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.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
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?
I explained why voting is not term limits. You got a problem with that? If you do, you can use the adult conversational tactic of asking for clarification, or you could add to the conversation and expound on the original theory of why you agree that term limits are the same as voting.
Oh, and how clever you are asking a false question, I suppose anybody who has a curiosity for the truth has a "juvenile" mind. [:D]
House terms expire acter two years and Senate terms expire after six years. Prior to exiration, the voters of the district or state determine if the person holding office has earned the right of the job for another 2 or 6 years. The power to limit terms exists in proper place right now, and an external restriction upon the choice of the people is not necessary. The Federal Government exists to preserve and defend the rights and choice of the people. We should be very careful about relinquishing any of our power to that government.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by mag00
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?
I explained why voting is not term limits. You got a problem with that? If you do, you can use the adult conversational tactic of asking for clarification, or you could add to the conversation and expound on the original theory of why you agree that term limits are the same as voting.
Oh, and how clever you are asking a false question, I suppose anybody who has a curiosity for the truth has a "juvenile" mind. [:D]
Brad Steele