Tasine Loc: Southwest US

bahmer

I saw this earlier Tasine and sounded really good to me. My next question do we have enough states that will jump on the bandwagon and do it. I live in the socialist state of Illinois where our real capital is the socialist state of Chicago who has given to you and all of the other lucky people out there Mr. OIllegal coupled with the mafia helper David Axlerod and Co. So my state will only help the socialist party so I can't help until either an earthquake destroys Chicago or it is nuked or God judges it and pushes it into the middle of Lake Michigan. I would if given a choice either have the earthquake or God's punishment of Chicago especially if the OI******s are in town at that time.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

:thumbup: :thumbup: :lol:

skopii

This notion of play along with the two faced liars in government, so they can lie to you some more, is utter nonsense; and a complete waste of everybody's time and energy. The dynamic of the entire political culture needs to be changed. Politicians need to FEAR the population's wrath. A good way to accomplish the change of this dynamic is to:
"V**e Incumbents Out!" There is no FEAR of punishment for what they do, so they continue. If you "V**e Incumbents Out!" they will FEAR your punishment. Kindly remember to "V**e Incumbents Out!" Thank You.

rcksha

V****g out the incumbents is only an important start. We need to eliminate the positions established by the big money supporters by establishing a mandatory age limit as well as term limits for all in congress. I'm tired of this "go along, to get along" establishment. This needs to be applied to all in congress.
Maybe new candidates would have to at least read all initiatives and amendments to be able understand the application before v****g on our behalf.

bahmer

A while back Mark Levin on his radio show was talking about a constitutional convention for something and I only caught bits and pieces because I had the grand kids in the car. I wonder if we could add this into a constitutional convention about term limits for both congress and senate as well as an age limit. I would also like to add into it that all politicians had to actually hold a real job in the real world where capitalism is at play for a certain No. of years before being allowed to run for any political position in this country. We have to many politicians who come right out of college and go into politics without any real world experience to their name. If you have never been in business or worked in business then you should have no rights making laws regarding business. And as well if you don't know anything about firearms then you have no right making laws concerning firearms. There are various other areas that our legislators have no business making laws because of their ignorance.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I have said many times that I am against a Constitutional Convention although some people like Levin who I do like to listen to believe it could work. I have to keep coming back to why the first Constitutional Convention was called and what that group did right from the start. That would be decide to write a whole new constitution, which they did.

If we have a new convention who decides who the members will be. Of course, most here wouldn't want it to be Congressmen and I sure as hell go along with that. Okay, who appoints the members of that convention? What would the chance that there would be more progressives there than all others combined? I answer that one with damned good since we find progressives in both parties. Surely we couldn't elect them because someone would say we have to do that one according to population, and that means that Mexifornia would have the largest group and you all know how progressive they are.

I am flat against a constitutional convention for the above reasons. It would just not work and would result in warfare if you tried to have one. It has such a wonderful sound and would be so disastrous in the end.

bahmer

He said that he was going to have a book coming out on his ideas and I was going to wait until then and read it. I do appreciate your feedback on this subject and I can see where you are coming from. I guess maybe I am getting nervous and grasping at straws to help save this country and I am willing to look at everything. I don't really want a civil war as that will destroy an awful lot of this beautiful country but if we must we must and it will take a number of our youth to their graves. I know freedom is never free but I never would have believed it would come to our shores.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Am I right or wrong in what and why I fear having a constitutional convention for any other purpose than writing a new one? The progressives would control the thing with people like John McCain who would surely be there to write something new.

bahmer

Unless the constitutional convention consisted of one topic and one topic only much like allowing women the rite to v**e. If it were only one topic like the amnesty bill where it would be put to a v**e by all states that might be different and here again I don't have Mark Levin's book although I would like to get a copy and read it. At the time the show was on the radio my grandson and his friend both teenagers were in the car and it was difficult to hear let alone understand what he was saying or implying and on what subject the constitutional convention would even be on. This was put out for discussion and I truly understand your concern and I would have to say I would probably be there with you at this point.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

What do you know about the first constitutional convention? I will tell you that the Congress (the one under the Articles of Confederation) called on each state to send members of a convention for the purpose of rewriting some parts of the Articles that just weren't working. Those people came in and decided to write a whole new constitution. I can prove that from Madison's minutes of the convention.

Anyway, what is to keep this from happening another time? I am more concerned about who would appoint the members to that new convention and how many of the members would be progressives. If it were Congress critters who did the appointing I am sure most of those appointed would be just a bit too progressive for me. That would be men like McCain, Graham, and other obvious progressive RINOs. I am almost sure that one of the members would be Durbin and another Schumer. What kind of proposal would those 5 people push through? It is scary to me even thinking about it.

There is no way that anyone could imagine that telling those people appointed to consider just one thing would keep them from stepping over the line and then what would the Congress do?

bahmer

I see where you are coming from and I share your concerns especially with the ones that you named as I also would not want any of those making any suggestions for me. I don't understand what is in this book and until I get a copy and a chance to read it I will side with you.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

What I am telling you can be found in about any book written prior to the beginning of progressive changes which I consider to be before 1980. I read it too many times and was told by those old conservative professors I listened to about it.

Someone had to misinterpret what the Constitution says to get that idea passed around.