[Roneyslelry]

Unfortunately, in this country there are plenty of people who would far better serve the people than the public can even know. If the incumbents are wealthy, well connected people they can afford to plaster their faces all over the media, while the more qualified candidate who does not have the financial resources may be washed away into the background. I think the biggest problem, though, is that people simply do not pay attention to what their representatives are doing. Many (if not most) of the constituents probably have no idea what kinds of legislation their representatives are passing or voting on. For example, one of the Senators from my state has staunchly supported the legislation proposed by the administration, regardless of its infringement of my rights as an American citizen. Yet, the majority of the people of this state seem not to care because they keep voting for him, like it is some tradition that needs to be perpetuated. Of course, how can a population from a state that is almost last in education nationwide have adequate knowledge to be able to make informed decisions at the voting booth? Scary.
And, don't forget the overwhelming amount of people who never even cast a vote. I often wonder what the government would look like if a true majority of the nation actually voted. I bet it would look very different. Would you be in favor of term limits for House and Senate? I think it is a necessity to ensure there is truly a representative government and decrease the stagnation of policy goals. You know, keeps things fresh, and provides for new ideas! For example, how could someone like Strom Thurmond have been a true representative of his state when those who elected him were all dead during the last years of his career?!

Great post. You hit on a (very) critical issue. This is the one I think we (all) need to reexamine.

Let's take back our country. Let's get real representation in congress. After all, they work for the citizens, not themselves or their "special interests". They need to be reminded of that.

Sign this petiton and let's see who really runs this country.

"Citizens for Term Limits" http://www.citizencongress.org/

Congress has a 99% incumbency rate. Let's end this for good.

[Vagtlaldo]

Term limits, while objectionable on every ground, might mitigate against the perversity of gerrymandered Congressional districts. This entrenched practice of gerrymandering has effectively neutered Congress from any responsibility to the voter. Term limits interfere with the effects of gerrymandering and thus is good.

Gerrymandered congressional districts (in my opinion) are the number one 'anti-democracy' process engaged in Washington and every State capitol. Anything that can work against this is good.

[ElenaEvgeevnaa]

Term limits, while objectionable on every ground, might mitigate against the perversity of gerrymandered Congressional districts. This entrenched practice of gerrymandering has effectively neutered Congress from any responsibility to the voter. Term limits interfere with the effects of gerrymandering and thus is good.

Gerrymandered congressional districts (in my opinion) are the number one 'anti-democracy' process engaged in Washington and every State capitol. Anything that can work against this is good.

Now I forget what gerrymandering means. Could you explain to me quickly ? I'm sure you make a good point but I must plead somewhat ignorant.

... I wondered if this new thread was going to get any attention.

[Klissineopar]

Now I forget what gerrymandering means. Could you explain to me quickly ? I'm sure you make a good point but I must plead somewhat ignorant.

... I wondered if this new thread was going to get any attention.

They fix their districts so the incumbant is always re elected.

[Adwetyren]

Ok, well I thought it had something to do with SOME kind of manipulation by "people in power".

Of COURSE I have to be in support of term limits then. I mean these fat do nothing but tax me for boondoggles and billshit type bureaucracies .......
........ Well, they piss me off like almost anyone ELSE that's aware of how wasteful bureaucrats are.

Goddamn fat, do nothing assholes.

[darieBarexish]

Ok, well I thought it had something to do with SOME kind of manipulation by "people in power".

Of COURSE I have to be in support of term limits then. I mean these fat do nothing but tax me for boondoggles and billshit type bureaucracies .......
........ Well, they piss me off like almost anyone ELSE that's aware of how wasteful bureaucrats are.

Goddamn fat, do nothing assholes.

I'm all in favor of the abolition of gerrymandering. Also term limits as we will be getting people in there who want to actually make a difference, and not just play the aristocrat game.

I'm just trying to figure out how term limits will end gerrymandering. Now that I think about it, I don't think it will. I'm still for it, I guess it's just two things we as a people need to make our congress do. They are (our) representatives, and must heed our wishes.

As for the letter to our representative. It seems that site may be out dated. I voted for my district, and Porter Goss was still there. WTF?. Well we shall see if it still gets to the right people. I mean we know the addresses haven't changed.

[Frinzer]

I'm all in favor of the abolition of gerrymandering. Also term limits as we will be getting people in there who want to actually make a difference, and not just play the aristocrat game.

I agree that term limits sound good, but ultimately, they are anti-democratic by attempting to thwart the will of the people to choose the representative of their choice.

I'm just trying to figure out how term limits will end gerrymandering.

Term limits will not end gerrymandering. Term limits are likely only to mitigate against the worst effects of gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is specifically the practice of redrawing the boundries of each individual congressional district in order to maximise the advantage for one party or the other - indeed, the two parties will trade off against each other to give each other 'safe' electoral districts that encompass a majority of their core constituencies.

The practice is called "gerrymandering" due to the 'gerry-rigging' of the process and the 'salamander' shapes that often resulted.

The process has gotten so bad that 'salamander' shaped districts would be an improvement upon the present absurdity of fucking polka dot districts!

In short, gerrymandering makes it so that in US Congressional elections, some 90% of incumbents are re-elected, year after year. This is the real evil that term limits are the half-measure of addressing. Get rid of gerrymandering and use fair-square boundries and that will end the need for term limits.

[zatronanec]

I agree that term limits sound good, but ultimately, they are anti-democratic by attempting to thwart the will of the people to choose the representative of their choice.


Term limits will not end gerrymandering. Term limits are likely only to mitigate against the worst effects of gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is specifically the practice of redrawing the boundries of each individual congressional district in order to maximise the advantage for one party or the other - indeed, the two parties will trade off against each other to give each other 'safe' electoral districts that encompass a majority of their core constituencies.

The practice is called "gerrymandering" due to the 'gerry-rigging' of the process and the 'salamander' shapes that often resulted.

The process has gotten so bad that 'salamander' shaped districts would be an improvement upon the present absurdity of fucking polka dot districts!

In short, gerrymandering makes it so that in US Congressional elections, some 90% of incumbents are re-elected, year after year. This is the real evil that term limits are the half-measure of addressing. Get rid of gerrymandering and use fair-square boundries and that will end the need for term limits.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't feel term limits are anti-democratic in the least. I happen to think it will restore sanctity to this institution that was our Republic. There can be no Republic without real representation. It devolves into a plutocracy at that point, same as the once great Roman Empire.

I am much in favor of term limits. Six to twelve years is plenty when they are making over 100 grand a year. As of now Delay is not the only one whose playing that corrupt game. I'm sure they all do to some degree or another. I feel term limits will attract people of character and substance from all walks of life. Not aristocrats just looking to play the game, and enjoy a lavish life. I want people in there that will break it, restore order, and our checks and balances.

I happen to think your dead on with gerrymandering. Maybe we should make a thread/poll that deals with that issue alone? I think the two combined would bring about revolutionary change without all the chaos and blood. Seriously, I see this as a real step in the right direction for this country and it's people. I went to that site, and sent my letter. I would think it would get to the right people even though Porter Goss was still the choice for my district. They need to update that site. It makes me wonder why it has not been done.

[L0KoxewQ]

Gerrymandering, named in "honor" of Elbridge Gerry, hero of the Revolution, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Governor of Massachusetts.
He drew a congressional district that some people said looked like a Salamander, someone remarked "Not a salamander, a gerrymander" and the name stuck.

[esenesesinas]

You could also radically increase the size of the congress. Increase it by a factor of ten. Smaller districts makes it harder to gerrymander, and much harder to lobby.
One rep for each 50,000 people instead of each 500,000.
There is no need to get them all in the same room.

[leijggigf]

Term limits are a good idea in that they cut into the 'monopoly' of career politicians whose primary legislative goal is their own incumbancy.
Term limits are a bad idea and can be considered anti-democratic because they could theoretically prevent the people from electing their true candidate of first choice.

While I think the former concern outweighs the latter, they can Both be addressed in a properly worded resolution:
No candidate for any office shall appear on three consecutive ballots for that office. Any primary or other preliminary ballots are not addressed by or included in this proscription, nor is a campaign for or victory by write-in votes.

Thus if a candidate truly Is the choice of the people rather than just the lesser of two evils and/or the default selection of a bunch of sheeple, they can retain their seat in perpetuity if they can mount a sufficient write-in campaign every third election.

[L6RLnyfl]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't feel term limits are anti-democratic in the least. I happen to think it will restore sanctity to this institution that was our Republic. There can be no Republic without real representation.

Denying the people's choice is anti-democratic in theory. There is no way around that principle. That being said, gerrymandering has done so much damage to democracy in the USA, that term limits would reduce the damage. Of and in themselves, term limits are not good for democracy.

It devolves into a plutocracy at that point, same as the once great Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire cannot be reasonably characterised as a plutocracy. At best, the last two centuries of the Republic maybe, but not the Empire. Sure the plutocrats found the Empire profitable, but as a 'class' they didn't run it. The military ran the show and that was always the 'equestrian' class (indeed, the victory of Caesar and Augustus was that of the populares not the optimates - the plutocrats clearly sided with the latter and Emperors tend to have long memories.).

I only have addressed this Roman issue in detail here because you have cited it as some justifcation for term limits. I think that argument is logically absurd.

[zdlupikkkdi]

You could also radically increase the size of the congress. Increase it by a factor of ten. Smaller districts makes it harder to gerrymander, and much harder to lobby.
One rep for each 50,000 people instead of each 500,000.
There is no need to get them all in the same room.

On the surface, this common sense logic seems reasonable, but upon deeper consideration, I think it already is a major part of the problem.

That is to say, that the larger the legislative body, the less accountable it becomes - each given member becomes too small to bother watching... too many members flood the awareness making it harder to identify the good from the bad - there is just too many to pay attention to.

In this respect, it is probably better to have a smaller number in the legislature - even though this runs a higher risk of plutocratic capture.

If one seeks to limit plutocratic capture of the legislature, eliminate gerrymandering - and that absurd electoral college thingie that focuses plutocratic power at key battle-zones and enables the plutocratic interest to ignore large parts of the electoral map. The electoral college thus serves to focus power in smaller parts - giving disproportionate power to those who can focus the largest resources in the smallest space - that is always the strong suit of the plutocrats. Opening up the electoral college to a single district encompassing the whole of the USA would eliminate that advantage and make every vote across the country, in every state, count equally - this gives the advantage to those who represent the widest interest of the largest number of the citizenry.

Gerrymandering, in the end results, produces artifical districts that can be captured/controled more easily. The people are fickle if you let them be. That indeed is the reason that the politicians use gerrymandering so much - to remove the ability of the people to be fickle.

[Virosponna]

While I think the former concern outweighs the latter, they can Both be addressed in a properly worded resolution:
No candidate for any office shall appear on three consecutive ballots for that office. Any primary or other preliminary ballots are not addressed by or included in this proscription, nor is a campaign for or victory by write-in votes.

Thus if a candidate truly Is the choice of the people rather than just the lesser of two evils and/or the default selection of a bunch of sheeple, they can retain their seat in perpetuity if they can mount a sufficient write-in campaign every third election.

Yes, that ought to address my objection sufficiently. The will of the people cannot be thwarted by any measure. Any attempt to do so is undemocratic. The people can be counted upon to 'write-in' if it be their strong interest to do so.

[Keyblctt]

I can't imagine anyone but the likes of Eurosocialist that would answer no here.
Take a look at your states voting precincts, and look at the way many states have carved up weird precinct shapes - these are not random. Both Rep and Demos have worked together to form favorable voting precincts for incumbents, where nieghborhoods of registered Reps are carefully placed together to produce voting blocks to ensure that local congressperson is re-elected - the Dems of course do the same.

[iiilizium]

Denying the people's choice is anti-democratic in theory. There is no way around that principle. That being said, gerrymandering has done so much damage to democracy in the USA, that term limits would reduce the damage. Of and in themselves, term limits are not good for democracy.

The Roman Empire cannot be reasonably characterised as a plutocracy. At best, the last two centuries of the Republic maybe, but not the Empire. Sure the plutocrats found the Empire profitable, but as a 'class' they didn't run it. The military ran the show and that was always the 'equestrian' class (indeed, the victory of Caesar and Augustus was that of the populares not the optimates - the plutocrats clearly sided with the latter and Emperors tend to have long memories.).

I only have addressed this Roman issue in detail here because you have cited it as some justifcation for term limits. I think that argument is logically absurd.

I don't find that absurd at all, it's common sense, and logic.

You seem to be a very intelligent person Michael. Try not to confuse a cult of personality, for anything , other than a figurehead. Think about it from a purely practical realistic angle. Empire is built off the backs of the citizenry, and that is not possible in a true Republic. If there truly was representation, then that is in fact not possible as the citizenry would never stand to be relegated to worker ant's.

The same can be said for America today. Once Empire is alive, there can be no more Republic. The illusion of one will be alive, and nothing more. Therefore, if Empire is allowed to form, that shows there is no longer representation in that society. That (is) plutocracy.

Many can argue, and do, that democracy will always end up a plutocracy. After all, this is in fact, is the political system that killed Socrates.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme court?

The Supreme Court has in fact become a political institution. It was inevitable. It's the worst idea ever. Yea, I want my government to appoint in a dictatorial fashion people as they see fit, and have that be the last law of the land. WTF!!! OH, and they are there till they die!! Yea, that's a great idea. This government of ours must think we're all stupid, and clueless.

I'm sure you know our government are not exporting freedom. How the hell can they export something we don't even have in the U.S.. They are exporting economic, political, social, and militaristic dominance. The UN use the U.S. military like a demolition crew, same as the international banks. These kids, soldiers are dieing to line pockets, not spread freedom.

Also banking institutions have been in control of U.S.'s capital since the days of Andrew Jackson. Since the introduction of fractionary banking, we have all been put on a bullet train to despotism. Now, thirteen families own the banking cartel, therefore they own the planet. If people thought logically, they would see this is so. You want to know who are the people who make the decisions, it's them. We are just (all renters) of their capital.
You can't get anymore plutocratic than that.

The only way to begin to change this for the betterment of our society as a whole, is the combined action of term limits, and the abolition of gerrymandering. Then remove the two party first at the gate system, and allow others a fair chance. You seem to think term limits un democratic, when in fact, the presidency has a eight year term limit. No one seems to think that un democratic. I think you need to try and think more logically about our situation, and just how we got here. I had even done an entire thread on Social Security. Not a soul here has touched it, or even answered the moderators question.

Once these branches of government are again three separate branches, and congress is not in bed together, then we can begin to heal this damage they have inflicted on our liberty.

Nothing will change until responsibility, true representation, and a healthy working Republic, is restored. They also need to be cut off from any and all social or economic policy in the private sector as they have created this "command economy" in doing so.

The (only) thing that will lead to freedom, is a free market, period. Take that away, and despotism in varied forms, is in fact, inevitable.

I want to hit one more point, and then I'm done. A modern day president, is nothing more than a red blue marionette and only a figurehead. A cult of personality, if you will. Term limits have done nothing to stop this as the three branches of government, are no longer branching. I really can't stand either party as they have sold out this country. Truth be told, I don't like the idea a partisan parties at all.

For some strange reason people want to blame one man for problems of a country. Whose that man, the president. If not one man, it's the polar opposite tribe's fault. As of now, that one man is Bush, and he's only a dimwitted child along for the ride. The last man to blame, was Clinton. It boggles the mind how people in this country, and abroad can think one has any say, let alone any power.

The power of the presidency has been reduced to impotence by this plutocracy, and it is now used to their selfish ends. Is the current president trash, I would say yes. I remember this sick man, pretending to look under the table for WMD's, and thinking it was so humorous. Any human being with a mind of their own can see the man is trash. That being said, is he complicit in the deception of the citizenry, sure he is. What's his alternative? I don't think he wants to be assassinated. A modern day president is a prisoner of truth, and a conscience, is a liability to his master's.

[c2siOlIk]

Methinks this thread has taken a digressionary turn. But it is your thread and apparently only us discussing it, so what the heck...

Try not to confuse a cult of personality, for anything , other than a figurehead. Think about it from a purely practical realistic angle. Empire is built off the backs of the citizenry, and that is not possible in a true Republic. If there truly was representation, then that is in fact not possible as the citizenry would never stand to be relegated to worker ant's.

The same can be said for America today. Once Empire is alive, there can be no more Republic. The illusion of one will be alive, and nothing more. Therefore, if Empire is allowed to form, that shows there is no longer
representation in that society. That (is) plutocracy.

I disagree. Empire can be voted and supported by a majority. Athens certainly proved it and they used a real democracy to do it, not a pretend (representative) one.

Many can argue, and do, that democracy will always end up a plutocracy. After all, this is in fact, is the political system that killed Socrates.

The democratic political system didn't kill Socrates - the people did. A slight, but important distinction.

I am certainly with I.F.Stone's interpretation here that Democracy is innocent of the charge of killing Socrates. Socrates refused to invoke free speech. On that ground, he could have been judged not guilty - but he refused - thus he is a martyr.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme court?

The Supreme Court has in fact become a political institution. It was inevitable. It's the worst idea ever. Yea, I want my government to appoint in a dictatorial fashion people as they see fit, and have that be the last law of the land. WTF!!! OH, and they are there till they die!! Yea, that's a great idea. This government of ours must think we're all stupid, and clueless.

It is necessary with constitutionalism. You cannot have one without the other. And yes, I agree that the US Supreme Court is a very political institution. I can't see how it could be considered, or expected to be, otherwise.

I'm sure you know our government are not exporting freedom. How the hell can they export something we don't even have in the U.S.. They are exporting economic, political, social, and militaristic dominance.

Yes, to an extent this is true, though your statement is a mite bit too hyperbolic for me to completely agree with.

The UN use the U.S. military like a demolition crew, same as the international banks. These kids, soldiers are dieing to line pockets, not spread freedom.

This is where you lose me. The fucking UN was created by the USA for the purpose of serving American interests. How Americans presume to pretend otherwise is painful.

It is true the US has gotten more than it bargained for when they created the UN, but for 75% of the UN's history and existence, they have served as a lap dog to the USA. It is only with the fall of the cold war dichotomy that the UN has found its own legs and this is apparently not to the liking of the USA.

Also banking institutions have been in control of U.S.'s capital since the days of Andrew Jackson. Since the introduction of fractionary banking, we have all been put on a bullet train to despotism. Now, thirteen families own the banking cartel, therefore they own the planet. If people thought logically, they would see this is so. You want to know who are the people who make the decisions, it's them. We are just (all renters) of their capital.

You make it look like Andrew Jackson was guilty of pandering to capital. He only called it straight. And the "bullet train to despotism" is coming at you from the political side, not the market side. Bankers aren't stupid.

You can't get anymore plutocratic than that.

You lack imagination.

The only way to begin to change this for the betterment of our society as a whole, is the combined action of term limits, and the abolition of gerrymandering.

I disagree.

The combined actions of term limits and the abolition of gerrymandering will only restore the old charade of representative democracy - that the elites value the opinion of the public's input. I don't see much of an improvement there.

Then remove the two party first at the gate system, and allow others a fair chance.

And devolve the legislature into Euro-style coalitions with miniscule minority parties acting like kingmakers?

You seem to think term limits un democratic, when in fact, the presidency has a eight year term limit. No one seems to think that un democratic.

I do, so you can't say "no one".

But then again, the office of a Chief Executive chosen by way of that silly electoral college, of an in itself, is not very democratic.

I think you need to try and think more logically about our situation, and just how we got here.

I don't take well to such assertions (to say the least).

Suffice it to say that if I comment upon a topic here in this forum, it is not without having thought and studied long and hard upon that issue.

I had even done an entire thread on Social Security. Not a soul here has touched it, or even answered the moderators question.

I know not what thread you speak of, nor how or why it ought to be relevant here. I'm just arguing against what I consider to be a foolish idea - term limits.

Once these branches of government are again three separate branches, and congress is not in bed together, then we can begin to heal this damage they have inflicted on our liberty.

This does not logically follow.

Given that some freedom does appear to stand on some non-American legs on this planet, and that they do so with out any particular notion of separating the executive from the legislature, I don't see how your assertion can account for the issue.

That is to say, I don't believe that what liberty you may have lost is particularly due to any inherent blurring of the legislative/executive/judicial functions.

I'd tend to look more towards core systemic characteristics and historical patterns to see where the limits on liberty and freedom are coming from here. To use your term, the 'plutocrats' have found some useful allies...

Nothing will change until responsibility, true representation, and a healthy working Republic, is restored. They also need to be cut off from any and all social or economic policy in the private sector as they have created this "command economy" in doing so.

This is very, very radical.

I have often asserted that capitalism is the name of the political system that we use where capital is understood to rule. Democracy is just the word applied to the facade that is laid on top of it to sell it to the masses.

There really is very little that is actually democratic about the system that one normally describes as 'democratic'. Voting once every four years for a local district representative, who is understood to represent one per hundred thousand population (or whatever) - according to party affiliation and personal conscience - does not directly translate into "rule by the people" in my book. It is an apparatus by which elite class rule is maintained and operated.

The (only) thing that will lead to freedom, is a free market, period. Take that away, and despotism in varied forms, is in fact, inevitable.

I can't agree with this. A constraint upon a free market in widgets may limit some freedom somewhere, but it doesn't seem very important to me.

What I might agree with is that freedom generally does include free markets, but free markets are not the definition or requirement of freedom.

My liberty is not dependent upon any theoretical 'right' to acquire any given widget or gizmo that might, or might not, be available for me to purchase at agreeable terms.

I refuse to sully the principled nobility of freedom with any necessary association with filthy lucre! Liberty and freedom stand as values superior to mere 'characteristics' of local commodity markets.

Indeed, that is a strategy of the 'plutocrats' - to blend/confuse/identify their 'right of the market' with the human citizen's right of liberty.

I want to hit one more point, and then I'm done. A modern day president, is nothing more than a red blue marionette and only a figurehead. A cult of personality, if you will. Term limits have done nothing to stop this as the three branches of government, are no longer branching. I really can't stand either party as they have sold out this country. Truth be told, I don't like the idea a partisan parties at all.

Ergo, you appear to agree that term limits are useless.

For some strange reason people want to blame one man for problems of a country. Whose that man, the president. If not one man, it's the polar opposite tribe's fault. As of now, that one man is Bush, and he's only a dimwitted child along for the ride. The last man to blame, was Clinton. It boggles the mind how people in this country, and abroad can think one has any say, let alone any power.

I take the opposite interpretation of the data.

The increasing focus upon one name, one face identity of "the leader" who is the focus of all politics is disturbing. But it is not the public that started the game - it has very much been the trend throughout the latter half of the 20th century of every political party in the western world to enforce discipline behind the "one name, one face, one message" of the party leader. As parties became more adept at this communications (i.e. propaganda) game, the public is only reacting appropriately. All anger is thus rationally focused upon "one name, one face". It is a logical outcome of the process.

The power of the presidency has been reduced to impotence by this plutocracy, and it is now used to their selfish ends.

This is logically inconsistent. If the plutocracy has reduced the power of the presidency to impotence, how can they use such impotent powers for their selfish ends?

Rather, the power of the Presidency has been massively increased through the magnifying focus of the public lights and cameras, turning the Chief Executive into the Chief Actor of State. This certainly suits the interests of the 'plutocrats'.

And of course, it is much cheaper to buy the Presidency than a whole fucking Congress.

Is the current president trash, I would say yes. I remember this sick man, pretending to look under the table for WMD's, and thinking it was so humorous. Any human being with a mind of their own can see the man is trash. That being said, is he complicit in the deception of the citizenry, sure he is. What's his alternative? I don't think he wants to be assassinated. A modern day president is a prisoner of truth, and a conscience, is a liability to his master's.

Yes, for some who rise to the job, it appears to be rude shock. Both Teddy Rooseveldt and Eisenhower commented publically after they were out of office that they had the feeling of being totally trapped with no choice in anything. Others, such as FDR, Reagan and Clinton, seem to have hit the wall, made a deal with 'the devil' and then kept up the charade and playing their roles masterfully.

So how about them term limits eh? Heck, they'll be talking about post limits next and that means they might be coming looking for me...

[CesseOveldset]

I'm not going to bother with addressing everything as you and I are on different pages. Any way, I'm not familiar with the quotation system here either. http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/foru...tpost&p=573805

What we do both want, is the best for our country. We both see the massive corruption, and I don't see how you mean to change any of it. Term limits, and gerrymandering were not the solution, just the (beginning) down a long hard road, that may not happen for a very long time. This country is too comfortable in their despotism.

When I mentioned a present day president's power now being impotent, I meant the man, and then explained how the power of the presidency, is in fact supreme, and (used). Why would you think I thought any any different? I thought I made myself quite clear. You seem to agree, after reading your comments towards the end of your response.

For what we, and many other's do here on the net. I don't like to call this arguing, just discussing.

You have told me, that you don't post without researching, and knowing full well what you are saying. Ever read, "War is a Racket"? We can always learn more, and never know it all. Even when we think we know a lot, we don't know shit.

As for the current war, and all wars waged for bullshit reasons. There is no hyperbole in my statements in the last post. I am very blunt, and lack tact or loquacity. This is a great book, check it out when you have the time. It's common sense, and we are ignoring it.
http://www.booklore.co.uk/PastReview...cketReview.htm

Even the Afghani opium business is was taken for international banking cartels, and the entire (Global market) by the U.S. government. When the taliban heard the U.S. government was going to invade, they started destroying all the heroin. It took over 200 billion out of the Global Market. It was called, economic warfare against the U.S.. Do you think soldiers know they are dieing to line pocket's? I don't think so.

As for the UN being a lapdog to the U.S., that is completely wrong. Do you remember that soldier in Macedonia. He was an American soldier who refused to wear the beret, and patch? Do you remember what they did to him? U.S. courts would not touch his appeal. If the U.S. was indeed, the alpha dog, that soldier would still be in the U.S. military. You need to do some research on the UN, and not mainstream research as you will get nowhere with that.

You seem to think an Empire can exist when all people are being represented. Imperia cannot exist without imperialism. People seem to dismiss this rather often, and I don't know why. It's impossible to have one without the other. Therefore, a free independent thinking people would never condone the stealing of another's territory, murder, and resources. It's never sold as that though, just spreading freedom, protecting the homeland, and peace. They are all lies.

The fact that the supreme court, is in fact a political institution, is a horror, and a travesty. They were only there to say two things. Constitutional, or Un Constitutional, period.The fact that they are there for life , and are appointed in a dictatorial fashion is preposterous. Them being the last law of the land, in an age of activist witch hunts, shows that our country is in for a hard time. I can't see how you think it prudent, or even natural.

You also seem to think a free market, is about "widget's". That's absurd. Without a free market, there cannot be any freedom, period. There is no hyperbole in anything I have said. That word is used way too often in the wrong circumstances. Just as conspiracy, and tinfoil are used. I don't mince words, and will never do so.

There are three main economic systems. I prefer a free market.

Civil remedies can take over many government programs, and run them much more effectively. There isn't one thing in our history, that hasn't been handled better, and more successfully in the private sector. Even logistics for the government, are done by civilian private contractors. Hell, our entire military industrial congressional complex, is run by the big capital private sector, and their interests.

I'm going to talk about all three main economic systems, in a very simple way. Many think communism, and socialism are inherently evil. That is relative, and what one thinks is evil, an (entire society) might think grand. If an entire society wants to live their live's a certain way, who am I or anyone else to question that? It is wholly collectivist, and that is their business.

If an entire society want's to commune with one another, and share their capital, it's on them. This is what banks do with the citizenry's capital in the U.S., and around the world. FDR is the one who first said banking cartels have owned America, since the days of Andrew Jackson. No one is blaming anyone. I don't happen to like the way banks use the citizens money in a selfish socialist fashion, and think all people in America should take their money out of every bank in this nation. That would sure get this traitorous government's attention. You want to make a difference in America? That's what I'm talking about Michael.

Now as for an entire society existing in a collectivist manner under communism, and socialism, that is not to say it is evil, just something I would not want for my country. Our government has made the U.S. wholly collectivist. Our (government), not the entirety of the citizenry. That's where the problem lies. Then, it's not an entire societies decision, and only it's (planners) of said society. If they are kept pure and the economy is kept out of the hands of government, then they can work on their own merits.

These exist no where, and never have in our entire history. Closest we came to pure capitalism, was when America had a "free market". The other two, never.

1) Pure Communism, is the (public) ownership of capital. That's (everyone), and all people in that country.

2) Pure Socialism, is (worker) ownership, and control of production, very similar to communism as it's collectivist.

3) Pure Capitalism, is (private/individual) ownership of capital.

Now when you look at all those, they work for their particular society.

Now add a Government that is now allowed to take control of every single one of those pure systems, and you will see why government cannot have anything to do with our economy Michael, in any of those systems.

What (kills) all these systems, is the (Nationalization) of them. National Socialism, National Communism, and National Capitalism. The Nationalization of any of these systems, breeds despotism. Just as the Nationalization of Globalization has done. Globalization is inevitable, and it is in the hands of our planners, not the citizenry.

All Governments have their place, and that place is protection of it's people. Otherwise, they are nothing, only onerous. They have now abused that right to protect us as they have become the enemy. Their is no hyperbole there. No Government has any place in a societies economy. The people then become the slaves, and allow government to live off of every single person from that moment forward. Just like worker ants. It is a grand delusion to allow any government to take over a (free) societies economy. (We need capital to LIVE) Michael, not "widget's" Free life. Once any government takes that power out of a free societies hands, you are no longer free Michael.

I choose a free society, as do you I'm sure, and that can only be found in a free market. We once had a free market in America, and our government stole it. That is something all governments (can) do if you let them, and that is when it's not pure, and it's not natural. That is when, all those systems are evil not just the "red scare", and socialists.

Mixed capitalism is a lie, and it is no longer capitalism at that point. I mentioned the SS thread, because it's (all) related. Do you like your government laundering your capital? I don't.

[lisualsethelp]

I have to admit that I skipped a couple of the longer posts, so please forgive me if I am stating something already stated.

While Congressional term limits are obviously undemocratic (as is the Constitution, especially those first 10 Amendments) I do not see this as a bad thing.

If we define a democracy as a political system in which the will of the simple majority of the people takes precedence over everything else (rule of law, respect for individual liberty, recognition of inalienable rights, consistency in application of the law, limits on government, etc.) then anything that checks the power of the majority is undemocratic. It is a shame that the term
"democratic" has somehow become synonymous with "good" or "right." Especially in the US which was founded specifically as a compromise between the tyranny of a democracy and the tyranny of a monarchy / oligarchy.

As has been pointed out there are many undemocratic procedures and structures within the US system of government. Not the least of which is Article III, Section IV

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government..."

IMO, the benefits of the electoral college (undemocratic) far outweigh any detriments because of it. (I, like Mad Michael, am from Canada and have direct experience with a tyranny of the majority--just on the other side of the majority than is MM.)

Similarly, the amendment process (undemocratic) serves as a necessary check on the will of the majority. Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall
call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall
be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by
conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of
ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no
amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses
in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

IMO, one of the travesties of Constitutional amendments is the 17th, which effectively removed state representation in the Congress.

More to the point, term limits on members of Congress seems reasonable considering the growing powers of Congress over the years (allowed or instituted by the Supreme Court). This may be more important than ever now that Rehnquist is gone, his was a court that repeatedly ruled in favor of the 10th Amendment and State's rights--according to the federalist comprimise that was the Constitution, IMO.

[libertiespana]

Great post. You hit on a (very) critical issue. This is the one I think we (all) need to reexamine.

Let's take back our country. Let's get real representation in congress. After all, they work for the citizens, not themselves or their "special interests". They need to be reminded of that.

Sign this petiton and let's see who really runs this country.

"Citizens for Term Limits" http://www.citizencongress.org/

Congress has a 99% incumbency rate. Let's end this for good.

Term limits will not end special interests groups. It will make more excuses on a voting public that is largely inept.