Feeling real gloomy about our future

[Garufa]

A single party having near total control of the government is the worst thing that we can have.

Bingo.

[leroy]

Okay, I'll mention him. I think Bush did a poor job. I think the new guy makes Bush look amazingly good. I think the congress under Bush was horrible, and it's basically the same congress we have now. A single party having near total control of the government is the worst thing that we can have.

Vote for Ron Paul and people like him in 2010 and 2012 if you want liberty returned and government downsized. We have got to get some more people who are willing to stand up for the Constitution in Congress and in the White House before it's too late.

Cliff

This is a great summary analysis!! Great job!! Here are some things to think about:

I think Bush did a poor job.

Several things made Bush look bad:

1. He never answered his critics in congress or the press.
   
2. He did not finish Iraq in a timely manner. He was hijacked by the same bunch that didn't finish Gulf War I. He muzzled the military. He said that Iraq would not turn into Viet Nam. He allowed his political enemies in the press and in the Demorat party do just that by their treasonous actions. This alienated the American People (and it should havve). This is his greatest shame. The Iraq war should have been over in a matter of months, not years.
   
3. He acted as a "big government" Republican with not curbing government spending and government power.
   
4. He did not go after the career bureaucrats in the State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA who openly defied him and ultimately destroyed his credibility with the electorate.
   

In summary, George Bush almost single handedly assured that the republicans would be defeated by being way too reasonable. He made some unbelievable political blunders.

The second thing was a weak Republican presidential candidate. I like John McCain on a personal basis; but he simply is not a small government republican; he is a RINO 66's hippie with a backbone.

I think the congress under Bush was horrible, and it's basically the same congress we have now.

Never in the history of american politics, except for the Civil War has a congress and a political party acted so treasonably. It is stunning to me that this bunch of trash could be elected. George Bush made a great mistake in not calling them out by name and calling them what they are -- nothing but a bunch of partizan socialist hacks who would do anything to regain power; including hurting the military in wartime and treason. The Republicans made a big mistake by not doing the same thing.

I think the new guy makes Bush look amazingly good. [/QUOTE]

Oboma, his socialist cabinet, and the congress has done more economic damage to this country in less time than any sitting president and congress has ever done in peacetime. The takeover of General Motors is unheardof in american history. GM has been destroyed. Polititians do not run anything efficiently; socialists certainly do not; if they did; the Soviet Union would be the greatest power on earth and Cuba would be a paradise.

Vote for Ron Paul and people like him in 2010 and 2012 if you want liberty returned and government downsized. We have got to get some more people who are willing to stand up for the Constitution in Congress and in the White House before it's too late.

I like Ron Paul. I think he would be a great president. He has character, he knows what he believes, and is a great American. I would love to see Ron Paul take over the Republican Party. The problem is with third parties. They have won once or twice in all of american history.

]...get some more people who are willing to stand up for the Constitution in Congress and in the White House before it's too late.[/[/i]QUOTE]

This is the greatest truth spoken in all these posts. If the Democrats are not curbed quickly; they will destroy this country. Those who are concerned about what is going on should be. We all need to get to work to beat these socialist idiots at the ballot box.

Keep up the good work!

Kind Regards,

LEROY

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Here is my personal forecast:

California and Illinois are foreshadowing the federal government. We will keep spending and taxing until we are really bankrupt. The gov't won't be able to afford to pay its people, or will print so much money their paychecks will in essence be worthless. Then who is going to enforce they laws without receiving a paycheck? Our problems will mount. And the career politicians will have no ground on which to stand nor will being in politics be profitable. From this point, the people will be fed up and elect politicians who can actually fix the problems. These will be upstanding men and women since being in office will require someone who is not in it for the money or power, since neither are to be gained by office. We will have (hopefully) non-violent revolution. Sometimes you have to get to rock bottom to rebuild, and I think unfortunately we've gotten ourselves in that situation. I'm just waiting for the bottom to drop out.

[Oh Shoot]

....

I'm praying a lot. This is God-sized problem. ...

I recommend the LDS approach, a year's worth of food/water/medicine/etc.

If I were younger and had a family, I'd certainly do that. As it is, I'm settling for 3-4 months worth and a bug out location.

And yes, I hope this is tin foil hattery.

Trust in God, but row away from the rocks.

- OS

[USMCJG]

If the Democrats are not curbed quickly; they will destroy this country. Those who are concerned about what is going on should be. We all need to get to work to beat these socialist idiots at the ballot box.

Keep up the good work!

Kind Regards,

LEROY

The problem is that party politics are worse than they have ever been. I think a lot of moderate democrats would disagree(if they bothered to stop and think about it) with much of what is going on with the federal government right now. The problem is that no one votes their conscience any more. They vote their party. And the extreme "liberals"(big government and reduced personal and economic freedoms are not true liberal ideals, in today's world the word liberal is being used to describe fascists/communists/socialists) are in complete control of the democratic party.

The parties are so powerful that if you don't tow the line, you won't get the party nomination next time. It doesn't matter if you're acting in the best interests of your constituency or not. If you want to be a career politician, you have to play by the party rules. As long as we keep it where you can get rich being a politician, we will always have the wrong kinds of people after the job.

Cliff

[Oh Shoot]

.... As long as we keep it where you can get rich being a politician, we will always have the wrong kinds of people after the job. ...

That's one thing the Constitution framers blew, no term limits set.

Apparently never occurred to them that anyone would ever be a career politician, even want to be one.

Of course, presidential term limits set by amendment after FDR, but never any for Reps/Senators. Why? Because the career politician Reps/Senators make the rules.

But, all in all, the two party system has become tyranny. It will be ever thus, a corrupt mess, as long as it remains in effect.

- OS

[USMCJG]

That's one thing the Constitution framers blew, no term limits set.

Apparently never occurred to them that anyone would ever be a career politician, even want to be one.

Of course, presidential term limits set by amendment after FDR, but never any for Reps/Senators. Why? Because the career politician Reps/Senators make the rules.

But, all in all, the two party system has become tyranny. It will be ever thus, a corrupt mess, as long as it remains in effect.

- OS

I agree. I think the framers just assumed that if we elected representatives who betrayed the public trust that we would hastily remove them from office. They were wrong on that one count. Ron Paul actually pushed for term limits for congress several times in the past, starting in the 1970's. Surprisingly, those term limit bills never even made it out of committee. He has also tried to slow pay increases for members of congress several times, again surprisingly no luck.

Cliff

[Guest redbarron06]

We need a constitutional convention to set the federal govt back on track. Then WE impose the term limits on them. We dont need congress to pass laws we can do it on our own.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

Your not alone man.

Face it, we're going to hell with the way things are going right now....thanks to O

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

We need a constitutional convention to set the federal govt back on track. Then WE impose the term limits on them. We dont need congress to pass laws we can do it on our own.

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.

Article V US Constitution

I wonder why no states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention for term limits. Perhaps we should encourage our legislature to start a trend.

[Oh Shoot]

I wonder why no states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention for term limits. Perhaps we should encourage our legislature to start a trend.

Why would a state legislature do that?

They don't want term limits on national level, it would filter down to them; you think they want term limits for themselves?

Main diff tween the boys in Nashville and the boys in D.C. is the scale of the corruption, not the process of it.

- OS

[Tim Nunan]

Ahh it swings left for 20 or 30 years and swings right for 20 or 30 years. It will swing back around as far to the right as it goes to the left. Just might take awhile.

The problem lately is the only difference between the left and right is method not ideology. But still the masses will swing to the right again. Your sheeple as it were. They will again move right and the politics will follow because thats where the money is.

The problem is that the swing to right doesn't last as long as the swing to the left and it doesn't swing as far to the right as it does to the left thus moving the "center" farther left.

[Tim Nunan]

We need a constitutional convention to set the federal govt back on track. Then WE impose the term limits on them. We dont need congress to pass laws we can do it on our own.

As I understand the system once a constitutional convention is convened all of the Constitution is subject to being changed, e.g., removing/changing the 2nd Amendment.

[Mr. Brooks]

As I understand the system once a constitutional convention is convened all of the Constitution is subject to being changed, e.g., removing/changing the 2nd Amendment.

Now that's a scary thought!

[Glenn]

We DON'T want a constitutional convention. Don't even want to go there. We just need to enforce the constitution as it is now.

Glenn

[Guest SUNTZU]

As I understand the system once a constitutional convention is convened all of the Constitution is subject to being changed, e.g., removing/changing the 2nd Amendment.

That is my understanding as well.

[Guest Muttling]

Changing the constitution is a bit more difficult then you guys make it out to be....

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.

The 2nd Ammendment isn't going anywhere.

The above quote came from here...

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[Guest SUNTZU]

Yes, that has to happen, Muttling. The Constitution is still subject to being changed during a Constitutional Convention. It has to be approved, as in the janitor can't make changes during the night, but it is still able to be changed during the convention upon approval.

I wonder how much more people would freak out during a Constitutional Convention from reported attempts to change existing amendments.

[Guest redbarron06]

if a Constitutional Convention is held yes any part of the constitution can be changed. Not only could certain ammendments be removed but they could be updated or just cleatified. For example they could actually spell out that the 2A means that ever person has the right to be armed when he/she feels appropriate. They could add term limits on congress or even remove the ones on president. The one thing that is good about a convention is that it is out of congress and POTUS hands. This would truley scare the hell out of them because thier fate would not be in our hands. A simple movement to convien would awaken many of them.

[Falcon1]

I think the credible threat of a constitutional convention would open a lot of eyes in Congress and the White House. Let twenty-five states pass a call for one, and you might see a lot more national leaders start reading the Constitution we have now and actually understanding and following it....

OMO, YMMV.

[Guest redbarron06]

I think the credible threat of a constitutional convention would open a lot of eyes in Congress and the White House. Let twenty-five states pass a call for one, and you might see a lot more national leaders start reading the Constitution we have now and actually understanding and following it....

OMO, YMMV.

When they start to realize that we have had enough and we are ready to go above their heads they will start thinking about it.

[leroy]

The problem is that party politics are worse than they have ever been. I think a lot of moderate democrats would disagree(if they bothered to stop and think about it) with much of what is going on with the federal government right now. The problem is that no one votes their conscience any more. They vote their party. And the extreme "liberals"(big government and reduced personal and economic freedoms are not true liberal ideals, in today's world the word liberal is being used to describe fascists/communists/socialists) are in complete control of the democratic party.

The parties are so powerful that if you don't tow the line, you won't get the party nomination next time. It doesn't matter if you're acting in the best interests of your constituency or not. If you want to be a career politician, you have to play by the party rules. As long as we keep it where you can get rich being a politician, we will always have the wrong kinds of people after the job.

Cliff

Great post!! Move Cliff to the head of the class; he has nailed it.

Keep up the good work!! The character of your elected officials MATTERS!!

Keep up the great work!!

Kind regards,

LEROY

[Guest HexHead]

And VOTE. People in other countries (like Iran) have little chance of making change thru the political process, but we do and if we lay down and say, oh, it's all gone to , then politicians will just run us into the ground.

How long do you think that's going to last? Look at the MN Senate race. Only contested ballots that would help Franken were counted. Some counties had more votes than registered voters, but the court had no problem with that.

ACORN has already been sued by several states for voter registration irregularities in the last election. Does anyone really think that's going to get better now that their former "community organizer" is in the WH? How about then they are conducting the census next year, which will decide how voting districts are allocated and how many Representatives the States get in Congress. If you don't see this as a problem, your head must be in the sand. Funny how Mr. Election Watcher Jimmy Carter didn't have a word to say about the Iranian election. He won't complain about ACORN either.

[Guest HexHead]

The last time this nation was at a similar crossroad--It was in 1860...

And the outcome will be the same as well. Only this time it won't be geographical as much as ideological, although there will be some of those troublesome coastline states.

It's inevitable unless we're willing to live in a secular-progressive paradise.

</sarcasm>

[RRMan03]

It is not how many votes you get it is who counts the votes.

Qoute from Marcos during his reign in the Phillipines.

Seems that is beginning to appy to our new Banana Republic called the USA. and yes I am a veteran so it really gets on my nerves. Have people lost all sense of direction in this country?