except for your personal invitation to do so in post #1. Sorry I took so long to muster the energy.

Right. I invited everyone to post so long as you didnt bring partisan bull into it. Which you proceeded to do immediately when you entered the thread.

sooner59
8/7/2011, 03:50 AM
The existence of RLIMC is the existence of partisanism.

TIMB0B
8/7/2011, 03:54 AM
In the long run, term limits would do the absolute opposite. You'd leave the institutional power structure and memory in the hands of K-Street, not elected officials. If we had the House and Senate turning over every 12 years or so, who do you think would be in the business of deciding who is placed on what committee, who got leadership positions, etc.? K Street.

It's not like if you impose term limits that K Street would just dry up and turn into tumbleweed town, it'd be strengthened significantly.

I think the first step is to get rid of lobbyists/special interest groups by abolishing all direct taxes and corporate subsidies.

SicEmBaylor
8/7/2011, 11:43 AM
I think the first step is to get rid of lobbyists/special interest groups by abolishing all direct taxes and corporate subsidies.

You can't and shouldn't get rid of lobbyists. Besides the fact that it's a violation of the 1st Amendment, lobbyists do have an important role in government.

Is there an issue you feel strongly about? Do you have time to fly to D.C. and lobby members of Congress personally? No? That's what lobbyists and special interest groups do. You sign up to become a member of an organization and pay dues to that organization that supports your cause and in return they lobby the government on your behalf. If you somehow got rid of lobbyists and special interest groups then you would almost totally eliminate the ability of people to petition their government. That is a very very bad thing.

Ultimately, the solution is to elect responsible people who can properly evaluate an issue and make a sound decision based on the facts and consistent with the Constitution and their oath of office.

SicEmBaylor
8/7/2011, 11:49 AM
And then there are industries that collectively form trade associations that lobby on behalf of the entire industry. A great example of this was a recent law proposal in California that would have essentially banned "toy" guns that look like real ones. This proposed law would have killed the paintball industry in California and it would have put every ma and pa paintball field in the state out of business. A lot of paintball manufacturing is also done in California.

The paintball industry had to scramble because it didn't have a trade association to look after its interests in Sacramento. They managed to get an amendment added to the bill that exempted paintball, but the threat of destroying the industry was very real. The problem is that all of those ma and pa operated paintball fields (almost every single one of them is) operate on a very thin financial margin and they simply don't have the resources to protect their own interests.

What they can do is pay a small fee each year to their trade association who in turn hires a lobbyist and protects their interests. Again, this is a special interest group.

I'm not defending special interest groups or lobbyists. Many lie, they're underhanded, slimy, and often what they want is an absolute violation of the Constitution and what every person their lobbying was sworn to protect. But, like I said, it's up to the individual legislator to make reasoned decisions.

Getting rid of lobbyists and special interest groups would be killing the patient to cure the disease.

TIMB0B
8/7/2011, 12:26 PM
I'm not saying make lobbying against the law, but get rid of the tax burden that drives the incentive for handouts. That alone would weed out the corporatist politicians and kickbacks.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/7/2011, 12:39 PM
You can't and shouldn't get rid of lobbyists. Besides the fact that it's a violation of the 1st Amendment, lobbyists do have an important role in government.

Is there an issue you feel strongly about? Do you have time to fly to D.C. and lobby members of Congress personally? No? That's what lobbyists and special interest groups do. You sign up to become a member of an organization and pay dues to that organization that supports your cause and in return they lobby the government on your behalf. If you somehow got rid of lobbyists and special interest groups then you would almost totally eliminate the ability of people to petition their government. That is a very very bad thing.

Ultimately, the solution is to elect responsible people who can properly evaluate an issue and make a sound decision based on the facts and consistent with the Constitution and their oath of office.of course

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/7/2011, 12:41 PM
Right. I invited everyone to post so long as you didnt bring partisan bull into it. Which you proceeded to do immediately when you entered the thread.what I was referring to was the nasty way you chastised and condemned opinions in advance. It was a guaranteed way of soliciting that opinion.

soonercruiser
8/7/2011, 04:27 PM
Right. I invited everyone to post so long as you didnt bring partisan bull into it. Which you proceeded to do immediately when you entered the thread.

Is that a "He who starts the thread, makes the rules"???
Sure. :rolleyes:
What goes around, comes around.