Posted: 6/28/2010 5:34:18 AM EDT
|
Qin Dynasty (221 – 206 BC), 15 years
Xin Dynasty (9 AD- 23), 32 years Sui Dynasty (581–618), 37 years Robert Byrd Dynasty, 1959 - 2010, 51 years 
|
|
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. Then convince your fellow voters. It really is that simple. This is why we vote. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. It wasn't about what was best for the state. It was all about what was best for Robert C Byrd. We have at least one of everything government related named after him, yet he consistently voted against the only real industry the state has (coal). He was out for "glory," not West Virginia. I've said for years I'll be so happy the day he retires/dies (knew it would be the same day) and today is a good day  .
|
|
Term limits would be a disaster for who?
There's NO WAY for anyone other than a resident of the state to get rid of a congressman or senator that's over stayed their welcome... Byrd and Kennedy BOTH overstayed their welcomes and were doing nothing to advance the cause of my interests. Term limits may be a part of the constitution but if the same idiots keep getting reelected it does no good. Term limits are a good thing. We need new ideas in congress and not politically self-serving tools. Term limits would help prevent further erosion and restrictions on our rights... think about it... after 2 terms, Pelosi and Barbara Boxer would ride off in the sunset to hopefully never be heard from again in the political realm... Oh HAPPY DAY!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. they are elected by their constituents in their state. their job is to represent their states interests. i do believe in term limits. only 1 term. the word incumbent needs to be eliminated from the dictionary. also once you start campaigning for another position you should forfeit the one you currently hold. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. they are elected by their constituents in their state. their job is to represent their states interests. i do believe in term limits. only 1 term. the word incumbent needs to be eliminated from the dictionary. also once you start campaigning for another position you should forfeit the one you currently hold. A United States Senator's job is NOT to represent their state's interests. They are there to represent the United States, not their state. Treaties with other countries, judicial confirmations, foreign relations, homeland security, defense matters, federal matters. That doesn't mean working tirelessly to play the system and bring home the most bacon for your state by gaining power through arcane rules of building heirarchical power. That's why we're in the mess we're in. States are set against each other for power, and thereby handouts from papa fed. It's bullschit. I'm not talking about state senators or state legislatures. In fact, very little funding should be going from the fed to the states to begin with. Most government funding should be states taking care of themselves locally. That's through governors and state reps and state senators. A strong fed (and strong senators in DC) are out of touch with what the needs of individual states are and aren't. |
|
Quoted: A state senator was originally picked by a state legislature; you bet your ass they're there to represent their state's interests.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. they are elected by their constituents in their state. their job is to represent their states interests. i do believe in term limits. only 1 term. the word incumbent needs to be eliminated from the dictionary. also once you start campaigning for another position you should forfeit the one you currently hold. A United States Senator's job is NOT to represent their state's interests. They are there to represent the United States, not their state. Treaties with other countries, judicial confirmations, foreign relations, homeland security, defense matters, federal matters. That doesn't mean working tirelessly to play the system and bring home the most bacon for your state by gaining power through arcane rules of building heirarchical power. That's why we're in the mess we're in. States are set against each other for power, and thereby handouts from papa fed. It's bullschit. I'm not talking about state senators or state legislatures. In fact, very little funding should be going from the fed to the states to begin with. Most government funding should be states taking care of themselves locally. That's through governors and state reps and state senators. A strong fed (and strong senators in DC) are out of touch with what the needs of individual states are and aren't. Originally, senators were sent to Congress after being picked by their state legislature; if a legislature thought that a given senator was no longer representing the interest of their home state, the senator could be recalled. Senators were originally a bastion of the federal republic, to represent the interest of their states against the interests of an all-encroaching Federal government. Representatives were sent by the people to Congress. Senators' interests could also come into play with treaties with foreign nations, etc––is this good for my state? Bad for it? etc. Go read The Federalist––all 85 papers––then get back to us. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A state senator was originally picked by a state legislature; you bet your ass they're there to represent their state's interests.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have term limits; they are called elections. BTW, the second longest tour in Congress? Strom Thurmond (R) That's not working well. When any senator stays that long and accumulates that much power by heading committees for years and years on end, they start doing what is best for their state and not what's best for the country. they are elected by their constituents in their state. their job is to represent their states interests. i do believe in term limits. only 1 term. the word incumbent needs to be eliminated from the dictionary. also once you start campaigning for another position you should forfeit the one you currently hold. A United States Senator's job is NOT to represent their state's interests. They are there to represent the United States, not their state. Treaties with other countries, judicial confirmations, foreign relations, homeland security, defense matters, federal matters. That doesn't mean working tirelessly to play the system and bring home the most bacon for your state by gaining power through arcane rules of building heirarchical power. That's why we're in the mess we're in. States are set against each other for power, and thereby handouts from papa fed. It's bullschit. I'm not talking about state senators or state legislatures. In fact, very little funding should be going from the fed to the states to begin with. Most government funding should be states taking care of themselves locally. That's through governors and state reps and state senators. A strong fed (and strong senators in DC) are out of touch with what the needs of individual states are and aren't. Originally, senators were sent to Congress after being picked by their state legislature; if a legislature thought that a given senator was no longer representing the interest of their home state, the senator could be recalled. Senators were originally a bastion of the federal republic, to represent the interest of their states against the interests of an all-encroaching Federal government. Representatives were sent by the people to Congress. Senators' interests could also come into play with treaties with foreign nations, etc––is this good for my state? Bad for it? etc. Go read The Federalist––all 85 papers––then get back to us. Yes, "to represent the interest of their states against the interests of an all-encroaching Federal government. " That doesn't mean Teddy Kennedy uses his position on committees and by virtue of being there for 500 years, to work a "deal" to get a factory to build the XABCDEFG fighter jets in his state, especially if we don't need it to begin with. That's not what the founding fathers envisioned. Playing states off one another for table scraps is a bad thing. Federalist 46, 47 & 64, 65 to back me up. |