» Friday Funnies: Term Limits Edition

Friday Funnies: Term Limits Edition

by Sergio Gor

Cartoon - DeMint Term Limits (990)

Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this |

Tags: Jim DeMint, Sen. Jim Demint
Posted Nov 13th 2009 at 7:31 am in Congress, Politics | 2993029 CommentsFriday+Funnies%3A+Term+Limits+Edition2009-11-13+14%3A31%3A35Sergio+Gor

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

2993029 CommentsFriday+Funnies%3A+Term+Limits+Edition2009-11-13+14%3A31%3A35Sergio+Gor

Cowboy Logic - November 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Joe Incumbent?
It looks more like Robert Byrd……….

moondoggy13 - November 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

OMG this made me laughed out loud.

Hucbald - November 13th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Ah yes, the two "T's" that are always talked about, and never addressed: Term limits and Tort reform. Everybody knows the country would be better off if we had them, but all those career politicians are lawyers, so nothing is ever done about it.

Shocking. /sarc

Cowboy Logic - November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Did you know, the largest supporters of incumbents, and the DNC is the Trial Lawyers Association? They stay behind the curtain, but are one of the groups that could be called "Puppetmasters". They know how to stay behind the scenes, and still control the landscape.

71Demon - November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Byrd is one of my Senators, I can confirm that is him

Liberty Jane - November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Ugh.

Clean Sweep in 2010.

I wonder what would happen if campaign donations outside a representative's own state were banned. It's probably unenforceable, just like Presidential campaign donations outside the US have become.

uberVU - social comments - November 13th, 2009 at 8:00 am

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by AZgrassroots: Friday Funnies: Term Limits Edition http://bit.ly/3GJqEy
#dripusa #ocra #tcot…

Leadfingers - November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

This is so true. Who's worried about their career or public opinion one they're one foot in the grave? We should also consider how many are now financially independent. When your financial future is as secure as theirs are it's no wonder why they care so little about what we think. If they lost their jobs tomorrow they would still live in comfort the rest of their lives. With so little risk it only makes sense they they would do as they wish and ignore the rest of us.

Tweets that mention Big Government » Blog Archive » Friday Funnies: Term Limits Edition -- Topsy.com - November 13th, 2009 at 8:01 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bokoo143 and Big Government, DNC Fail!. DNC Fail! said: #tcot #sgp #orca Friday Funnies: Term Limits Edition http://url4.eu/kTNB [...]

Cowboy Logic - November 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Rockefeller isn't far behind Byrd when it comes to agility.

Cowboy Logic - November 13th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Did you know there are over 250 multi-millionaires in CON-gress?
When I say multi-millionaires, there are figures reaching to the 200 plus million dollar range. Tell me they don't know how to play the game?

Leadfingers - November 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

We need to fire ALL of these millionaire lawyers and put honest to goodness hard working people in office. The social elite have no business running this country and they never should have been allowed to. I say put "none of thee above" on the next ballot so we are not forces to chose between the lesser of the evils. If we do not like any of the candidates then NONE of them should end up in office.

Virginia Rifleman - November 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

Funny how he brings up an amendment that has no chance of passing when he's not in power, but when the Republicans were in power (and could decide what came to the floor) we heard nary a peep.

StlDan - November 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

I had never been in favor of "term limits" until the last election cycle. I beleived that should be handled at the ballot box, not anymore. Limit them to two terms, one in Congress and one in prison.

Thinking_Man - November 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

I go over to "Counter Punch" which is a lefty site every once in awhile to see what the current thinking is by the progressives.

Nothing new, they don't think it will fly but will attack the initiative on the grounds that new representatives will not know how to deal with lobbyist, just the same way that workers don't know how to deal with management.

In their world progressive politicans are the labor organizers and lobbyist represent business, to them everything is about getting a bigger peice of the pie by getting the politicians to steal for them. I suppose you can't argue with their loigc, experienced thieves are better than inexperienced ones.

MikeinIdaho - November 13th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Term limits would be great, but it will never happen! Vote them ALL out in 2010 andf 2012. No incumbants re-elected will make term limits a moot point. We are their employers, let's fire them all and start over!

Thinking_Man - November 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

I am no fan of Lobbyist either, nor do I buy into their arguments, it's just interesting to note it. I did post and ask what about just getting rid of lobbying too, called a right wing troll, which I suppose I was, but an interesting response none the less.

ejrussell3 - November 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

I'm a proud supporter of RE-ELECT NO-ONE IN 2010!

SWAP - November 13th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

I wish I could re-elect no one…
Only problem is there is no one running against my congressman.
I live in California's 29th district. My congressman is Adam Schiff.
If any conservative wants to run against him, you got my vote.
He voted yes on the health care bill. And voted no on the Stupak amendment.

I'm done with him.

NutsnBolts - November 13th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Joe Biden, before his ascension to the Right Hand of the Anointed.
Almost that old, and with about that much brain matter. And dressing just the same.

NutsnBolts - November 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

And the one in Congress, very brief!
LOL.

saltydog53 - November 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

Jim Demint's got the right idea.But getting legislation like that passed will never happen with all the career politicians of both parties in congress.The republicans tried to pass term limits after the Contract With America numerous times and they couldn't get it done even with majorities in both houses because of career politicians voting against it.

Voters have to vote out the incumbants of both parties to even have a chance of getting there.If you vote out the career politicians the newer politicians won't be beholden to special interest like career politicians.Then we get term limits and start getting this country back for the working taxpayers.

Leadfingers - November 13th, 2009 at 7:03 pm

Therein lies one of our biggest problems. These corrupt politicians may as well be selecting their opposition because as long as we are forced to chose between candidate X, candidate Y and candidate Z we will never be able to prevent unwanted persons from assuming these offices. It will always be a decision between the lesser of #x evils. If we had an option that allowed the people to vote against all the candidates we would be able to prevent those candidates from entering office. Sure the office would remain vacant for a brief time but better than then a candidate that doesn't fully represent the will of the people.

AmericaCries - November 13th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

If thats true, than Bush was just cleaning house when he let them get rid of all those dem lawyers, back in the day when we felt alittle safer than today.

Leadfingers - November 13th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

We need a method of voting that allows us to vote out an incumbent without replacing them with someone just as bad or worse. None of thee above could be just the thing. Imagine having to chose between Obama, McCain and Bush. Not one of them is what we would describe as "good" for the country. In most cases one would be preferable to the other but NONE are likely to be what we WANT. Having a "none of thee above" vote would allow the people to vote for NOBODY, and if NOBODY got the most votes then none of the candidates would be allowed to take office. It's that simple.

Sure it might seem like a waste of money for some and others might fear the office remaining empty for any significant period of time but better that then installing someone who is undesirable. We need people in office that can relate to the majority and that have the nation's overall well being at heart.

What is counter productive is to continue to elect millionaire lawyers whose only reason for going into politics is for the sense of power they have at wielding the authority of the public trust like a club. They are simply on a power trip that needs to be put to an end.

nceeno - November 13th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

1. Start offering incentives to leave after two terms. Then tax a third term, with a higher tax on the fourth term.
2. Put a cap on how much money a candidate can spend on an election to something like twice what the position earns.
3. Quit paying for lifetime medical and retirement bennies.
4. Limit lobbying power.

Jake_Was_Here - November 13th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

There's a solution to that: just put "NONE OF THE ABOVE" in the write-in box.

Liberty666 - November 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

we dont need another law, just vote the bums out

Rand - November 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

What about a lifetime limit on political contributions for each candidate? Pick an amount. Once you have spent that amount, you are still free to run for any office you like, but you cannot spend any money on your campaign.