TexasCHLforum.com

ShootDontTalk wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The people Hastings represents keep voting for him. Who can say that another clown they would support would be better? He represents them, not you.

But how he votes adds to the Democratic agenda, and that does affect me - and you.

That's how it works. You only have a say about one guy, same as everyone else.

JALLEN wrote:America didn't exist when Revelations was written, and the ideas that make us America had not been thought of or tried.

This isn't really for us to discuss here, but it is, in the original language, "The Revelation (singular) of Jesus Christ". And Someone who was, is, and is to come had quite a hand in giving John the visions he recorded while he was on Patmos. It isn't a simple book of past history. It is a book of history and history yet to come.

Who knows? I was a lawyer, not a preacher. You brought it up. If you can discuss it, why can't I, just because you have a different view of it? Some people believe every word of the Bible is literally true. Others see it differently, as allegory. Some don't believe a word of it. Who is to say?

JALLEN wrote:Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had the same concerns. A lot of people have ideas about how to make things better, and thankfully, for the most part, the country has had the sense not to try them.

Remember Huey Long, Governor/Senator of Louisiana. He pointed out that "one of these days, the people of Louisiana are going to get good government, and they ain't gonna like it."

It still begs the question. What are the options? Many Americans don't like their government now, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to say this current administration is good government. Good discussion with no solution in sight. Back to square one.

If the question to be begged is term limits for Congressmen and Senators, I'm convinced, based on what I lived with in California, that it isn't the panecea that many hope for.

Just heard on the news that McCarthy has stepped out of the running for Speaker

C-dub wrote:Just heard on the news that McCarthy has stepped out of the running for Speaker

Best news I've received so far today. He is not the right guy for that job.

C-dub wrote:Just heard on the news that McCarthy has stepped out of the running for Speaker

Google Renee Ellmers and find a possible reason.

As a sainted former President might say, "Boys will be boys..... but not speaker."

John Boehner will stay on and work with Dems to do as much damage as possible.

JALLEN wrote:America didn't exist when Revelations was written, and the ideas that make us America had not been thought of or tried.

This isn't really for us to discuss here, but it is, in the original language, "The Revelation (singular) of Jesus Christ". And Someone who was, is, and is to come had quite a hand in giving John the visions he recorded while he was on Patmos. It isn't a simple book of past history. It is a book of history and history yet to come.

Who knows? I was a lawyer, not a preacher. You brought it up. If you can discuss it, why can't I, just because you have a different view of it? Some people believe every word of the Bible is literally true. Others see it differently, as allegory. Some don't believe a word of it. Who is to say?

What people think about it doesn't change what it is. Try substituting the word "Constitution" for the word "Bible" and see how it reads. The reason I said we shouldn't be discussing it is we shouldn't be discussing issues of religion on this forum.

JALLEN wrote:If the question to be begged is term limits for Congressmen and Senators, I'm convinced, based on what I lived with in California, that it isn't the panecea that many hope for.

And I respect your opinion, but the question to be begged is what options do we have to rectify a government that is becoming more dysfunctional and more of a perceived threat to the citizens it is supposed to serve with every passing day? I don't hear much except business as usual, and there doesn't seem to be much optimism that such a course will save the republic. After the last fiasco, I'm not sure anyone believes that just voting for more of the same is going to make a difference.

Since the Constitution doesn't require that a Speaker be a sitting congressman, Hannity is trying to start a "draft Newt" movement for the speakership. Not sure what to make of that. I do know what to make of Hannity. His nasally whine irritates the crud out of me.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

JALLEN wrote:If the question to be begged is term limits for Congressmen and Senators, I'm convinced, based on what I lived with in California, that it isn't the panecea that many hope for.

And I respect your opinion, but the question to be begged is what options do we have to rectify a government that is becoming more dysfunctional and more of a perceived threat to the citizens it is supposed to serve with every passing day? I don't hear much except business as usual, and there doesn't seem to be much optimism that such a course will save the republic. After the last fiasco, I'm not sure anyone believes that just voting for more of the same is going to make a difference.

You remind me of my little brother who, in his impetuous youth, when we encountered a pause to figure out a problem, would sometimes say, "Let's do something even if it's wrong!"

I view term limits like I do communism. It's failed every time it's been tried. So why are we still attracted to it?

JALLEN wrote:You remind me of my little brother who, in his impetuous youth, when we encountered a pause to figure out a problem, would sometimes say, "Let's do something even if it's wrong!"

I view term limits like I do communism. It's failed every time it's been tried. So why are we still attracted to it?

I assure you, I'm anything but impetuous youth. No disrespect intended, and nothing personal, but why do you refuse to answer the question?

I didn't say that term limits were the only option, I asked for options. I think you're an educated man. Surely you understand that simple question. I sympathize if you simply don't have an answer...I don't either. But at least we should be honest enough to admit we don't have a solution, don't you think?

And not stirring the pot here, but I was talking about term limits on FEDERAL OFFICES. Not state offices. It is WASHINGTON that has become toxic, not state houses. If California tried it at the STATE LEVEL, it certainly did nothing about such stalwart champions of freedom like FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDERS Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer.

I'm curious though. When have term limits ever been tried and failed at the Federal level? I've been around since the 1940's. I don't seem to remember any such experiment. So here's my question again:

IF TERM LIMITS ARE NOT A SOLUTION, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO CORRECT THE DESTRUCTIVE PATH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? (Sorry for the caps, but I wanted to be sure I worded it correctly.)



Edit to add: TAM....that is an interesting thought, about drafting Newt. What we need is an honest World Champion Chessmaster who is wealthy enough to be untouchable.

The only reputable solution, which does not infringe on the liberty of others, is "Vote them out!" I mentioned this a few rounds ago.

The distinction you attempt to draw between Federal and State offices is a distinction without a difference. Moreover, if you think state government has nowhere become toxic, I sentence you to ten years in California!

The problem in California is that the districts have been carefully gerrymandered to give an edge to Democrats in a large majority of districts. Also, the enormous voting population in LA and SF overwhelm the rest of the state, which in rural areas is essentially normal.

Your problem is that those backwards knuckledraggers in some Congressional districts insist on voting in people you disapprove of. It's a problem! It has persisted since the earliest days of the Republic, and likely will not be resolved by our humble selves. I remember when practically all offices in Texas were filled by Democrats. Term limits would result only in the old crooks being replaced by new crooks.

Be careful. Some solutions are worse than the problem.

No doubt the situation in California is a mess, but it has no affect on my family save the imbeciles they send to Washington. I've decided that if California drops off into the sea, I'll just look for new spots to go deep sea fishing in the Pacific.

I understand your concern about voting, but my deep-seated fear is that we have about reached a point where voting has become irrelevant - on a national scale. At least it seems more people than ever feel that way. I also believe that perhaps for the first time since Reveloutionary War days, a majority of Americans are angry about the behavior of their government. Locally, yes, the American people can still change things - most of the time. Nationally? No.

In my mind, I'm of the opinion that it is a profound, and possibly catastrophic, mistake for people to ignore the anger. It's one thing to do something about a sitting president who decides to ignore the Constitution and the law. It is something quite different to do anything about 20 or 30 million people who decide to fix things by "other means." I pray it doesn't come to that.

I also pray that the historic uniter of nations, a war that threatens civilization itself, isn't the only remedy. This despite the reality presented by the lessons of history.

In any event. Thanks for the, as always, stimulating discussion. As my mama used to say, "we may not have solved anything, but we did air out the dirty laundry."