Jesse Ventura Uncensored: Why Congress Sucks! 2nd Edition

This week, I sound off on the privatization of Presidential elections and qualifying rules that prevent Independent candidates from participating. I also discuss a study that proves for the first time ever that 90% of Americans’ votes don’t matter…and how Congress gets away with crimes everyone else would go to jail for. Tune in to this brand new episode of Off the Grid for all of the reasons why Congress sucks.

Let me know if you’ll be signing the petition to open presidential debates.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Can't connect to your video again, it's just a white screen on my computer. Why not put your stuff up on youtube so those of us who can't see it can watch it. Thanks.

a reply to: JesseVentura

I always liked this explanation.

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

*29 have been accused of spousal abuse
*7 have been arrested for fraud
*19 have been accused of writing bad checks
*117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
*3 have done time for assault
*71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
*14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
*8 have been arrested for shoplifting
*21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
*84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year Can you guess which organization this is?

GIVE UP YET?????

IT IS THE 535 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. You gotta pass this one on!

a reply to: Greathouse

As much as I like to revel in hating on Congress, that looks like it is from an email chain and I'm curious to the legitimacy of those numbers.

The opposite of pro is con, that fact is clearly seen.
If progress means move forward, then what does congress mean?

- Nipsey Russell

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually that has been around for quite a while it is not the current Congress. But search it even Snopes says that the numbers are accurate. But I agree they are presented as an agenda.

If I remember correctly it came out when Democrats controlled the Congress.


Edit; I just checked Snopes, they now have it listed as false.

But truth or fiction says accurate but misleading.

source

a reply to: Greathouse

And that's why I question anything originating in an email chain letter.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Yes Jesse we know they suck, but the question is what are they sucking when they suck? But in all fairness and seriously, if we are to believe that we actually have any say so in who is in congress and that we actually voted them in there, then I guess by the fruits of the proverbial poisonous tree, it is really the Great American People that are the ones doing the sucking and if not I would suggest we are at least doing the kissing you know where.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hey I question it too. But before the update Snopes also said it was true. After reading the entire Snopes article the main reason they declared it false is because they cannot trace the sources.

Honestly it sounds perfectly plausible to me. Do you remember the 80s and 90s? This article came out in 1999 in Capital Hill Blue One of the oldest continual covers of Congress.

Hi Jesse, although I agree, congress sucks, the midterm elections proved that the party designation does not matter, they are going to do what their funding masters want, not the voting public...but it goes for all of Washington, they want to arm everyone but us, they will let illegal immigrants dictate policy, on and on and on... it is not just one branch, Its the whole damn fed...

a reply to: Greathouse

Oh it certainly DOES sound plausible, but that's why I want to verify the sources even more. The more plausible sounding the information, the more likely you could be duped by confirmation bias.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Check my edit. It first appeared in a article in Capitol Hill blue in 1999.

a reply to: Greathouse

Yes, I saw that, but that is one of the tactics these email chains use. Without sourcing the information and then reposting it, how is one to know that it is talking about Congress from the turn of the century and not today? Granted the information sucks regardless, but it is out of date and it is unfair to judge the current Congress with the misdeeds of a previous Congress.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I doubt any Congress is very different. And I don't think the term chain letter qualifies. It was an article in a series on Congress that came out in 1999. From a magazine that has monitored Congress since 1955.

a reply to: Greathouse

Oh I'm sure this Congress has its own share of transgressions, but I'd rather hate on them FOR those transgressions, not for the transgressions of a previous Congress. The reason I keep calling it an email chain is because that is how it has been circulated in the years since it was printed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I look at it completely different than you, I don't need to assign personal blame to each member.

If Congress allows itself to convene with even the half of those accusations at any point.

It speaks volumes about what is wrong with Congress past, present and future. I don't see each individual session of Congress exclusively I view Congress as a entity.

a reply to: Greathouse

If we were to do a breakdown of the transgressions of some random mid-level company, do you think that they will be much different than Congress? I can guarantee that there will be tons of drug users, maybe even a few who were caught. As you get higher up the org chart, I'm sure the clandestine activities get more severe too.

I certainly don't LIKE that a Congress convened with those things wrong, but I'm not going to hold it against the current Congress. The current Congress has its own problems that I can hold against them.

If we were to do a breakdown of the transgressions of some random mid-level company, do you think that they will be much different than Congress? I can guarantee that there will be tons of drug users, maybe even a few who were caught. As you get higher up the org chart, I'm sure the clandestine activities get more severe too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree there's plenty of criminals. But my point is I don't believe those criminals should be elected to some of the highest offices in the land.

Like I said if even half of those charges are true Congress is so broken you don't have to worry about which session is currently residing.

Let's put it this way, if you own a Large company. And you find out that members of your company would dubious past are stealing from you.

Do you?

A; Fire those criminals and replace them to the same standards?

Or

B; change the standards and hire better people?

a reply to: Greathouse

Look I agree, these guys need to be kicked out of office immediately. It shows a disconnect to voter knowledge and the people they are voting for. It also sucks that it happened in the past to that extent, but that is the past. We can't change the past. Only the future.