In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Congressional Term Limits
Wrangler
Member Posts: 5,788 ✭
Has a snowball's chance in hell, but spread this around to get people to put pressure on their Representatives and Senators.
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/breaking-ted-cruz-introduces-constitutional-amendment
C&P:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/breaking-ted-cruz-introduces-constitutional-amendment
C&P:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.
Comments
Almost half of the people in this country voted for trade restrictions, but most don't spend the time to look for the Made In USA Label when buy something.
If we are going to keep our Republic, it is high time we assumed the personal responsibility of doing what is right for America, and not just voting for Government to step in and force us to do so.
Brad Steele
Has a snowball's chance in hell, but spread this around to get people to put pressure on their Representatives and Senators.
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/breaking-ted-cruz-introduces-constitutional-amendment
C&P:
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.
Think the chance is better than a "snowball".
Trump had assigned asked Cruz to head up the term limits effort. Ha,, so this is a more of a "we'll see" about Cruz's future vers. "Snowballs chance".
Personally, think Ted might pull it off,, Trump is NOT accustomed to failure. Plus, if Ted would have done the right thing from the "* go" he probably wouldn't have this "project" on his plate.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
80% of the people want term limits and 90% of incumbents get re-elected.
Almost half of the people in this country voted for trade restrictions, but most don't spend the time to look for the Made In USA Label when buy something.
If we are going to keep our Republic, it is high time we assumed the personal responsibility of doing what is right for America, and not just voting for Government to step in and force us to do so.
Excellent post, Don! Want term limits? Vote for somebody else. Want stuff to be made in America? Don't buy the crap that ain't. Pretty simple, really.
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
+1000
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
No one is giving the g'ment authority to do anything. Before a person runs,, there are rules, that have been voted on and approved by Congress. Don't like it don't volunteer to serve.
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
Agree
No one is giving the g'ment authority to do anything. Before a person runs,, there are rules, that have been voted on and approved by Congress. Don't like it don't volunteer to serve.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41946.pdf
There are three, and only three, standing qualifications for U.S. Senator or Representative in Congress which are expressly set out in the U.S. Constitution: age (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate); citizenship (at least seven years for the House, nine years for the Senate); and inhabitancy in the state at the time elected. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, cl. 2 (House); and Article I, Section 3, cl. 3 (Senate). The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the historical understanding that the Constitution provides the exclusive qualifications to be a Member of Congress, and that neither a state nor Congress itself may add to or change such qualifications to federal office, absent a constitutional amendment. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 522 (1969); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 800-801 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001).
100 yrs old...
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
The Founding Fathers never envisioned professional politicians. A substantial citizen was chosen to represent his area at the congress. He received a small stipend for lodging and meals while congress was in session.
When it ended, he had to get back and make his living doing whatever he did, planter, shopkeeper, cattleman, or blacksmith.
Letting congressmen make a racket out of it was a failure of the electorate to safeguard the republic.
Term limits are needed now. It would be fairly easy to get serving member to vote aye by simply grandfathering current members so it doesn't affect them. They're selfish and self-serving basterds you know so they won't care about the people that come after them.
Just like America realized Roosevelt's four terms were too much, congressmen with two score years is about 28 years too long.
Our Forefathers would have put a term limit clause in if they could have envisioned public service becoming self service. Back then it was a civic duty. Now it's just a never ending feed trough for pigs.
" killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
James he had already been elected to his fourth term when he DIED not 3rd. One little piece of history I can remember.
James RK
" killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
James he had already been elected to his fourth term when he DIED not 3rd. One little piece of history I can remember.
Yeah, he was three months into his fourth term when he died.
Not going to happen. Up to us to vote them out,
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Just wondering if you will tell us what you think about the matter.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Just wondering if you will tell us what you think about the matter.
Him? Think? Bwahahahahahaha! Good one!
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
I can answer that one.
It is another example of you being a troll.
It would be fun to see a guy as smart as you seem to be get his comeuppance by meeting Congressman Trey Goudy's cross examination. Me thinks your ways would give him fodder to eat your obfuscatory behind alive and make great video on youtube.
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
I would agree with you except for the fact that some senators are able to gain far too much power through their repeated election. Some I dare say nearly equally to that of the president. Term limits would put all congressmen on a more level playing field.
quote:Originally posted by droptop
No one is giving the g'ment authority to do anything. Before a person runs,, there are rules, that have been voted on and approved by Congress. Don't like it don't volunteer to serve.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41946.pdf
There are three, and only three, standing qualifications for U.S. Senator or Representative in Congress which are expressly set out in the U.S. Constitution: age (25 for the House, 30 for the Senate); citizenship (at least seven years for the House, nine years for the Senate); and inhabitancy in the state at the time elected. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, cl. 2 (House); and Article I, Section 3, cl. 3 (Senate). The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the historical understanding that the Constitution provides the exclusive qualifications to be a Member of Congress, and that neither a state nor Congress itself may add to or change such qualifications to federal office, absent a constitutional amendment. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 522 (1969); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 800-801 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001).
W/O checking, I'm sure that's right. Cruz will try to get a "term limit" law passed. That will be the, hopefully, future law. Doubt it gets passed but a good early move to get some folks to "throw in" some of their chips.
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
Been saying this for years.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
+1000
Naivety
Naivety is the state of being na?ve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.
Are you in favor of Oblama taking a third term, or more?
The solution is there. I don't see people getting any smarter or learning more about government, hell it's like pulling teeth to get you morons to read the Constitution, much less some idiot off the street.
Over 100,000,000 eligible Americans didn't vote in the last election which is fine by me. In a perfect world, only I would cast a ballot.[:p]
Get behind term limits and push for cancellation of House and Senate retirement perks. Remember, it's public service to serve, so start serving.
Only in the Primaries does the suggestion work, and even then you face the dilemma of "the devil you know" and an unknown. Many if not most people would rather vote back the person they know - no matter if less than ideal - than somebody who might be worse.
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
I can answer that one.
It is another example of you being a troll.
It would be fun to see a guy as smart as you seem to be get his comeuppance by meeting Congressman Trey Goudy's cross examination. Me thinks your ways would give him fodder to eat your obfuscatory behind alive and make great video on youtube.
That's not an answer, it is merely insult of a forum member.
I had posted all that I desired to post on the matter, there is nothing more for me to add to this thread than others have already posted.
There are enough views already posted in this thread to where if you want to argue with either side, then argue with them.
Why do you have such a need to fight ?
Isn't it a little cold to be sweating so much?[;)][:D]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
Why do you ask?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
+1000
Naivety
Naivety is the state of being na?ve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.
Are you in favor of Oblama taking a third term, or more?
No. Are you?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Telling people to "vote for somebody else" is nice. But when the choice is an incumbent Republican or a Liberal Democrat, which "somebody else" do you recommend?
Only in the Primaries does the suggestion work, and even then you face the dilemma of "the devil you know" and an unknown. Many if not most people would rather vote back the person they know - no matter if less than ideal - than somebody who might be worse.
This is exactly the problem, Rocky Raab.
Those same people will vote for term limits, as well. Not only the 'Devil you know', but the 'Do as I say, not as I do'.
Brad Steele
a term limits set by the Constitution would have helped address the problem of the stupidity/indifference of voters and/or the rise of the dependent class of leeches.?????? maybe
Term limits will not solve the problems of this country and would probably make it much worse.
Our main problems are mostly caused by two factors. #1 is the percentage of stupid voters and their misunderstanding of how the government works and where the government gets it's money.
#2 is the bureaucracy and the unionization of the public employees.
The largest percentage of public employees are democrat and vote to retain their position and power. The elected officials have little control over them. They should never have been allowed to unionize.
Term Limits will never be imposed upon politicians at the federal.
Why would anybody ever vote to do away with their own job? Anybody who understands how the government works knows that term limits will never be imposed on the Federal level. No use even thinking about.
It Ain't gonna happen.
Instead of a series of love taps, they'll go for the knockout.
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
+1000
Naivety
Naivety is the state of being na?ve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.
Are you in favor of Oblama taking a third term, or more?
No. Are you?
Obama should not have had a first term, he was and is not qualified for the position, and never was president, but rather "pretend president". Like strapping a beak and wings on a cat, it will never be a bird.
But, I would say that the term limit worked as it should, so no third term for the pretender allowed.
So, what is the +1000 for? I took it to mean that you don't think term limits are a good thing, and that equates to a third term for Obama. [;)]
Also, Naive as to how elections do not equal term limits. There are other forces at play in politics. Those in power, can squash competition before it even begins. It happens in AZ, nobody even ran against my representative, and it is because of the full network of cronies involved.
Term limits would help us out and give people who really do want to serve a chance to get in.
The locals know the power that is held and the problems they will incur if they run. It is underhanded devious stuff that the media is afraid to touch. It is also veiled fairly well, and separated for plausible deniability for those indirectly in control.
Voting for your own raise and for more power seems a bit of a lopsided. That should be illegal as well.
I don't know how many sides this coin has, but at least one of them is that if you believe politicians are all crooked and in it for the graft, term limits will cause politicians to get all they can while they can.
Instead of a series of love taps, they'll go for the knockout.
That may be true, and the citizens will not be fooled and have the option of doing something about it at the time. Like the chipping away of the 2nd, bit by bit the get it done, but if they go for the golden ring too early, there will be revolt.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
We have term limits. The USA has always had term limits. It's called elections. As soon as the majority of the voters elect to turn out their representation their terms are over, limited. That is as it should be. On the other hand if the voting public decides to retain their representation, no matter how much everybody hates them they remain in office. That too is as it should be. We should not give the government the authority to dictate who we can vote for.
Once upon a time it was that way with the President. Then the public decided that we, the voting public, had killed FDR by returning him for a third term. Emotion took over and the Twenty-Second Amendment became the law of the land. I see no reason to repeat that mistake.
+1000
Naivety
Naivety is the state of being na?ve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.
Are you in favor of Oblama taking a third term, or more?
No. Are you?
Obama should not have had a first term, he was and is not qualified for the position, and never was president, but rather "pretend president". Like strapping a beak and wings on a cat, it will never be a bird.
But, I would say that the term limit worked as it should, so no third term for the pretender allowed.
So, what is the +1000 for? I took it to mean that you don't think term limits are a good thing, and that equates to a third term for Obama. [;)]
Also, Naive as to how elections do not equal term limits. There are other forces at play in politics. Those in power, can squash competition before it even begins. It happens in AZ, nobody even ran against my representative, and it is because of the full network of cronies involved.
Term limits would help us out and give people who really do want to serve a chance to get in.
The locals know the power that is held and the problems they will incur if they run. It is underhanded devious stuff that the media is afraid to touch. It is also veiled fairly well, and separated for plausible deniability for those indirectly in control.
Voting for your own raise and for more power seems a bit of a lopsided. That should be illegal as well.
Your logic is comical. I am not in favor of constitutionally mandated term limits suggests I want Obama for a third term? Based on what reasoning?
If you note the things Jim said, "we have term limits, we have always had term limits, they're called elections". Since we already have them, why would I support a nannystate position on the matter? Perhaps the better question is, why are you so juvenile in your thought processes that you must be forced by mother government into choices?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
Why do you ask?
You inserted yourself into this thread asking me questions.
Again, my privilege to ask in response.
But, it was a rhetorical question.
Just like the other poster, I note that you failed to answer.
I'm pretty sure you have your reason(s).
Nice to see you posting again.
I have not failed to answer, in the same way you have not failed to answer. And as this is an open forum, my "insert[ing] of myself into this thread asking questions" is my prerogative entirely. Likewise, it is my privilege to ask in response.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
Why do you ask?
You inserted yourself into this thread asking me questions.
Again, my privilege to ask in response.
But, it was a rhetorical question.
Just like the other poster, I note that you failed to answer.
I'm pretty sure you have your reason(s).
Nice to see you posting again.
I have not failed to answer, in the same way you have not failed to answer. And as this is an open forum, my "insert[ing] of myself into this thread asking questions" is my prerogative entirely. Likewise, it is my privilege to ask in response.
This is like watching a gator and a giant python fight. Interesting, but no one gives a damn who wins since they're both pests.[}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Amazing what people want to do when they think they can.
Do you have a problem with this proposal?
Do you support term limits?
Is the 22nd amendment acceptable to you?
Why do you ask ?
Why do you ask?
My privilege, since I was first addressed and asked for more.
What's your point ?
Why do you ask?
You inserted yourself into this thread asking me questions.
Again, my privilege to ask in response.
But, it was a rhetorical question.
Just like the other poster, I note that you failed to answer.
I'm pretty sure you have your reason(s).
Nice to see you posting again.
I have not failed to answer, in the same way you have not failed to answer.
True, your failure is of entirely different nature.
And as this is an open forum, my "insert[ing] of myself into this thread asking questions" is my prerogative entirely.
Never said anything different. But it does contribute to an evaluation of your motives.
Likewise, it is my privilege to ask in response.
You did not ask in response to any discussion I was having with you. If you are going to insert yourself, you should expect to subordinate any questions until mine first are answered. Manners do count, and good ones speak well for their owner.
Your complete failure to adequately and/or properly analyze the history of responses in this thread is disturbingly predictable.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain