Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow...now this old gun hoarding, pistol packing veteran of 26 years who has voted in every local, state and national election since he's 18 is now placed in the category of "voter cop-out, shirking one's civic duty in favor of apathy."
(I will say since I was in Kuwait for a year in 2000, not sure if my absentee ballot got counted.)
If you vote in every election, then why do you need term limits? Apathy is what drives term limit supporters, who cannot be bothered to do their civic duty. If everyone who was eligible voted in every election, like they should, then term limits would be completely unnecessary.
Term limits insults every eligible voter, and suppresses their right to vote for whom they want to hold a particular office. Only a complete idiot, or those who have absolutely no interest in voting in the first place, could possibly support suppressing the right of other people to vote for whom they please.
If you vote in every election, then why do you need term limits? Apathy is what drives term limit supporters, who cannot be bothered to do their civic duty. If everyone who was eligible voted in every election, like they should, then term limits would be completely unnecessary.
Term limits insults every eligible voter, and suppresses their right to vote for whom they want to hold a particular office. Only a complete idiot, or those who have absolutely no interest in voting in the first place, could possibly support suppressing the right of other people to vote for whom they please.
And now I'm an idiot! The pomposity of your verbosity is striking.
Since you seem incapable of answering my very simple question: If you vote in every election, then why do you need term limits?
Then perhaps the label is appropriate.
The person the terminology identifies, in this case is the writer of the gratuitous insult, which was totally unneeded in this context. You are the one sadly lacking in any thing resembling a knowledge of civics. Term Limits provide a very valuable item in elections, that given the system of government you seem to be alluding to as your choice, the chance to vote for different qualified candidates not someone who already knows all the ropes that need to be pulled to gain some type of favor. If one has been reading what the Glitch has parroted in the past it is obvious the Glitch favors the older more knowledgeable crook for reelection rather than a newer person who still needs to be convinced of the best solution before he begins to cast his votes.
the chance to vote for different qualified candidates not someone who already knows all the ropes that need to be pulled to gain some type of favor.
The lack of term limits doesn't prevent "different qualified candidates" from running for election, and it certainly doesn't prevent anyone from voting for them. It's also a myth that the "newer person" has to be convinced of anything.
The less restrictions put on who we can vote for, the better. Terms limits are just feel-good legislation. I know it's hard to believe, but there really are decent people who make a career out of politics -- I'd rather vote for someone like that than some blowhard yokel with a big mouth and a lot of surface-level "ideas."
If you vote in every election, then why do you need term limits?
I DO vote in every election! I believe there should be term limits basically because I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever intended for politics to become a career. Serving in Congress was deemed a temporary assignment for the benefit of the citizenery and was intended for each to focus on policy rather than politics.
How much time do politicians spend on fund raising in order to get re-elected? That's time spent away from doing the peoples business. The need for money can produce greed which results in special interests groups gaining a priority in the passing of legislation. I also think term limits prevents power from being consolidated in one or a few people.
I know where you stand on term limits, now you know why I'm in favor of term limits. No need to counter my opinions with more of your opinions because you won't change me and I won't change you. I do, however, have two questions for you:
(1) Why does the office of the president have term limits? That does tend to run against your opinion run counter to everyone voting negates the necessity of term limits.
(2) Why do you resort to name calling and denigrating opposing opinions? That simply puts conservative core values in a bad light.
As a conservative I'm not looking for your acceptance of my beliefs or opinions, but I have voted for every Republican candidate for president since Jimmy Carter.
Don't ask for proof of that statment, it would be impossible to prove anything to you!
If you vote in every election, then why do you need term limits?
I DO vote in every election! I believe there should be term limits basically because I don't think the framers of the Constitution ever intended for politics to become a career. Serving in Congress was deemed a temporary assignment for the benefit of the citizenery and was intended for each to focus on policy rather than politics.
How much time do politicians spend on fund raising in order to get re-elected? That's time spent away from doing the peoples business. The need for money can produce greed which results in special interests groups gaining a priority in the passing of legislation. I also think term limits prevents power from being consolidated in one or a few people.
I know where you stand on term limits, now you know why I'm in favor of term limits. No need to counter my opinions with more of your opinions because you won't change me and I won't change you. I do, however, have two questions for you:
(1) Why does the office of the president have term limits? That does tend to run against your opinion run counter to everyone voting negates the necessity of term limits.
(2) Why do you resort to name calling and denigrating opposing opinions? That simply puts conservative core values in a bad light.
As a conservative I'm not looking for your acceptance of my beliefs or opinions, but I have voted for every Republican candidate for president since Jimmy Carter.
Don't ask for proof of that statment, it would be impossible to prove anything to you!
You should read up on James Madison, among other founding fathers. That was one founding father who made politics his career spanning more than three decades. Many others, such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Q. Adams, also had political careers that spanned decades. So much for your misinformed "belief."
Why does the office of the president have term limits?
Because a fascist liberal freak, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, broke the 149 year tradition of Presidents only serving two terms that was established by George Washington. As soon as that despot died, thankfully, the people wanted to ensure that another such fascist could not do what FDR did. As a result the Twenty-Second Amendment was ratified by the States in 1951.
Personally, I do not support the Twenty-Second Amendment. However, as a constitutional conservative, I believe the US Constitution must be adhered to until it is changed in accordance with the amendment process. There are many things I would like to see changed in the US Constitution, but unlike anti-American liberal freaks, I want the government to abide by the document until such time it is properly amended.
Why do you resort to name calling and denigrating opposing opinions?
It is called "effective communications." In order to effectively get your message across to others, it is necessary to adopt a means of communication with which they are most familiar. Since anti-American liberal freaks are only able to communicate via vitriolic and acrimonious hatred, I respond in kind.
The need for money can produce greed which results in special interests groups gaining a priority in the passing of legislation.
I would argue this is a result of the existance of political parties, not the lack of term limits.
Special interests provide money and reliable blocks of voters to a political party. And in return those special interests expect the party to reliably support their agendas, even if individual members of the party don't agree with their agenda.
You may want your elected representatives to go to Washington and use their best judgement based on the facts to cast their votes. But in reality, if their vote is the difference between success and failure of the party's legislation, your representative will vote the party line even if it costs them the next election. If they don't, the affected special interest will withold their money and voters from that party in the future, hurting the party. So the party responds by marginalizing that representative afterwards to protect their source of money and reliable voters.
President Washington warned about exactly this:
"Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole."
I'd like to point out that even with term limits, people are still free to vote for who they like. I have voted for third party and write in candidates on a number of occasions, and I've even voted for myself before when no candidate was to my liking. You are not limited to Big Party candidate A and Big Party candidate B, despite any rumors to the contrary.
I salute JoDan and jdhpa because their truth and seriousness brings their arguments head and shoulders above their opponents vile words.
The lack of term limits certainly doesn't prevent "different qualified candidates" from running for a particular political office but it certainly does create an almost insurmountable barrier, from the special interests, which are the direct result of reelecting the same candidate multiple times to the same political office. Today the special interest are able to anonymously generate huge amounts of money for candidates who have a proven track record of supporting the agenda that the special interest groups desire. And anyone who would seriously suggest that "Term Limits are just feel-good legislation" displays a total ignorance of the realities of what occurs during an election cycle. As soon as a candidate is assured of reelection fund raising from the special interests that just elected them become the first choice of activities even before doing the bidding of the special interests.
The diatribe by the Fascist Conservative Freak does not show the derivation of the problems with not having term limits. I vividly recall the last two elections of that noble person who won election four times because the American People voted for him four times. The Fascist Conservative Freak denigrates that person because he was President during the greatest war ever fought against the actual fascists and in this land no one in their right mind wanted to change from a proven winner to the dork who was running against him. The Fascist Conservative Freak vividly displays his hatred of the American Electorate who would dare elect a proven winner who lead us from the Great Depression ever to the mightiest Nation on the face of the Earth. The Fascist Conservative Freak cannot get his version of history correct so it can prove his argument. The Constitution did not provide any term limits for reasons which the Fascist Conservative Freak isn't privy to so he, in his own way, attacks the very document he champions as being infallible. That the founding fathers were willing to hand the reins of power over to the next elected person is the reason for America's greatness. How long they held office legally and what office they held were within the dictates of the Constitution and this writer would be fearful if the glitch, or any of his compatriots were to ever be elected, with their lack of respect for the office, to the Presidency of the United States of America. Would thy be willing to turn over the reins of power to the next legally elected person if that person was of the other party as did the Democrats when the SCOTUS elected George Bush? From the words of the Fascist Conservative Freak I regard that as unlikely.
The Fascist Conservative Freak claims he supports the Constitution but he wants to change it to whatever breed of hatred he professes to espouse so the lack of government he desires can be implemented. Can anyone imagine a government run by the Fascist Conservative Freak? Who would lose their rights under such a regime and what rights would be lost? The first would probably have to be never tell the truth but only the truth that the Fascist Conservative Freak would desire to hear. Shades of a Chinaman standing before a tank in Tiananmen Square would the glitch allow dissent? The last words he writes in his onerous statement is he responds "via vitriolic and acrimonious hatred" which
seems to be the only time he has ever told the truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
