Printable View
You wouldn't get anyone better...once you become a politician, all bets are off. And when you reach the federal level the scruples are gone. The cynic that I am says that when you rise to the federal level of politics you are corrupt at least at some level....OK Richard and Sara have at me! lol ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LilacDragon
Mugsy, I have to agree. I think that all people in positions of power, right on down to the lowly cop on the beat, may develop elevated opinions of their importance. There are just too many cases of people who are given power thinking they are above the law and getting into all kinds of trouble. In the case of politicians, I think they may be innocent going in but I do believe that all of the cr@p that comes with the job, not to mention pressure put on them by the seasoned *old boys* doesn't help. Term limits would certainly at least allow the ability to clean house more often. Oh and, yes, I think we will be hearing more from Sara and Richard! LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by mugsy
Well our illustrious Congressman from NE IN initially ran on the premise of setting term limits...now 12 years later, he's still running...he's an idiot! lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Pam
Actually, the thought goes a little deeper then that.
The whole system needs to be revamped.
Congressmen and Senators should be allowed to spend a certain amount of money on their campaigns. Commercials that mention their opponents or talks about what their apponents did or did not do would be illegal and immediately yanked of television and radio. There would be no fancy perks - take away the gym and all the rest of the crap that they have access to for free. Pay would be based on the median average of the constituents that they represent. Pensions would be based on pay and payraises would be on par with the rest of the country. They would be allowed to serve no more then 3 terms and if they weren't doing their job (representing their constituents and working to make their lives better) then they could be fired. Any activity that could be considered criminal would be reported to the police both in their district and in D.C. and anyone involved in covering up said activity would be vulnerable to facing the same charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilacDragon
LD, if you were running you'd have my vote. ;)
There is a way to fire a politician who isn't doing his job representing his constituents, it's called voting. In an extreme case where you want to do it mid-term it's called a recall election.
Allowing them to spend only a certain amount on campaigns would never pass muster with the First amendment, as political speech is what the amendment is squarely aimed at. Not allowing a politician to talk about their opponent would also never pass constitutional muster. It wouldn't be a good idea to begin with......say the opponent has a criminal record a mile long, but the local paper likes him and won't print it. Wouldn't concealing that information from voters be a BAD idea?
Reporting a criminal offense to the police in the congressman's home district and prosecuting it in DC would be illegal. You can't prosecute someone twice on the same charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
LOILOLOLOLOLOLOL...
Are you nuts?
Take a look at the movie "deliver us from evil"
When the L.A. priests were molesting kids people went to the church itself to take care of the problem.
Oh, they took care of it alright.
They covered up by sending priests to other churches out of the area.
The proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.
When the little offended pages saw that there was no action coming from the Reps, they should have gone to the press, or police.
--------------------
In my experience I have been harassed.
Having someione rubbing there backside against me.
walking into a room and seeing a male exposing themselves.
And waking up from a dead sleep with someone on top of me, forcing their crotch into my face.
No one told me owning a cat would be easy. ;)
ohhh RICHARD!!!!! :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
:D :D :D :D Oh Richard you got me. I felt bad for you until I scrolled down. ;) :cool:
That is what they did!Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
In my world....if an employee is reported to a manager for discussing SPECIFIC detail on methods of self-gratification and asking someone to measure (again!) their sex organ....regardless of sex or age of the individuals....the manager has an obligation to take immediate and appropriate action. Else the manager can have personal liability. Knew or should have known is the standard to which an employer is held in this country.
Any halfway intelligent employer would fire the trash talker and the manager who didn't take immediate action.
The issue is not what the Catholic church did or didn't do....it is whether the lawmaking body of this country should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
When did they go to the press or police?
I am confused......why are six year old IMs being produced?
I think that immediate and appropriate are the key words there.
My point was that the RCC covered for the priests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RICHARD
Suggesting it is okay that the leadership of the house to do the same?? :confused: :confused:
I think I tend to agree with Sparks19. YIKES, I know I will take the heat for this.
I do agree that there are laws that say adults and children shouldn't mess around. I do recognize that sexual harrassment takes place, having been on the recieving end of it at the age of 23. It was horrible. I was not a willing participant, I did not 'flirt' with this 45 year old 'man'. I don't see this situation as being similiar. These 'children' are 16, and apparently, were giving back what they got (maybe not as well). The teens probably thought they were 'flirting' (is that word still used???), but, I don't think they are some young victims.
Who saves IMS? People that realize they might come in handy? I cannot believe we go into election season, with a focus on the page 'scandal'. Only in America.
We will hear less and less about the real issues now. The page 'scandal' can be a 'scandal', and the people that were involved ran outta town, but, please let it stop at that.
Now, why in the world would you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
No, we should clean 'house'.
My point is that everyone got cold feet when it came down to ratting out Foley.
What ever happened to an anonymous phone call, email or note to turn him in?And why was it six years after the poor little wussy decided to come forward.
-----------------------------
If you get the Sundance Channel watch "The Hill"..
It's a reality show about the Dem senator from FL......
Robert something....I watched the first episode and a half.
God help the Left if that is who is battling for the little people.
One of the gals in his office is kinda cute.....until she starts talking politics. :rolleyes:
------------------------------
And thank you Pam....For not feeling sorry for me. :rolleyes: ;)
Absolutely right! Leaks to the press are easy. It happens every day in D.C. Why so long for Foley? eh?Quote:
My point is that everyone cold cold feet when it came down to ratting out Foley.
EH?