to repeal term limits for the prez

[danarhea]

There was talk among Conservatives of repealing term limits when Bush was in office. Liberals, of course, were very much against that. Why is it that the same people who were against term limits during Bush's term in office are for them now? Easy answer to this - The President today has a D next to his name.

Hypocrisy knows no particular political party.

 

[Psychoclown]

If all of your neighbors are uninformed idiots and buy inefficient, dangerous, and overpriced products, the business that produces the superior product that you want to buy may go bankrupt because they are unable to make money...because of all of the uninformed idiots that prefer to buy inefficient, dangerous, and overpriced products. That is how the decisions of other affect you. Similar to that of government.

Still different. An election requires 50% +1, or sometimes even just a simple plurality depending on the rules to put one candidate in for all of us. It would require 70%, 80%, or even 90% of the consumer market to be making the same bad decision to drive the superior product company out of business.

Also, elections are a one time thing. You vote for a candidate and then no one has any input for another 2, 4, or 6 years (depending on the office). Consumers make purchases everyday. Even big ticket items like homes and cars have thousands of people purchasing them everyday. Business have to be far more responsive to shifts in consumer opinion and habbits. Politicians only have fool half the voters every few years at most. There are some superficial similarities, but there are also some big differences. Its much easier for voter stupidity to affect all of us than it is for consumer stupidity

And I'd also add we already have laws restricting business from getting too powerful or entrenched - anti-trust laws would be the first that come to mind. Truth in advertising, safety standards for both products and workers, minum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws.

In fact anti-trust laws are a good comparison for term limits. Anti-trust laws are about limiting the ability of one company to distort the market. They preserve competition. Same thing with term limits, no one candidate can monopolize a position for an extensive amount of time. He has to step down for at least a term and let someone else get a crack at it. Its not a perfect analogy, but both help to ensure a more dynamic market.

 

[bilbus]

I never heard anyone talk about repeaing the limits with bush.

I for one hated most of bush's policies.

 

[akyron]

There was talk among Conservatives of repealing term limits when Bush was in office.

horseshiite. Which 2 alleged conservatives did you hear?

Criticism of the amendment
"Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first president to whom the amendment applied, expressed concern over the erosion of a second-term president's power and influence, as the president becomes a political lame duck. The term was coined by 18th century English stockbrokers to mean someone who is bankrupt, but later came to mean anyone who has been made weak and ineffective. It now most often applies to politicians who are soon to leave office. This effect was referred to by George W. Bush when, after winning his second term, he told the media "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing-in. We have to move quickly, because after that I'll be quacking like a duck."[4]

In addition, several congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Harry Reid[5], have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee.
"
Hint:
Madame Frank and Land Baron Reid aint conservatives. Never have been.

Any conservative that put forth such a ludicrous idea needs to be kicked out anyway.

 

[Renae]

There was talk among Conservatives of repealing term limits when Bush was in office. Liberals, of course, were very much against that. Why is it that the same people who were against term limits during Bush's term in office are for them now? Easy answer to this - The President today has a D next to his name.

Hypocrisy knows no particular political party.

Can you give us some proof of these claims?

Hmmm?

 

[Renae]

And this is how a moral relativist operates. Each one of us has our own set of morals. However. Societal rules and laws govern the behaviors and actions of those morals. And, those morals come from somewhere, and for most of us, societal rules and laws. And interesting circle, but an accurate one, nonetheless.

Western Society traces it's morals, for the most part to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Different word. Same concept.

The word defines the meaning. Kill and Murder are both the same concept, both mean the end of a life. In one case "I killed a man who broke into my home" is far different from "I murdered the bitch for cheating on me". Different words, same concept, different meaning.

True.

ZOMG we agreed on something...

Theoretically, but it would require not only an industry shift, but a shift in every aspect of computer-life. Wouldn't happen.

It could, Windows isn't perfect, it's more a matter of economics then it is anything else. Switching to a new OS would have to have serious economic benefit to happen, even if you created the "perfect" OS tomorrow, the cost of switching over would be the big stumbling block.

I'm not so familiar with golf or basketball, but I'm a baseball historian. Babe Ruth was the driving force, but he wasn't alone. Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Rogers Hornsby, Chuck Klien, and many others also participated, By the late '20s baseball had been transformed from a dead ball, hit-and-run, stolen base game, to a game of the heavy hitters. Ruth started it, but if there weren't others along with him, baseball could not have changed.

One man, alone may not have much power, one man granted power, influence etc... can change the world. But it all starts with one man.

I'd imagine that basketball and golf were the same. One thing to remember. All three of these players transended their sports because of their personal charisma. They were figureheads for their sports, but that had lots of help in altering the sport itself.

To a point you are correct, but Tiger has to hit the ball, Jordan had to make the shot...

And even that, it would say that if other people didn't pick up his mantle. he would have just been another guy nailed to a tree.

But it took his words, his actions to inspire them, without that inspiration they wouldn't have taken up his mantle.

Sounds like a shade of gray to me. Different rules depending on the situation.

... Sounds like people forgot the reason they limited the terms and went soft to me.

You are being naive if you don't think that business is in the same boat. Look at what is happening, nowadays.

Business cycles in a free market. Bubbles happen, only this time people panicked and those in power, Bush to Obama took that and used government to solve it. One did so in a panic I think, the other as a power grab.

Stuff gives you power.

Nothing is more dangerous then political power.

 

[HelloDollyLlama]

We got along without presdential term limits for almost two centuries, with no problem. There guys like Washington and Jackson who could have been president for life if they wanted. But generally, one of two things will happen.

First, a president wears out after eight years and wants to go home -- the only guy who kept on going was FDR and he literally worked himself to death.
Look at pictures of any president before and after -- some of the photos of Lincoln in 1864-5 are ghastly, as are the 1945 shots of FDR. For that matter, pictures of Clinton at the beginning of the 1992 campaign, and on election day, are almost Dorian-Gray.

Or, second, the people get sick of him: think of all the presidents whose second terms were bumpier than their first terms -- Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Ike, Truman....Even FDR had a rough time in his second term, although he survived it.

Worrying about president-for-life tyranny is silly when we have elections, and checks and balances with Congress.

And worrying about Obama and the Democrats launching some sort of extraconstitutional coup d'etat is perfectly ridiculous, particularly considering all the extraconstitutional crap perpetrated by his predecessor.

Also, it's a major pain in the butt to amend the Constitution.

 

[peepnklown]

I concur with term-limits for Congress as well.