TERM LIMITS: SHUD WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT?

yes david, I totally agree.

does your belief apply to the president as well

I choose to leave that alone, for now, anyway.

Can you please pick one way to spell and stick with it? This flip-flopping is giving me a headache.

Shud "foot" not be spelled "fut"?

see i agree with you, but i'd go all out, president for as long as you can be elected

I consider the argument based on being "fired" to be hopelessly naive. First, because a politician's loyalties are to he or she who signs the check; second, because politicians know the public memory is very, very short.

The best argument against term limits is that so much in a legislative body is determined by seniority. If the congressmen of one state are subject to term limits, and those of another are not, the state which has term limits has assured that their congressmen simply won't be eligible for positions of influence. The whole term limit flap was a product of the resurgence of the Republicans in the early 1990s, and part of the alleged contract with America when the Republicans took control of the House in 1994 was for term limits. The Supremes said you can't do that, and the Republicans said they'd fix that with a constitutional amendment--and then did sweet f*ck-all about it. Lies and hypocrisy from politicans ? ! ? ! ? Who would have thought ? ! ? ! ?

Term limits have only successfully been imposed (apart from the amendment that limited presidential terms) within states, and has often been successfully challenged and overturned in state courts.

Aside from a typical, irrelevant and brainless fling about gun control, David (as usual) has nothing to say here.

If the natural tendency of a politician is to do what is "right" for his constituency, then term limits would not be good.

But if the natural tendency of a politician is simply to get re-elected by whatever means possible, then they would find themselves beholden to special interest groups who fund their campaigns through covert mechanisms.

The natural selection process that occurs in politics favors those politicians who's primary goal is to get re-elected, resulting in the government the US currently has, whereby most politicians are beholden to their source of campaign funding.

I have no proposed solution to the problem. Term limits are a double-edged sword. So long as political success is driven by effective marketing (money), which seems inevitable in our media driven society, the problem will remain.

This just in:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Does this mean that Bill Gates (or any large corporation) could direct a large portion of his MicroSoft fortune to paying for media ads for his favorite candidate?

Yes. It means that the rich are firmly in control of our government and the supreme court has once again confirmed that my one vote dosent mean **** against the billions of votes big business can use against the public good for the benefit of thier bottom line. Their should be some way to impeach those stupid money grubbing jerks on the court!

!?

HOORAAAAAY!!!!!

FREE SPEECH and the rights of the INDIVIDUAL triumph!!!

First the 2nd Amendment wins,
and now the 1st Amendment wins!!!





David

YES!

Corporations and groups are not individuals. How does this help individuals?

Why is that good? Doesn't it imply that people and corporations and groups with lots of dollars will have an inequitable effect on elections?

What if a corporation with a thousand employees decides to spend corporate dollars on a particular candidate which only 500 of its employees approve? Should those 500 people quit? Should every company hold internal elections to see which candidate their employees want to fund?

Well, we used to have a Senator referred to as The Senator from Anaconda, didn't we?

I agree with you completely, David. I'd take it further, though, and remove the limits on presidential re-election. Our great wartime president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, showed how reassuring it can be to have the right man at the helm for an unlimited number of four-year terms.

I think all congress people should be required to wear logo's on their suits (like Nascar drivers) that show who their major sponsor are.

Hey, now, there's an idea whose time has come! Love it!

Maybe. For a long time, I approved of the 22nd Amendment, but now, I 'm not so sure. U might be right.

16 years of W