Author Topic: Lugar sent packing. (Read 6136 times)

Ron · « **on:** May 08, 2012, 09:15:42 PM »

"Bring back the assault weapon ban" Lugar sent back to private sector.

More than likely retiring with a kings pension.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/08/mourdock_defeats_lugar_in_indiana_senate_race.html

makattak · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2012, 09:54:21 PM »

You know, I feel like laughing maniacally but using a picture of Mr. Burns is unfair to Sen. Lugar. After all he probably went to school with Mr. Burns....... 's older brother.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2012, 11:20:13 PM »

Burns creates jobs. Burns is of value to society.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2012, 10:02:10 AM »

I was listening to the radio this morning, and heard about this... Brought a smile to my face, as I had heard many not so good things about Mr. Lugar.

Then I just about had a conniption when I heard that "it was an end to a 36 year career"....

Thirty. Six. [unprintable unmentionable censored censored CENSORED!!!!] Years?

Yeah, I know there are other idiots who have spent even longer feeding at the government trough. And only some of those are welfare idjits. Why the [censored] do we tolerate these useless sacks of [unprintable] being "public servants"

for their entire [censored] lives?

makattak · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2012, 10:05:59 AM »

Quote from: AmbulanceDriver on May 09, 2012, 10:02:10 AM

I was listening to the radio this morning, and heard about this... Brought a smile to my face, as I had heard many not so good things about Mr. Lugar.

Then I just about had a conniption when I heard that "it was an end to a 36 year career"....

Thirty. Six. [unprintable unmentionable censored censored CENSORED!!!!] Years?

Yeah, I know there are other idiots who have spent even longer feeding at the government trough. And only some of those are welfare idjits. Why the [censored] do we tolerate these useless sacks of [unprintable] being "public servants" for their entire [censored] lives?

Because we have a system that is disfuctional. The one failing of the Founding Fathers was their reliance on custom to avoid a permanent ruling class. We had to rectify part of that failing after Franklin Delano "You can have the oval office when you pry my cold dead corpse out of my wheelchair" Roosevelt. We need to further rectify the problem with an Amendment coving the House of Representatives and the Senate.

cordex · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2012, 10:28:04 AM »

Quote from: makattak on May 09, 2012, 10:05:59 AM

We need to further rectify the problem with an Amendment coving the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I've been an advocate for this idea for a long time, but I'm wondering if there would be unintended consequences. Suddenly you've got a good chunk of Congress lame ducking the hell out of us all the time.
(And how exactly is that different than what we typically have now, given the R's vote for R's and the D's vote for D's lest the others get in?)
Good point other me, but in a group not particularly known for their ethics not having some element of electoral fear would be kind of scary.
(So your solution is status quo?)
No, other me. I think we need serious consequences to be associated with - for instance - voting for a law that is shown to be unconstitutional. Say, felony conviction, a couple of years in prison and prohibition from future service. Convicted of taking bribes? Fifteen years hard labor, maybe? Something sufficient to inspire lawmakers to think a few times about their decisions - and maybe even read their bills before passing them.

HankB · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2012, 10:44:11 AM »

What I found amusing were MANY of the comments at various on-line sources . . . mostly liberals and democrats mourning the passage of a "Moderate Republican" who would "Compromise for the good of the country" and his loss to "right wing extremist tea baggers." who'd "hijacked" the GOP.

Gee, you'd think they'd lost one of their own.

makattak · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2012, 10:49:19 AM »

Quote from: cordex on May 09, 2012, 10:28:04 AM

I've been an advocate for this idea for a long time, but I'm wondering if there would be unintended consequences. Suddenly you've got a good chunk of Congress lame ducking the hell out of us all the time.
(And how exactly is that different than what we typically have now, given the R's vote for R's and the D's vote for D's lest the others get in?)
Good point other me, but in a group not particularly known for their ethics not having some element of electoral fear would be kind of scary.
(So your solution is status quo?)
No, other me. I think we need serious consequences to be associated with - for instance - voting for a law that is shown to be unconstitutional. Say, felony conviction, a couple of years in prison and prohibition from future service. Convicted of taking bribes? Fifteen years hard labor, maybe? Something sufficient to inspire lawmakers to think a few times about their decisions - and maybe even read their bills before passing them.

Not all of the congress would be lame-ducked all the time. All may have aspirations for future careers, too.

I don't think we've seen any serious problems with lame-duck presidents, and I doubt there would be too many with legislators. It may be a concern, but I'm willing to try out term limits to at least discover what the unintended consequences would be.

My hope is one of the consequences would be bills that are understandable to the majority of the country rather than so long and convoluted (purposely) that only lawyers know what it says and none are fully certain what it actually means.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:20:09 AM »

If we don't want politicians to treat Congress as just another career, we need to quit tolerating those things that make it a "real job." No benefits. No retirement plan. No health care. If some stalwart statesman is such a great guy that the people keep electing him for forty years, then they should support him in his old age, too. For the rest, if they have the ambition to make it to Capitol Hill for a few terms, they should be able to work out their own retirement and hospital bills, etc.

209 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:28:01 AM »

So what are Richard Mourdock's chances in the election?

Scout26 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:45:07 AM »

Quote from: 209 on May 09, 2012, 11:28:01 AM

So what are Richard Mourdock's chances in the election?

Pretty good. He more has name recognition (even more then he had before), Indiana is a fairly conservative state and the R's will fund him because they don't want to lose the seat, even though their fair-haired boy lost the primary. (Full disclosure: I live in Indianapolis when Lugar was Mayor!!! Granted I was 10.)

So unless he's caught in bed with a live man or dead woman, he'll probably win.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2012, 12:18:52 PM »

Quote from: HankB on May 09, 2012, 10:44:11 AM

What I found amusing were MANY of the comments at various on-line sources . . . mostly liberals and democrats mourning the passage of a "Moderate Republican" who would "Compromise for the good of the country" and his loss to "right wing extremist tea baggers." who'd "hijacked" the GOP.

Gee, you'd think they'd lost one of their own.

Every day that goes by, I understand the European/Latin American/Asian tradition of running around in the street smacking people who's politics you don't like with sticks a little better.

230RN · « **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:30:48 PM »

Quote

I think we need serious consequences to be associated with - for instance - voting for a law that is shown to be unconstitutional. Say, felony conviction, a couple of years in prison and prohibition from future service. Convicted of taking bribes? Fifteen years hard labor, maybe? Something sufficient to inspire lawmakers to think a few times about their decisions - and maybe even read their bills before passing them.

Not that I haven't strongly advocated this for years, with only slight variations on the punishments involved. Very slight.

I too, would like to experiment with mandatory term limits and/or strict benefits limitations for elected representatives at every level of politics, even though I am wary of untintended consequences.

That dog needs some training with a choke collar, I tell you true.

"Heel!"

Terry, 230RN

cordex · « **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2012, 01:48:26 PM »

Quote from: 209 on May 09, 2012, 11:28:01 AM

So what are Richard Mourdock's chances in the election?

Prior to winning he was polling about even with the Democratic challenger. Lugar would have been an easy win over the Democrat at the price of having Lugar in office.

Waitone · « **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2012, 05:32:08 PM »

Direct election of senators was a major mistake the collective has made. Making the care, feeding, and maintenance of a state's senators the responsibility of the state would go a long way in righting the boat. A senator in my view should be an employee of their state. Salaries, benefits, expenses all should be under the thumb of each state's legislature. Let the state decide how they are elected whether by state level election as is today, legislative elections, governor appointment with legislature approval . . . I don't really care. What I do care about is the entity called a "state" regaining its seat at the table.

roo_ster · « **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2012, 06:10:48 PM »

Quote from: Waitone on May 09, 2012, 05:32:08 PM

Direct election of senators was a major mistake the collective has made. Making the care, feeding, and maintenance of a state's senators the responsibility of the state would go a long way in righting the boat. A senator in my view should be an employee of their state. Salaries, benefits, expenses all should be under the thumb of each state's legislature. Let the state decide how they are elected whether by state level election as is today, legislative elections, governor appointment with legislature approval . . . I don't really care. What I do care about is the entity called a "state" regaining its seat at the table.

Power only respects greater power.Reducing the states' power has resulted in fed.gov having a freer hand.

Tallpine · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:26:07 PM »

Quote

read their bills before passing them

The Supreme Court would probably rule that to be cruel and unusual punishment

cordex · « **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2012, 09:21:25 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on May 10, 2012, 07:26:07 PM

The Supreme Court would probably rule that to be cruel and unusual punishment

Sometimes I guess I say some extreme things when I get emotional about an issue. Sorry.

longeyes · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2012, 03:15:56 PM »

Not enough zombie votes?

Jamie B · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2012, 03:47:10 PM »

I read somewhere that he had not lived in IN. since 1977.
Maybe those folks were tired of an absent representative....I would have been for only that.

cordex · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2012, 09:57:22 PM »

Quote from: Jamie B on May 13, 2012, 03:47:10 PM

I read somewhere that he had not lived in IN. since 1977.
Maybe those folks were tired of an absent representative....I would have been for only that.

The funny part was that Secretary of State Charlie White was convicted of six counts of felony voter fraud for essentially the same thing. Lugar claimed protection from a law intended to protect members of the US military on deployment.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:26:34 PM »

Quote

So unless he's caught in bed with a live man or dead woman, he'll probably win.

Shame things like that only seems to be a disqualifier for Republicans.

Ron · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:36:16 PM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on May 13, 2012, 10:26:34 PM

Shame things like that only seems to be a disqualifier for Republicans.

The price you pay for not being progressive on traditional, historical moral values.

News:

Author Topic: Lugar sent packing. (Read 6136 times)