CenterBHSFan;669057 wrote:Well, if you're serious about this, I commend you for it.
It's hard to try and think out logical solutions without emotion.
I was speaking as much to the "partisanship" in your statement as I was the bickering.Writerbuckeye;668863 wrote:Not really.
Look at when the biggest, most intrusive pieces of legislation were passed. Two examples: FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Both of these expanded the intrusive role of government by leaps and bounds, and it only happened because one party was in control of the government (liberal Democrats).
Had there been a split in these, there is a good chance neither would have passed because there wouldn't have been agreement on them from everyone.
The most damaging pieces of legislation in our country's history have happened when one party basically had all the power.
CenterBHSFan;669092 wrote:Well, the first thing you'll have to learn is that you can't go around and call people you don't like/agree with the "C" word and expect to be taken seriously lol
Ty Webb;669067 wrote:Thanks....
I know I'm going to get made fun of for this....but in writing this and thinking,I've decided to enter the political circle and run for school board
Will you have the same love for the kids as your hero MJ?Ty Webb;669067 wrote:Thanks....
I know I'm going to get made fun of for this....but in writing this and thinking,I've decided to enter the political circle and run for school board
Writerbuckeye;668812 wrote:I'm divided on term limits. Used to be I was like Center and thought it should be mandatory everywhere that people only be allowed to serve a few terms and then move on.
Then I realized that's not letting people decide for themselves if they want to keep someone in office or not. Picking an arbitrary number of years that people can serve doesn't really accomplish what I believe in, which is the freedom of choice by an electorate to decide who they want to serve.
If people are truly good at the job and their constituents want them, who am I to say they shouldn't be allowed to vote them in as many times as they want? Or vote them out after one term, for that matter.
As for what was posted: I still find it hilarious that when Democrats had all the power we never saw a hint of "bipartisanship" or heard more than lip service (if that) about it. But when the power is split or Republicans have control, then it all of a sudden becomes this all important goal.
Frankly, honest disagreement and fierce debate are a big part of our country's history and its political process. I think it goes with the separation of powers to keep those who are supposed to represent us as honest and forthright as possible AND most likely was done to keep the hand of government from reaching too far into our lives.
Of course, the latter has happened gradually through the years, anyway, so if public bickering and partisanship can keep the government from growing any more, or intruding further into our lives, then I say BICKER ON!
Writerbuckeye;668863 wrote:Not really.
Look at when the biggest, most intrusive pieces of legislation were passed. Two examples: FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. Both of these expanded the intrusive role of government by leaps and bounds, and it only happened because one party was in control of the government (liberal Democrats).
Had there been a split in these, there is a good chance neither would have passed because there wouldn't have been agreement on them from everyone.
The most damaging pieces of legislation in our country's history have happened when one party basically had all the power.
stlouiedipalma;669491 wrote:I like your sense of civic duty/involvement, but think about city council rather than school board. School boards all across the country are nothing more than rubber stamps for administrators. Superintendents of school districts guide the board through his/her agenda and dissenters aren't welcome. You might get elected, but when you mess with their agenda you will have a hard time getting re-elected.
Don't you just hate it when politicians want to do what is right for American?Ty Webb;676921 wrote:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/02/13/quote_of_the_day.html
The legislative agenda of Barack Obama is over."
-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the Lexington Herald Leader, declaring that Republicans will only work with President Obama to do what "we think is right for America
That is what is wrong with American Politics. Would feel the same way if this had been Dick Durbin or Harry Reid
Ty Webb;676930 wrote:He wants to do what HE thinks is right for America...instead of working together to come up with the best bills for America
Ty Webb;676945 wrote:That is your opinion....but you are entitled to it
Ty Webb;677002 wrote:Al....
If you need me to answer that question,you haven't been paying attention
Al Bundy;677007 wrote:It was meant as a rhetorical question, but if you think you can answer it, go for it.
ptown_trojans_1;677027 wrote:Foreign policy wise, he has not been bad at all.
Al Bundy;676974 wrote:What has he done beside being great at delivering speeches?
Ty Webb;676930 wrote:He wants to do what HE thinks is right for America...instead of working together to come up with the best bills for America
O-Trap;677639 wrote:I could just use fewer bills.
That is all.
Con_Alma;677666 wrote:Amen to that. Why do all problems in the U.S have to be solved with legislation?