Washington D.C.
 

Harry Truman was correct when he observed, 'My choices early in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference.'

Does anyone here doubt the truth of that statement? We need term limits!

Re: Washington D.C.
 

A piano player is not often that dishonest.

Pops

Re: Washington D.C.
 

The piano player had to be talented and have spent time practicing to become able to do his job. The other employees of that establishment are much more like like politicians - their only talent is screwing you out of your money while pretending to care.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

I have to admit, Harry S was quite a bon mot. Said a lot of things that would be considered very UN-PC. Too bad he was a DEM. TJ

Re: Washington D.C.
 

We need more than that...

mike
gn

Re: Washington D.C.
 

we have term limits . it' called an election. what we need is education, integrity, common sense,morality and responsibility in our voters. our politicians are only reflections of those who vote for them. this is what the majority wanted . they got it. know they have to work live and sleep in it.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

True! But probably 75-80% of the registered voters put too much value on one or two campaign promises and never really study the background, history, and voting records of the candidates and the party or special interests groups they represent. Have you seen the "Wizard of ID" comic strip where the king promises free health care, public transportation, affordable housing, and jobs for everyone. The crowd shouts "yeah" at each promise and when jobs are promised everyone shouts "why do we need jobs". That's the attitude too many people now have and that's why socialism in the U.S. is so close to reality.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

term limits would end up biting us in the donkey just like campaign finance reforms. we should have the right to spend our money in support of who we want to elect and also should be allowed to vote for who we want.a lot of the trouble in this country is because of to many laws not because we don't have enough.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

there is one law that should be put back into effect. you should have to be a land owner in order to vote in an election. our country would once again be conservative . can you vote in a company stockholders meeting if you don't own any stock in that company ? this bussiness of wiping the vomit off your face, leaving your park bench or refridgerator box and going down to the polling place to vote [after receiving your free pack of smokes]is a load of crap. this is one of the reasons why we have the lowest of low in our public offices.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

Re: Washington D.C.
 

+2.....dont forget..as it stands now..these "monkeys" have spent millions of their own and from others to win office...if there was a limit on term...without substantial changes in running policie(s)...If you think they push crap now and return the favors....what do you think would happen if they were on a "time limit" to recoup their expenses.....and their sponsors...their 24/7 time in office sure wouldnt be for their people......!:mad:

Re: Washington D.C.
 

Don't know if I can agree to that one. Being a member of the military and having moved across the country every two years of the last 8, I find it is not very beneficial to purchase property anywhere. Just saying.

Ron

Re: Washington D.C.
 

ok, how about have a job. that would be a step in the right direction. your allready making me comprimise maybe i would make a good politition.

Re: Washington D.C.
 

I can't agree here, rockn... We've "owned" land twice (if you call having a 30-year mortgage "owning"), but after selling our last home, we were priced out of the market, so we've been leasing for nearly 10 years. There are just way too many reasons that responsible, conservative people can't "own" land now, that makes your suggestion a misplaced criterion.

I will say this, however: I think before people are allowed to vote they should be able to do the following:

1) PROVE citizenship status;
2) PROVE proficient (8th grade, minimum) use and understanding of the English language;
3) pass a test (randomized, like they do for DMV driving tests so copying can't be done) with basic questions re: a) both candidates and their running mates; b) basic questions re: the candidates' platform; c) basic questions re: our Constitution.

These are just off-the-cuff ideas, and implementing them would take much thought and planning, but they'd be a good start.

Can you imagine, though, the same people putting together any kind of revised voting standards would be the same people who can't come up with foolproof voting methodologies? (remember "hanging chads") :o

Re: Washington D.C.
 

President Obama wouldn't be setting any records if he "declined re-election". Remember LBJ ?

Given his present rate of free fall - and the branches he's grasping along the way - (ala making veterans pay for service-incurred injuries), our new President is rapidly pruning his "support tree"..... >MW

Re: Washington D.C.
 

Now THAT'S a law I could go for. :eek: :D I've been telling my wife that for years. :mad: :mad:

Re: Washington D.C.
 

At least the piano player had some talent!!!!