I wish we would wave the entire fucking congress. They should only be allowed to serve 4 years, ever.
As much as people love to complain about the United States (me included); I think for the most part we are taking the right positions on world events and in general things are pretty fucking great here. No, I don't like NSA and all the bullshit involved with it. As far as ISIS, stay away, drone from above; let them all kill each other. Fuck the saul or whatever, of Saudi Arabia and fuck the Middle East in General; just stop all trade with these nations; stop sending aid; but more importantly stop sending weapons; save Israel. Fuck Russia, Support Europe, but never take the lead in the mess over there; just sanction the shit out of Russia and isolate them from the rest of the world; their economy is crippling. I hear UK is working on a nice sanction that should attack Russia's economy even further. Business as usual here in the USA, DOW J up over 17k, if you have some extra money, find some company you like an invest. Talk all the shit about Obama you want, hell I'm registered Republican (not that that means anything to me); but in general I see USA kicking regular ass and leading nation in the world; Obama is doing a fine job by me, stay away from these money sucking hell holes; isolate these mother fuckers and let them crawl back to us. ISIS and even Russia pose zero imminent threat to the United States. If you believe that these pussies do pose a threat you probably don't get outside much. Add in, if anyone leaves this country to go live in Syria or Iraq; they should not be allowed back into this country without heavy screening (this is where I would be okay with NSA following a person that comes back around from Iraq or Syria to the grave; watch every millisecond of there life until they hit the grave). 'merica!
I go the other way on this one. I think congressmen and senators should be able to serve as long as their constituents want to be served by them. It's a basic right to have the person you want representing you in congress. Being forced to elect somebody else who in all probability will not represent you as well is a bad idea. I think one term in congress in any capacity should make you ineligible to lobby for or represent any person or group with business before the congress or the executive branch. Three exceptions to the rule: 1. Past service in congress should not prevent anybody from serving in the executive or judicial branches of the government or from returning to the congress in the future. 2. Past service in congress should not prevent anybody from representing themselves as an owner or CEO of a business or group that they founded or purchased. No workarounds here: it's your group or it isn't. You have to be numero uno in the organization or business. 3. Past service in congress should not prevent anybody from being able to sue or otherwise seek legal relief on the part of themselves or others they represent. The right to have the legal representation of your choice is ingrained in the constitution. In order to avoid the anti-lobbying provisions that a congressman or senator agreed to in the newly revised oath of office the person or group hiring the barred individual would have to have a legal process in place and that process would have to be ongoing for the term of the representation by the barred individual. If voters wanted their ex-congressperson to lobby the congress or executive branch again there would be a simple solution: re-elect them. Private employment should be strictly forbidden however. The revolving door that has turned congress into an entry level position for lobbyists is the main cause of the corruption in our political system. It is the thing that has caused most legislation to be written outside the halls of congress by people not elected to do the job.
See, I'm in favor of term limits. I figure they're all corrupt and on the take. The longer they're in position, the greater their ability to build up contacts and get the gravy train really rolling. Cut it to 1-2 terms, and maybe you can get the graft down to a manageable level. I'm sure they'd find a way around it, but it's better than what we have now.
All term limits would do is to speed up the payola and the movement into lobbying after the fact. People would have less time to make their money and secure those jobs and they'd be even more outrageous than they are now. In addition the corruption would move further down the chain to the long-term bureaucrats who are not elected. The long-term pols are the best check against the guys nobody knows exist because they were hired or appointed two decades ago and rarely come out from under their rock except to snatch the envelope being deposited near it. This is not to suggest that corruption is widespread or endemic but making the pols the noobs and quickly retired is not the solution to the problem that does exist.
None of this is as absurd as I expected before I started reading. Short sighted, is all. Like trying to plug holes in a colander. Which isn't to say we should sniffle at influence peddling. But, take every bit of money out of politics and the "problem," however you'd like to characterize it, in whatever degree you'd describe it as a problem, will still be there. All we can do is tinker with the effects - Exhibit A being your three points, which sound semi-reasonable, except they just don't accomplish very much at all. They'll make us FEEL better that we think we're keeping money and influence-peddling out of government. I suppose that's nice. Frankly, a Congressman leaving office for a lobbying job doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as a private sector employee who maxes out his political donations, lands a politically-appointed job in some regulatory agency, and then leaves "public service" (!!) and returns to the real world, working under the rules and regulations they wrote/administered/enforced, or didn't. A politician without a seat in government is a pathetic sight. Like a middle-age whore who just won't leave that street corner. All the toothless blowjobs in the world won't ever make that your first choice. But a young government hack who gets to write and enforce (or not) the rules for profit - that's dangerous. That's the goddamn 22 year-old Craigslist hooker - you wake up and don't know where you are or what happened, but your ass hurts and your wallet's empty. No surprise - the Framers talked about all of this. The problem of special interest, not hookers. Madison's discussion of "factions," and the general theme played out by all the Federalists on the nature of man. And while the problem you're trying to address is the selling of influence, I would suggest that the REAL problem is that people feel disconnected from their government and the only way they see to reconnect is to buy their way in. Political donations. Lobbying. Some college idiot giving up Funyuns and Redbull for a week to donate to Barack Obama. We point to "Washington" as this faraway place where important people we don't know and can't reach affect every minute of our lives. True, by the way. And progressives love that part. They loves them some centralized national government. Unfortunately, as with just about every progressive idea ever adopted, we get the opposite of the intended effect. Soooooo...... Madison thought the problem of factions was best managed by having a robust republic to mute the effect - many different and competing interests as the check on one dominating interest. Tyranny of the majority, and so forth. But each individual progressive is smarter than us all, and all of them together are a friggin' genius factory. They know better, of course. A strong central government can tamp down the problem of individual self interest. Except, the nature of man can't be tamped down, which is why Madison suggested liberating it. When we tinker at the edges as you suggest, the problem will still be there, it'll just shapeshift. New problem; different place. So I don't hire a Congressman lobbyist, I'll hire his campaign manager instead. A new law preventing that? I'll hire the guy's son to watch the temperature of my pool for a summer job. As I said - plugging holes in a colander. And when people feel even more left out and disconnected when the progressive policy of more regulation, stronger government and more of those faceless power-people enforcing the "common good" from that mythical land of Washington, they'll do almost anything to reconnect. Including allying themselves with other people looking to connect and with better means to do it. No angels, themselves. Enter George Soros and the Brothers Koch. Fat union thugs. A congressman or a political hack who sees a stack of money. But, yes, let's make sure congressmen can't lobby. That's a great first step.
Oh and for the clowns who want to blame Bush for this ISIS shit. Please watch these videos. first video: http://video.foxnews.com/v/37683333...illing-warning-on-iraq-in-2007/#sp=show-clips second video:
The problem I have with your general point of view is that I don't believe that all politicians are "middle-aged whores". I think some of the guys who get elected actually give a shit about being good leaders and lawmakers but they're swimming upstream against a heavy flow of sewage coming down at them. I don't think there are as many of those guys as there used to be because of the next point. The problem of money in politics is a big issue but the problem that politics generates lucrative money streams is worse. It's a circular process in which people are given large sums of money to get elected and then the expectation is that they will generate large money streams for the people who donated to them. I really don't care if people with a lot of money are allowed to use that money to get other people elected. I care a lot if they see that as a lucrative investment that will return their donations hundreds of times over by the time "their guy" has been booted from office. I think it is very hard for somebody who wants to be an honest effective politician to get elected at this point because there's so much money lined up against them trying to get their snouts in the trough. Some people will donate heavily to see a good honest politician elected because they think that's something worth spending on. More people will donate heavily to get a windfall return on their "investment". That's the problem. It's really hard for the Arlen Specter's and Joe Biden's to get elected for the first time these days.
Saddam Hussein would never have let something like ISIS get out of hand in Iraq. The Alawites in Syria and the Ba'athists in Iraq are close to mortal enemies but they would have gotten together and crushed anything like this before it got off the ground.
And Bush would have never removed all our troops as early as Obama did. You can say Bush fucked up Iraq, and he did, but that doesn't mean Obama didn't fuck it up more.
Bc we should have stayed in Iraq. I don't think so. Why dump anything else into the shit hole other than live fucking ammunition? Fuck Iraq ISIS is a bootleg following that poses zero threat to continental United States. They can't even sniff Baghdad. Keep testing new arial technology on these extreme dickheads. If anyone has the balls to attack us, they will be dealt with in quick, deathly fashion. Isis is a joke; spread love not war; they can't beat our way of life; only an asshole would support theirs.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I think the principle of "you broke it, you bought it" applies to Iraq. Once we fucked the place up so bad that it was essentially an ungovernable failed state, we had an obligation not to just abandon the place.
I understand that. Enough of pointing fingers on who's fault it is though. It also seems like we can't do any "right" over there anymore. Whether we help out our or not the people over they are always going to be pissed off at us, right or wrong. We gave Iraq all the equipment and as much training as possible and they gave the shit up instanly like the French. I'm at the point of cut our losses; protect our embassy (although I think it might not be a bad idea to just close the shit down) and test the fuck out of our aerial* technology. Sorry your government sucks and all your leaders are crazy. Here's an idea, try building something instead of destroying everything. Fuck their way of life and stay the fuck out of the way of mine; you offer nothing and I need nothing from you; plain in simple you attack me, I will bury you; you want to trade oil bc you need money, fine here's a nickle make it work.
See my issue, I would like to go back, but then its like starting all over again. We would have to rebuild the entire country, such a mess.
We didn't have a choice. Iraq would not agree to the terms we needed on status of forces. You cannot leave troops in a country when the "host" will not agree to allow you to have jurisdiction over criminal cases that arise. That's all on Maliki. Iran wanted us out and Maliki was Iran's puppet. He was installed by President Bush in 2006. Bush would have pulled us out for the same reasons that Obama did: you have to be able to have control over the status of your forces. Obama wanted to leave 30-50k troops in country for a period of stabilization that would be ongoing at the moment. That's what Bush would have left if he'd had his druthers also.
lol @ no choice. what was iraq going to do about it? they wouldn't even stand up to isis for christs sake. obama ran on ending the war in Iraq. he was pulling those troops no matter what. it had nothing to do with what iraq or iran wanted.
Without a status of forces agreement US forces could not remain in Iraq. More than 5,000 US security contractors did remain in Iraq after the SOFA expired at the end of Oct in 2011 but none other than the embassy guards wore a US uniform. If the US had maintained military forces in Iraq after October 2011 it would have been a de facto occupation with US forces having to use extraordinary measures to protect their combatants and other personnel when a crime was alleged.
Wait for this to happen in the US next, (if it hasn't already) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/woman-beheaded-details-emerge-of-edmonton-suspect-nicholas-salvadore-9714526.html ISIS are upping the anti in terrorism and turning young people into radicals right on our own doorsteps. For me this is where we need to pooling our resources and snuff out these cells which operate covertly and convert disillusioned Muslims into trained killers. Undoubtedly, the whole Iraq war helped to kick this all off, but you have to go back further than that to understand how and why there is all this turmoil in the middle east now. This pretty much explains it way better than I ever could... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire Displaced peoples will always look for a better life and sadly our world has become a small place now with an ever increasing population with needs and demands outstripping what we are actually able to provide. Resources are precious and guarded. I wish I could press a button and see what the world would look like without religion in it.
