There ain't no rules.

[jackoroe]

Rep. Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office, has apparently had an honest moment. He admitted that the House is simply making up it's rules as it goes along.



How do asshats like this get elected to office?

 

[swerve]

Probably the same way MY congressman keeps getting re-elected...



Although it APPEARS that he MAY know the floor rules BETTER than the guy RUNNING the show!!!

 

[jackoroe]

My guess is that we'd get better representation by picking names out of a phone book. Seriously, they all need to go!

 

[Sausy]

This two party monopoly on power has to go....I'd rather have a more parliamentary proportional representation than the pure majoritarian system we have now.Elect the House members for four year terms rather than the two that have them constantly in reelection mode.Three term limits for House and Senate...not safe seats for life that go against the idea of citizen legislator and public service.And far fewer lawyers as well...we need a diverse cross sector of legislators who have valuable life experiences in the real world.Fewer career politicians and more statesmen over partisan hacks and ideologues(of either party).Let's make a whole new set of rules on what we expect from our legislators,most importantly not to enrich their power base for starters.

 

[Kulindahr]

This two party monopoly on power has to go....I'd rather have a more parliamentary proportional representation than the pure majoritarian system we have now.Elect the House members for four year terms rather than the two that have them constantly in reelection mode.Three term limits for House and Senate...not safe seats for life that go against the idea of citizen legislator and public service.And far fewer lawyers as well...we need a diverse cross sector of legislators who have valuable life experiences in the real world.Fewer career politicians and more statesmen over partisan hacks and ideologues(of either party).Let's make a whole new set of rules on what we expect from our legislators,most importantly not to enrich their power base for starters.

No term limits, just my "Common Man" rule: you can't serve in an elected position longer than you've been in the private sector, and being a lawyer doesn't count.

Oh -- it wouldn't hurt to ban consecutive terms, either.



p.s. -- electing fewer lawyers means voting for fewer Democrats. Many of the Democrats in COngress are lawyers who've never been in the real world.

 

[Kulindahr]

As to the vid clip, I wouldn't say they make up the rules as they go along so much as all the lawyers engage in their game of making words mean what they want them to mean regardless of what they actually say.

 

[Sausy]

No term limits, just my "Common Man" rule: you can't serve in an elected position longer than you've been in the private sector, and being a lawyer doesn't count.

Oh -- it wouldn't hurt to ban consecutive terms, either.



p.s. -- electing fewer lawyers means voting for fewer Democrats. Many of the Democrats in COngress are lawyers who've never been in the real world.

Few academicians too....we don't need theorists using us as social experiments.

 

[Kulindahr]

Few academicians too....we don't need theorists using us as social experiments.

That depends on the academician: the city council where I went to university got an engineering professor and a forestry professor elected, and suddenly the place got a lot more efficient and effective!

 

[Sausy]

That depends on the academician: the city council where I went to university got an engineering professor and a forestry professor elected, and suddenly the place got a lot more efficient and effective!

I meant the social scientists and their political/economic/social gobbledygook ,at least most of them.The technical ones grounded in real science,not the feel good theory of the moment ideologues dellivered on high from ivory towers,should be encouraged.You're definitely right about that,Kuli.

 

[Ambrocious]

The whole world is feeling the crunch of lawlessness. There is something else happening globally...whatever that thing is...I'm unsure of right now but I do know one thing...it cannot be a small thing.

I can see the so called "conspiracies" of all of this lawlessness and see for the foreground that it is bad and all but what is the other reasons for this insanity? Why so much lies and deception? What is the great need to spread disinfo and turmoil? WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING???

I'd like to say I know because I dive head first into the realms others refuse to tread into but I am still baffled at all of this chaos. What is happening beyond the obvious?

 

[hotatlboi]

I meant the social scientists and their political/economic/social gobbledygook ,at least most of them.The technical ones grounded in real science,not the feel good theory of the moment ideologues dellivered on high from ivory towers,should be encouraged.You're definitely right about that,Kuli.

So you would seriously make it a rule that lawmakers who have an educational background in certain areas could not serve, but ones that have an educational background in other areas could? That's absurd.

 

[Kulindahr]

So you would seriously make it a rule that lawmakers who have an educational background in certain areas could not serve, but ones that have an educational background in other areas could? That's absurd.

That's where my "Common Man" Amendment would be useful.

 

[iman]

I meant the social scientists and their political/economic/social gobbledygook ,at least most of them.The technical ones grounded in real science,not the feel good theory of the moment ideologues dellivered on high from ivory towers,should be encouraged.You're definitely right about that,Kuli.

^I think you have reached the limit for the number of bad cliches in one paragraph.

 

[grantt]

I disagree with the title of this thread...."There ain't no rules"

The rules are whatever Obama deems fit for any given day. Of course he will use some very flowery words to make them sound genuine, but be sure they ARE the rules.....because HE SAID SO!!!

 

[Sausy]

^I think you have reached the limit for the number of bad cliches in one paragraph.

Oh yes,you don't believe liberals dominate academia.I'm terribly sorry.

 

[Sausy]

Few academicians too....we don't need theorists using us as social experiments.

So you would seriously make it a rule that lawmakers who have an educational background in certain areas could not serve, but ones that have an educational background in other areas could? That's absurd.

I'm being figurative.Alcee Hastings says the rules are made up as they go along,so the public should do following that kind of thinking put forward a whole new set of rules that are set and to be understood as what public servants owe us.But obviously that LITERALLY won't happen.We have more than enough lawyers in Congress writing extensive treatises as serious legislation,and we really don't need a slew of social scientists who teach theory and philosophy running,though there can't be any law to prevent them from doing so.We need a broader cross section of Americans from all fields with a true sense of public service(and not those intent on a lifetime career in a safe seat)who will do their business and except for the best of them do their business and after two or three terms go home as was originally intended.Not a powerful new type of entenched aristrocracy.

 

[construct]

All right, I have a choice for U.S. Representative this November. I can vote for the incumbent Republican former owner of an insurance agency who has been in one office or another since 1981, or I can vote for a Democratic commercial real estate broker with no prior public sector experience.

Are those facts alone enough to decide which to vote for?

 

[MystikWizard]

Rep. Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office, has apparently had an honest moment. He admitted that the House is simply making up it's rules as it goes along.



How do asshats like this get elected to office?

Trolling, Jack?

Play the clip in the entire context instead of the edited clip. And Republicans wonder why they have a credibility issue after attempted distortions like this. Like someone would actually say those words about themselves in public AND while they are on camera. Unbelievable.

The FULL clip.

He was talking about when Republicans were in office.

 

[swerve]

All right, I have a choice for U.S. Representative this November. I can vote for the incumbent Republican former owner of an insurance agency who has been in one office or another since 1981, or I can vote for a Democratic commercial real estate broker with no prior public sector experience.

Are those facts alone enough to decide which to vote for?

Is it too late to run for congress yourself???

 

[jackoroe]

Trolling, Jack?

Play the clip in the entire context instead of the edited clip. And Republicans wonder why they have a credibility issue after attempted distortions like this. Like someone would actually say those words about themselves in public AND while they are on camera. Unbelievable.

The FULL clip.

He was talking about when Republicans were in office.

Actually I posted the clip as I found it. Having listened to his blathering stupidity didn't make anything clearer for the effort. He's all over the map with donut holes and castigating republicans for allowing a drug benefit for seniors. Hastings voted against seniors getting this benefit. So, he must want them to die, using democrat logic.

But if you want to give a former Federal Judge who was impeached and removed from office (one of only six in the history of the republic) for bribery some kind of credibility, you go right ahead. Picking them from the phone book is still a better system than what we've got representing us. That's the point that counts.

But thanks for continuing to support Hastings because he belongs to your party. People with integrity have no difficulty recognizing Hastings and his ilk as scum.