• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Term Limits

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?
 
Ed said:
I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?
Click to expand...

I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito.

I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed.
``We started these hearings seeking answers,'' said Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. ``We come away with even more questions about Judge Alito's commitment to fairness and equal justice for all.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aecZEcchn2BQ&refer=us
Click to expand...

"We come away with even more questions ..."

What B.S. :rolleyes:
 
We can still vote 'em out. Does happen once in a while. Do we need more limitations?
 
Ed said:
I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?
Click to expand...
Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality?
 
DavidJames said:
I'm 100% against term limits.

I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them.
Click to expand...


$2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem.

Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever.
 
Kerberos said:
Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality?
Click to expand...

I suspect that they are less crooked.

As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook.
 
And why is it that, seemingly, the interests of the people appear to be better represented by talk show idiots like O'Reilly? Because, I wager, that the handlers of these pols advise them to never take any position that is edgy (because it hurts their chance for reelection).
 
According to analysts, Cincinnatus had settled into a life of farming and knew that his departure might mean starvation for his family if the crops went unsown in his absence. He assented to the request anyway and within sixteen days had defeated the Aequi and the Volscians. His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of good leadership, service to the public good, and the virtue of modesty.

Wiki
Click to expand...

Sort of a dirty word but that, to me, epitomizes patriotism. We ain't got none.
 
Ed said:
I suspect that they are less crooked.

As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook.
Click to expand...
I don't see why people should be less croocked if they served only one or two term, more like the other way around. After all somebody who doesn't have to worry about reelection, doesn't need to concern himself with public reactions to whatever dirty schemes he might invent.
 
Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics.
 
peptoabysmal said:
I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito.

I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed.


"We come away with even more questions ..."

What B.S. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow...ya gotta love Republicans and their "Persecuted Majority" mindset.
 
No term limits in the UK for any position. Generaly your own party will stab you in the back before it becomes a problem.
 
shecky said:
Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics.
Click to expand...

The nanny state can be a manifestation of people that have power wanting more. Perhaps getting rid of them might mitigate that. Remember also that they would, presumably, leave public service and return to their real job as so would have to live under the stuff that they pass. Ain't the case now.
 
Beerina said:
$2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem.
Click to expand...
I agree abuses of the system are a problem
Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever.
Click to expand...
I have no clue how this comment relates to not allowing someone to hold office because they have held office an arbitrary number of terms.
 
DavidJames said:
No, I'm an American citizen who believes he should be able to vote for any candidate who meets the legal qualification to hold office.
Click to expand...

And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom