The problem is that if leaders were subject only to one term, they would have absolutely no incentive to listen to the people. They would have no reason not to take all they could from lobbyists and special interests and run at the end of the term. The problem is that the congressional members are only concerned with re-election, and how to get it. They please these special interests in return for campaign backing and money, which fuels thier re-elections. And the cycle repeats. If more people were involed and knowedgable about the issues and the congressmen, perhaps the representatives would be chosen based upon their ability to execute the office and listen to the people, instead of the election going to whoever spent the most money advertising thier name on radio and tv and bashing thier opponents.

 

Gary, sorry, I was going by your profile... I might even run into you some day on the trails then...

As for Maddog, I am not for or against anybody or party. I claim no allegiance other than to my own common sense and my faith in mankind. I try to look for the good in everyone, and everything...it is hard sometimes.. and I let myself get carried away with my personal passions way too often.. I do however try and listen to what everyone is saying, whether I agree with them or not. they have the right to feel the way they do, and I am not qualified to judge how they attained that opinion.

And no, I don't teach seminars... but I have to tell you the truth, I am paid to be a peacemaker believe it or not... My job is to get between two or more groups with different points of view, listen to their wants and needs, and help them to reach a consensus that they can all live with... I am VERY GOOD at my job.

Mostly, I deal with Computer network security issues, but I find it usually comes down to personalities and people more often than not. I can be very persuasive sometimes... and yes, I am not above dropping the guilt trip bomb once in a while as a last resort... but only when I am passionate about something to the point where I lose my cool...

I think everyone who reads my comments knows that I am passionate about people... it all comes down to that... Thank God and thank my mother for instilling that respect for my fellow man and the tenacity in me to follow through when I see someone suffer...

 

Dragginbut, my first reply was a quote of cheapass, and not in anyway directed at you.

My statements to you were about the election term limit you proposed.

 

Dragginbutt: I'm just about ready to surrender. You've pushed us away from the subject of John Kerry's position on motorized recreation using powerful diversions including homelessness and term limits and even led others further off the subject to issues such as the power of lobbyists in Congress. You are very good!

Just one more time, let's look at the subject of this thread. Here is the position from Kerry's mission statement:

"John Kerry will reinstate the Clinton administration’s phase-out of noisy and polluting
snowmobiles, which have been overrunning some of our most precious national lands,
including Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. While snowmobiles,
jet skis and all terrain vehicles have their place, they do not mix with sensitive wildlife
resources and our nation’s most treasured wild places."


And, here is statement from Kerry's office regarding his position on ATV's:

"He has no direct plans to close or to protect any lands from ATV access."


The mission statement is aimed at radical environmentalists, while the other statement came from his office in answer to a question from and ATV'er--More proof that Kerry will say anything to get a vote. We need to be concerned, because the mission statement is more like carved in stone, while Kerry can always deny the statement to the ATV'er.

Dragginbutt, you like to deal with bigger questions, but you have to wonder if a guy who flip flops around like this can be effective in dealing with the major issues that are your passion.

 

Well, here you go, I'll stay on target for you... First of all, I don't put a lot of faith in anything that you find in these types of sources... because what you have is hundreds of people who are writing what they believe is a given position, and you are not really talking to the man. Pretty much a given that the candidate probably doesn't even know what is being said.

As for flip flopping.. well, I personally think that is a very good trait to have in a person... Rather than a closed mind, if a person is willing to sit down and listen to an argument, and if it is passionate enough, change their own opinion.. I think that is someone I can respect and work with.

Situations change... so do votes. I know the administration can cite many so called flip flop votes, but what you don't see is that attached to that bill they may have supported at one time, may be something that is very bad or goes against their personal views to the point where they have no choice other than to vote no... That my friend is how the game is played here in DC. You take a little bit of bad with the good...or it gets tabled and re-packaged for another try. Again, is that a flip flop? In some cases, that may very well be a very good choice... Both parties play this game.. it is not tied to one individual... so I do not accept the administrations argument... I would have thought they could have come up with more than that to latch on to....

The Dems prefer the Haliburton deal... and on the surface it looks quite juicy, but I am sure there are other things going on just as bad on their side of the floor, so again I don't agree with using that argument either...

So you see, I am middle road right now, and I am not about to lay my cards on the table until I step into that voting booth, and pull the lever.

So, are you ready to surrender yet?

 

Not sure if I can buy that. If ya look at both candidates, Bush does not have the "flip-flop" problem. Kerry votes based on how many people he can satisfy. A good example is the same sex marriage deal. He does not agree with it, but will not vote against it. Takes care of everyone, right? The democratic party looked high and low, and could only come up with John Kerry...this is sad. With the war and all thats going on with fuel prices, the Democratic party really blew their big chance too take bush out.

 

I think that is a very true statement. I cannot say who may have been better because kerry has been further scrutinized because of his position running for the presidency. But I do know that had there been a democrat the people could be confident in, it would look like a much different race.

 

Dragginbutt: I can't surrender on this note:

"As for flip flopping.. well, I personally think that is a very good trait to have in a person... Rather than a closed mind, if a person is willing to sit down and listen to an argument, and if it is passionate enough, change their own opinion.. I think that is someone I can respect and work with."

Are you intentionally confusing flip flopping with open mindedness and fairness? Kerry is telling radical environmentalists what they want to hear. When he turns around and tells ATV'ers just the opposite, that's not a change of opinion by any stretch. Such a blatant contradiction almost has to be deliberate. He doesn't care if what he is saying contradicts what he told someone else yesterday. He wants power so desperately he'll say anything to anyone to get their vote. We should all find that frightening. It terrifies me.

I would guess the mission statement, although it may have been written by a committee, has Kerry's personal stamp of approval. I think it is a clear reflection of the feelings of the people he is gathering around him. When Kerry says he has "no direct intention" of closing public lands to ATVs, "direct" is the weasel word. He would avoid direct involvement by having his secretary of the interior do it.

 

Let's not get our panties in a bunch ppl ..... Land use is up to Individual states, protected under the constitution. This is a none issue. If you really want to keep your riding previliges intacked vote for a Govenor or Senator that endorses riding in your particular state. moving along.

 

You are right. Sorry I got a little shrill. But Dragginbutt isn't the only one around here who might get a little passionate once in awhile.

You are right in saying this is a non-issue only if you are talking about state parks or state forests. It wasn't any governor or senator who closed Yellowstone National Park to snowmobiles. It was an "executive order" from then President Clinton. You have no constitutional protection against such executive orders. Apparently there is some judicial redress, since the radical environmentalists went to court to try to reverse Bush's executive order to re-open parts of the park to snowmobiling.

If an executive order can close a national park, it could also close a national forest. There are a lot of ATV trails in national forests, and that makes it an issue.