The Democratic Elite-$1.2 billion

inthecircle · August 28th, 2008, 04:50 AM

Talk about HYPOCRISY

Yahoo!

**wil** · August 28th, 2008, 04:56 AM

It's all Bush's fault.

**ckn** · August 28th, 2008, 05:51 AM

Politicians favourite inner-saying: "Do as I say, not as I do".

There are no political parties for the common people regardless of what they tell you.

**SAINT_X** · August 28th, 2008, 08:31 AM

... unfortunate reality. Exactly why we need to get the money out of politics.

**wil** · August 28th, 2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

Exactly why we need to get the money out of politics.

Good luck with that.

**SAINT_X** · August 28th, 2008, 08:51 AM

... seems pretty unlikely...

**wil** · August 28th, 2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAINT_X

... seems pretty unlikely...

Understatement of the century.

EDIT>>>
I wasn't blasting you Saint... I'm just becoming more disheartened by the upcoming election every day. McCain has this one ad that is driving me crazy.

I don't want either of these bozos to be president.

inthecircle · August 28th, 2008, 09:29 AM

I think what drives me nuts more then anything else when it comes to political fund raising is this. The Democrats have raised $1.2 BILLION. Don't they think that money could go to much better causes then TV, newspaper, and magazine ads???

That kind of money could help a lot of families, school districts, etc. The Republicans are just at fault as well. Do any of these ads really change peoples minds or "help" decide who to vote for???

**A1food4U** · August 28th, 2008, 09:33 AM

The part i love on BOTH sides is this......

Just What The Hell Does Either Of These Idiots Propose To Actually Do? ! ? ! ?

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS SPENT TO TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW!!!!!!!

NO IM NOT, YES YOU ARE is not what I'd call cause for hope, change or end to conflict....

Have you listened to the pompous posturing at the comvention. Take any speech, erase Obama, insert any other politicians name and it still rings out the same. The smoke screen of politics. Don't say anything controversial, don't say anything substantive and God forbid actually DEFINE a platform. And no doubt the republicans will do the same. And just like good farm animals we go along quietly. Does anyone else here feel like a steer being led to slaughter????

**wil** · August 28th, 2008, 09:55 AM

I don't even watch any of the convention coverage. It's all too rah-rah for my taste. I'm not feeling rah-rah about either of these dolts.

I really need to ween myself off of following politics. All it does is annoy me.

**tidalwave** · August 28th, 2008, 09:57 AM

It will never happen, but I'd like to see a ban on political television ads. Granted, the big money will just be diverted toward other mediums to disseminate the message, but this would be a step in the right direction.

A lot of people don't understand why the primaries are supposed to be held in smaller states, like New Hampshire and Iowa.. It levels the playing field in the beginning of the race because it takes a lot less money to campaign in a small state than in a large state like CA or FL.

Another way to help control the money aspect of campaigns/parties is to increase the number of representatives. There are currently a fixed number (435) of US Representatives. Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution states that "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative;"... math isn't my strongest suit, but in a nation of ~300 million people, there's certainly more than 1 House Rep for every 30,000 people. Perhaps having more representatives would mean that party ad dollars wouldn't go as far in pushing individual candidates. If all politics are local, then maybe big, centralized money will have less of an influence.

**A1food4U** · August 28th, 2008, 10:00 AM

Good thing Wil, your head would split like an over ripe melon

**A1food4U** · August 28th, 2008, 10:14 AM

Good Theory Tidalwave, but that would also mean you have more leeches on the federal payrole.

**tidalwave** · August 28th, 2008, 10:40 AM

Haha, that's true... how about another theory: politics should not be a career or profession. We should be represented by a cross section of working and professional America. E.g. term limits: someone should not be in public service for more than X years making $169,300 per year (current House salary for regular Reps) for life as long as you sell yourself out for re-election money.

**A1food4U** · August 28th, 2008, 10:47 AM

First step, stop allowing Political Science to be a major in colleges across the country. Does what is supposed to be "doing the right thing" need to be taught? or are they teaching Double speak 101 and evasive linguistics 310..

**wil** · August 28th, 2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tidalwave

how about another theory: politics should not be a career or profession. We should be represented by a cross section of working and professional America. E.g. term limits: someone should not be in public service for more than X years making $169,300 per year (current House salary for regular Reps) for life as long as you sell yourself out for re-election money.

I would love love LOVE term limits. But congress will NEVER enact them.

inthecircle · August 28th, 2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

I would love love LOVE term limits. But congress will NEVER enact them.

Kind of like asking someone to shot themselves.....

**painless2** · August 28th, 2008, 12:35 PM

I hate politicians! Both major parties, and yes, term limits are a must!

**SAINT_X** · August 28th, 2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

I don't even watch any of the convention coverage. It's all too rah-rah for my taste. I'm not feeling rah-rah about either of these dolts.

I really need to ween myself off of following politics. All it does is annoy me.

Very similar sentiments.

I really do like Obama though - not fanatically however, but I do think he is a very good candidate. I was thinking about this today....If Obama were white, and named "Jack Kelly", but otherwise exactly the same charismatic guy - I think we can all agree that this election would be over already. By no means do I mean to say all opposition to him is based in racial prejudice - not at all - but it is large enough to make a big difference nationally.
I think you guys would oppose him if he was kin to you,

, but I know I am right about this, and it disturbs me that he is judged by so many - again not ya'll, I don't think - not on substance but on superficialities.

Am totally with you on disliking the rah rah aspect, ... notwithstanding the power of words in a great orator , I do HATE that phony balony hooey.

**tidalwave** · August 28th, 2008, 12:48 PM

Not to stay off-topic too long, but I have another thought.. This might be a bit extreme, but another under the 'might be good but will never happen' category is not to allow members of the bar to hold public office. It seems to be in the spirit of constitutional separation of powers.. as far as I know, a sitting judge would be barred from becoming a senator due to this concept. A current, practicing member of the regulatory body of the legal profession should not be concurrently holding an office in the executive or legislative branches.

I'm not sure how many members of the House are members of the Bar Assoc., but a sizable number have their profession listed as "attorney" or "lawyer" on Congress Merge

Search for profession = "attorney"
* 45 Senators and 149 Representatives
* 119 Democrats and 78 Republicans

Search for profession = "lawyer"
* 1 Senator and 5 Representatives
* 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans

Search for profession = "pimp"
Your database search matched 0 members of Congress.

I'm not bashing the legal profession. I'm just wondering if there's too much cross-pollination between individuals within the three branches.