to repeal term limits for the prez

[Renae]

And as a hyperpartisan conservative, you, similarly, have avoided my argument. I wonder why that is? It's always fun confronting you guys on your hypocrisy...and watching you scurry off.

So, here is my argument, again. Let's see if you will address it:

I know you would much rather discuss what you want, rather than actually addressing the content of my post, but in order to help you stay on topic, I will repost it for you. Perhaps then you will address it...if you can:

In the free market, a business will survive or not survive based on it's practices and the impact of these practices on the public. Either the public will buy from the business, allowing it to prosper, or not, allowing it to fail. Without regulation and rules, the free market dictates survival or elimination of a business.

Without term limits, a President will either remain in office, or be removed based on his/her practices and the impact these practices have on the public. Either the public will support and vote for the President, allowing him/her to stay in office, or not, allowing him/her to be voted out. With out regulation and rules (term limits), the public, freely decides who governs and who does not.

Please show how these two scenarios are NOT metaphorically similar.

Come on Mr. Vicchio. Bilbus has already refused. Let's see if you can do better.

This isn't the freemarket. This is political power. In the free market, you have a choice whether or not to buy a Ford or a Chevy. Imagine if you will, that for the next 16 years your neighbors insisted you bought a Kia. Further more, because of this forced choice, Kia is able to marginalize the competition, making it harder for you to convince enough people to allow you to buy a Ford.

That's what your analogy amounts too. It SOUNDS good till you actually inject a little thought into it, then, like the weak minded premise it is, it collapses under the gentlest push of logic. Checks and balances, that's the core of our system. Some checks are harder then others. The FF didn't believe in the government, neo-statist like yourself, put much trust in government. That's why you have no problem allowing people to remain in office "as long as the voters vote for them"...

San Antonio enacted Term Limits about 20 years ago or so... guess what? That's when the city council really started to be effective.


You're more then welcome to keep spewing it out there though... I don't mind watching you make a fool of yourself.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Unlike the hyperpartisans here, I'll take your argument. The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the market is rational, that voters in this case are actually going to view empirical evidence as to whether or not a president is doing a good job. As the media has shown, the average voter is as dumb as a pile of bricks and extremely easily manipulated. This does not bode well for no term limits. Congress is a good example of this. Many a long elected Congressmen has been sent to jail or shown to have participated in some extremely shady deal. Yet they still get elected. FDR's economy during his first term did not get better. Yet he got re-elected.

Excellent points. However, I would submit that the consumer is just as stupid as the voter. In fact, since they are one in the same, there is no difference. Businesses get shown to be involved in shady deals, and use unfair business practices all the time. Yet they thrive. Think about Wal-Mart. Hiring illegal immigrants, buying merchandise from sweatshops. Yet there are new ones popping up all over, driving mom-and-pop shops out of business.

The psychology of greed rules both the political and business worlds. That's why my analogy works so well.

I'd actually argue for single term for the president. This way the president is not acting in a partisan fashion for reelection and can make the hard, unpopular, decisions that need to be done. Bush started doing the right thing during his second term because he had effectively nothing to lose. American often cannot wait four years for the president to start making the hard decisions necessary. I fear that Obama will not make the hard, unpopular decisions because he's worried about reelection. No chance of a second term relieves that problem.

Rutherford B. Hayes was a President who thought like this. There is something to be said for the honest actions of a "lame duck" so to speak.

Though I don't agree with you, thanks for at least addressing my question.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This isn't the freemarket. This is political power. In the free market, you have a choice whether or not to buy a Ford or a Chevy. Imagine if you will, that for the next 16 years your neighbors insisted you bought a Kia. Further more, because of this forced choice, Kia is able to marginalize the competition, making it harder for you to convince enough people to allow you to buy a Ford.

You are thinking black and white...not surprisingly. You want to buy a new car. You choose a Chevy. You lease it for 2 years. You don't like it. When the lease is up, you turn it in and get a Ford.

You vote for Candidate Smith for President. He wins. You don't like the job he does. Next election, you vote him out.

Same thing.

That's what your analogy amounts too. It SOUNDS good till you actually inject a little thought into it, then, like the weak minded premise it is, it collapses under the gentlest push of logic. Checks and balances, that's the core of our system. Some checks are harder then others. The FF didn't believe in the government, neo-statist like yourself, put much trust in government. That's why you have no problem allowing people to remain in office "as long as the voters vote for them"...

And yet, you have not proven that it doesn't apply. All you have done is bluster around like others of your kind. How about trying to put forth a little logical effort and make a reasonable argument. Prove my metaphor wrong. Or, at least make a good try. So far, you've done nothing.

San Antonio enacted Term Limits about 20 years ago or so... guess what? That's when the city council really started to be effective.

How about expanding on this?

You're more then welcome to keep spewing it out there though... I don't mind watching you make a fool of yourself.

Only one making a fool of himself, here, is you, and others who won't address this. You're showing that beyond the partisanship, you can't formulate a logical argument. You've done nothing to dispel this.

Come on Mr. V. A little effort.

 

[obvious Child]

The psychology of greed rules both the political and business worlds. That's why my analogy works so well.

Wait. How does that lead to better government? If your analogy is based on the same premise as free market, and as we know that free market capitalism engages in shady operations, how does that produce better government?

In the past decade, good CEOs have been canned by their shareholders because shareholders were duped by poor information. The head of Verizon (I think) lost his job because Verizon's returns were much lower then WorldCom. We all know now that WorldCom was cooking the books, but the free market lead to a bad outcome as consumers removed an excellent CEO who actually was making good, honest returns. While I realize this argues that by analogy voters would remove a president who was doing a good job, it also suggests that voters could be swayed the opposite direction.

Rutherford B. Hayes was a President who thought like this. There is something to be said for the honest actions of a "lame duck" so to speak.

In this day and age, that's all I can ask for from a president.

Though I don't agree with you, thanks for at least addressing my question.

Any time.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Wait. How does that lead to better government? If your analogy is based on the same premise as free market, and as we know that free market capitalism engages in shady operations, how does that produce better government?

:idea: Now, you're getting it...

In the past decade, good CEOs have been canned by their shareholders because shareholders were duped by poor information. The head of Verizon (I think) lost his job because Verizon's returns were much lower then WorldCom. We all know now that WorldCom was cooking the books, but the free market lead to a bad outcome as consumers removed an excellent CEO who actually was making good, honest returns. While I realize this argues that by analogy voters would remove a president who was doing a good job, it also suggests that voters could be swayed the opposite direction.

Everything you said makes perfect sense and fits the analogy.

In this day and age, that's all I can ask for from a president.

And sometimes this is what makes a good President.

 

[Renae]

You are thinking black and white...not surprisingly.

I'm a realist, it works for me.

You want to buy a new car. You choose a Chevy. You lease it for 2 years. You don't like it. When the lease is up, you turn it in and get a Ford.

You vote for Candidate Smith for President. He wins. You don't like the job he does. Next election, you vote him out.

Same thing.

Apples, oranges. In one case it's your choice alone that matters, in the other not only is it your choice, but the choice of others as well. And the more a person is in power the more they can entrench themselves. That really isn't what was intended ya know.

And yet, you have not proven that it doesn't apply. All you have done is bluster around like others of your kind. How about trying to put forth a little logical effort and make a reasonable argument. Prove my metaphor wrong. Or, at least make a good try. So far, you've done nothing.

I shattered it. The very basis of your analogy is flawed. If it were not Bush would have never served a second term. Did you vote for Bush? I know plenty here who did not. Yet he won... woah.

How about expanding on this?

uhm... what's to expand on? Teh city didn't have TL, there were problems... cronyism, too much power by city council members.... term limits came in and lots of things went for the better. They did just increase the terms from 2 2 year to 4 2 year.

Only one making a fool of himself, here, is you, and others who won't address this. You're showing that beyond the partisanship, you can't formulate a logical argument. You've done nothing to dispel this.

Come on Mr. V. A little effort.

I've done as much as I can, you like to think of yourself as a really good debater, and above the fold as it were in terms of not being hyper -partisan and well spoken. You aren't.

Your argument for removing presidential term limits is that people can always just vote the guy out. Yet you ignore the truth, that incumbents always have an advantage in elections. That's why we have 40+ year serving Senators... They become entrenched. That sort fo power in a President is... scary. WE weren't meant to have a king.

 

[bilbus]

in the free market you can choose to do business with a organization or not to.

with a government you do not have the same choice.

Like i said earlier, business does not have the ability to oppress you, government does.

 

[obvious Child]

:idea: Now, you're getting it... ]

You're going to have to be a bit more direct here. The Free Market when driven by less than rational consumers sometimes leads to bad outcomes. Analogizing this to government suggests that voters will make bad votes and we'll get crappy government but over the long run.

Everything you said makes perfect sense and fits the analogy.

I still don't get how we get better government out of your plan.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm a realist, it works for me.

Realists understand shades of gray. You do not.

Apples, oranges. In one case it's your choice alone that matters, in the other not only is it your choice, but the choice of others as well. And the more a person is in power the more they can entrench themselves. That really isn't what was intended ya know.

No the same thing applies. If you return your Chevy, doing so has little or no impact on GM. If many people return their Chevys, GM is in trouble. If you do not vote for Candidate Smith it has little or no impact on him getting elected. If many people do not vote for candidate Smith, he's in trouble. You have to think a little outside the box, here, and move from the individual, to the global.

I shattered it. The very basis of your analogy is flawed. If it were not Bush would have never served a second term. Did you vote for Bush? I know plenty here who did not. Yet he won... woah.

Again, you completely missed it...not surprisingly. Here, try this. Name one industry that was destroyed by one person.

uhm... what's to expand on? Teh city didn't have TL, there were problems... cronyism, too much power by city council members.... term limits came in and lots of things went for the better. They did just increase the terms from 2 2 year to 4 2 year.

And why did they increase the term limits?

I've done as much as I can, you like to think of yourself as a really good debater, and above the fold as it were in terms of not being hyper -partisan and well spoken. You aren't.

Sure I am. You haven't even touched dispelling the argument. The free market and the government are impacted by the same types of things. If people don't like a product, they don't buy it, it goes out of business. If people don't like an official, they don't vote for him, he doesn't get re-elected. Why is it that you want the people to decide in the former, but not in the latter. The product starts to suck? People won't buy it. The official becomes tyrannical? The people will vote him out. Sounds hypocritical to not believe in both things. And you've done absolutely zero to dispel this. Come on. This should be easy...except it's not.

Your argument for removing presidential term limits is that people can always just vote the guy out. Yet you ignore the truth, that incumbents always have an advantage in elections. That's why we have 40+ year serving Senators... They become entrenched. That sort fo power in a President is... scary. WE weren't meant to have a king.

So what are you saying? The population is stupid? If the incumbent sucks, why don't the people vote him out, in your opinion?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

in the free market you can choose to do business with a organization or not to.

with a government you do not have the same choice.

Like i said earlier, business does not have the ability to oppress you, government does.

OK. Don't use Microsoft products. Ever. Try to do business with others.

Or, refuse to buy gas. Ever. Let's see what happens.

You think business can't be oppressive? You're being naive.

And, if a government official is breaking the law, he/she will be removed in one way or another.

 

[jallman]

Although I understand the potential abuses and the tendency to be constantly campaigning rather than doing the job, I would like to see the 22nd Amendment repealed. If someone is doing a good job, let them continue. Allow the people to decide whether someone should remain President or not. I am a little surprised that "free marketers" would not agree with this and see the similarity.

That's how I feel about it. Under one caveat, though. We repeal the term limits and implement a mechanism for a "no confidence" vote to balance it out.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You're going to have to be a bit more direct here. The Free Market when driven by less than rational consumers sometimes leads to bad outcomes. Analogizing this to government suggests that voters will make bad votes and we'll get crappy government but over the long run.

So, you are saying that people, at times, make decisions, not based on rationality, but on other things. What other things? And what impact do you see that having both on the free market and on government.

BTW, you're getting real close.

I still don't get how we get better government out of your plan.

I know. That's OK. For now.

 

[Renae]

Realists understand shades of gray. You do not.

I understand shades of gray, I consider that a form of cowardice to look at the world with no set values and always looking for the "gray" area.

No the same thing applies. If you return your Chevy, doing so has little or no impact on GM. If many people return their Chevys, GM is in trouble. If you do not vote for Candidate Smith it has little or no impact on him getting elected. If many people do not vote for candidate Smith, he's in trouble. You have to think a little outside the box, here, and move from the individual, to the global.

I don't do global... I do the USA.
However, the problem with your point, and here's me being a realist here, is that political power tends to form entrenchment... you never addressed that issue.

Again, you completely missed it...not surprisingly. Here, try this. Name one industry that was destroyed by one person.

Horse and Buggy, destroyed by Ford. Candle Industry, destroyed by Edison.

And why did they increase the term limits?

They felt they were too short, that the turn over rate was a bit excessive. It's taken almost 12 years to get the extra terms. The other option was to remove them, and that was soundly defeated.

Sure I am. You haven't even touched dispelling the argument. The free market and the government are impacted by the same types of things. If people don't like a product, they don't buy it, it goes out of business. If people don't like an official, they don't vote for him, he doesn't get re-elected. Why is it that you want the people to decide in the former, but not in the latter. The product starts to suck? People won't buy it. The official becomes tyrannical? The people will vote him out. Sounds hypocritical to not believe in both things. And you've done absolutely zero to dispel this. Come on. This should be easy...except it's not.

Except this isn't something pointless like a business CC, this is real power. That's the problem here, you are equating something that is over all meaningless, with something that has meaning.

So what are you saying? The population is stupid? If the incumbent sucks, why don't the people vote him out, in your opinion?

I've always held the opinion people suck as a general rule, but that's aside the point. History has shown, to use your angle, the consumer is stupid.

Betamax lost to VHS, classic example of this. People often vote for their personal interests over national... the old "all politics are local." line of thought. This dove tails with... and I've always attributed this to de Tocqueville, "the American experiment of Democracy will fail the moment the populace realizes it can vote itself gold from the treasury".

This is the basic back logic behind why term limits are good, and NEEDED in the House and Senate. House and Senate members amass much personal and political power. They hand out "pork" (read gold) and keep in office.

Limiting their ability to gain the power to do that would be a huge step in the right direction.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I understand shades of gray, I consider that a form of cowardice to look at the world with no set values and always looking for the "gray" area.

Gray exists whether you like it or not. Those with rigid closed-minded thinking are the ones who refuse to see this. You are denying reality.

I don't do global... I do the USA.
However, the problem with your point, and here's me being a realist here, is that political power tends to form entrenchment... you never addressed that issue.

Global meant beyond the individual, not "the world". We are discussing the US.

And entrenchment applies to business, too. Try and get rid of Microsoft.

Horse and Buggy, destroyed by Ford. Candle Industry, destroyed by Edison.

Horse and buggy destroyed by the auto industry...unless Ford built all those cars by his lonesome. Candle industry destroyed by Edison...oh wait, candles are still pretty popular. But, for your example, Edison was not the only one producing light bulbs. You are discussing inventors. I am discussing industry/business. I thought you were, too.

Lenin did not win the Communist Revolution in Russia by himself. Hitler didn't take over Germany without help.

My analogy stands firm.

They felt they were too short, that the turn over rate was a bit excessive. It's taken almost 12 years to get the extra terms. The other option was to remove them, and that was soundly defeated.

Shades of gray, huh?

Except this isn't something pointless like a business CC, this is real power. That's the problem here, you are equating something that is over all meaningless, with something that has meaning.

Now we're getting somewhere. So, you are saying that the free market is meaningless? And government has meaning? Or am I misreading what you wrote?

I've always held the opinion people suck as a general rule, but that's aside the point. History has shown, to use your angle, the consumer is stupid.

Betamax lost to VHS, classic example of this. People often vote for their personal interests over national... the old "all politics are local." line of thought. This dove tails with... and I've always attributed this to de Tocqueville, "the American experiment of Democracy will fail the moment the populace realizes it can vote itself gold from the treasury".

This is the basic back logic behind why term limits are good, and NEEDED in the House and Senate. House and Senate members amass much personal and political power. They hand out "pork" (read gold) and keep in office.

Limiting their ability to gain the power to do that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. And let me try to say it in an analogous way. People are stupid. Consumers and voters often buy/vote for things/people based on popularity/familiarity rather than efficacy. Did I get your position on this, correct?

 

[bilbus]

More needs to be done, i think it's wrong that the prez gets terms.

Even worse example is Congress, corruption everywhere. If they could only serve one term things would be different.

 

[Orion]

I agree with Jallman... if you want to remove term limits you need an interrim ability to remove someone from power by triggering an election. This is the system that Canada has, although we are a Parliamentary Democracy so things work a little differently.

The problem with non-confidence votes is that it could trigger election, and the people could vote back in the same person into power; then another non-confidence vote could be triggered, and where would it defer to? It couldn't go back to the people again because they would likely just vote the same person back in. This entire process would cost a lot of money and delay the function of government. In Canada, a second vote of non-confidence defers to the monarchy... but where would it go in the U.S., the Supreme Court?

The other problem is that the U.S. is a two party system. A vote of non-confidence will always be determined by the majority, and the President's party always has the majority in the two party system. What are the chances that a Democrat or Republican would vote against their party leader? There are not enough swing votes to make it fair. You'd need a third party or more.

I'm in favour of removing term limits as long as there is some backup process to check power along the way, but in the U.S. I don't see how it could fairly operate.

 

[Renae]

Gray exists whether you like it or not. Those with rigid closed-minded thinking are the ones who refuse to see this. You are denying reality.

I am not denying reality, I am shaping reality into terms. There is a difference.

Global meant beyond the individual, not "the world". We are discussing the US.

And entrenchment applies to business, too. Try and get rid of Microsoft.

I WAS being a tad funny there, thus the

As for MS... they won the OS war. That's a very specific case of need and product plus good marketing and hard nosed business.

Horse and buggy destroyed by the auto industry...unless Ford built all those cars by his lonesome. Candle industry destroyed by Edison...oh wait, candles are still pretty popular. But, for your example, Edison was not the only one producing light bulbs. You are discussing inventors. I am discussing industry/business. I thought you were, too.

I am too, I just don't know many BUSINESS people off the top of my head. Ford enabled mass production and Edison got the first working light bulb. In both cases Their hard work took out the competition and "destroyed" them. Candles used to be the primary night source of light... care to say they have a share of the lighting market?

Lenin did not win the Communist Revolution in Russia by himself. Hitler didn't take over Germany without help.

No, but their strength of personality, and the cult as it were, that built around them enabled them to do what they did.

My analogy stands firm.

We disagree here.

Shades of gray, huh?

No reality of the situation. They've been trying to remove or extend term limits for years. The City Council is doing a great job and managed to convince enough people that the bad old days are gone. I voted against them.

Now we're getting somewhere. So, you are saying that the free market is meaningless? And government has meaning? Or am I misreading what you wrote?

You are misreading me. Free markets are very important, but an individual product is not. Government has power, power to really **** with your life, business... no... they don't.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. And let me try to say it in an analogous way. People are stupid. Consumers and voters often buy/vote for things/people based on popularity/familiarity rather than efficacy. Did I get your position on this, correct?

Basically... yes.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am not denying reality, I am shaping reality into terms. There is a difference.

That means one of two things. You are shaping reality into your terms. One's reality is based on one's perception. Since each person's perception is different, each of our experiences of reality is somewhat different.

Or, by shaping reality, you are altering it from a rigid black or white form. To a shade of gray.

Which would it be?

I WAS being a tad funny there, thus the

Missed it. :doh

As for MS... they won the OS war. That's a very specific case of need and product plus good marketing and hard nosed business.

I agree. Still, unseating them, in our current environment is not possible.

I am too, I just don't know many BUSINESS people off the top of my head. Ford enabled mass production and Edison got the first working light bulb. In both cases Their hard work took out the competition and "destroyed" them. Candles used to be the primary night source of light... care to say they have a share of the lighting market?

In both situations it was industry destroying industry. The invention itself was only a small part of the success. One person just doesn't have that kind of power, even if they are a driving force.

No, but their strength of personality, and the cult as it were, that built around them enabled them to do what they did.

I agree. And this is similar to what I described above with industry. Different type of "cult" but believers nontheless. Neither Hitler nor Lenin could have done what they did without tremendous propaganda...or PR so to speak. Ford and Edison were the same.

We disagree here.

Yup.

No reality of the situation. They've been trying to remove or extend term limits for years. The City Council is doing a great job and managed to convince enough people that the bad old days are gone. I voted against them.

A middleground was agreed upon. Both ends of the spectrum were to extreme/rigid. A shade of gray was deemed appropriate.

You are misreading me. Free markets are very important, but an individual product is not. Government has power, power to really **** with your life, business... no... they don't.

So, are you saying that government is more important that the free market. If this is accurate, one would think that allowing for as much freedom as possible, governmentally, would be logical. Allowing term limits restricts freedom of choice.

Basically... yes.

Interesting. That is my position, precisely. So, since people react in both situations, identically, shouldn't the rules in both situations be identical?

 

[Renae]

That means one of two things. You are shaping reality into your terms. One's reality is based on one's perception. Since each person's perception is different, each of our experiences of reality is somewhat different.

Tis why we have laws, standards... those little things to keep things orderly and ensure people do the right thing.

Or, by shaping reality, you are altering it from a rigid black or white form. To a shade of gray.

Which would it be?

Quantifying.

Missed it. :doh

It happens.

I agree. Still, unseating them, in our current environment is not possible.

It "COULD" be done, but the cost upfront to create, market and out hustle MS would be very hard to do.

In both situations it was industry destroying industry. The invention itself was only a small part of the success. One person just doesn't have that kind of power, even if they are a driving force.

... Tiger Woods redefined golf. Babe Ruth Baseball... Michael Jordon Basketball.

I agree. And this is similar to what I described above with industry. Different type of "cult" but believers nontheless. Neither Hitler nor Lenin could have done what they did without tremendous propaganda...or PR so to speak. Ford and Edison were the same.

There has only been one person that changed the world, and he got nailed to a tree for it.

A middleground was agreed upon. Both ends of the spectrum were to extreme/rigid. A shade of gray was deemed appropriate.

No, people forgot why the term limits were in place to begin with, and the mayor made a hard push to change things. He's fairly popular here.

So, are you saying that government is more important that the free market. If this is accurate, one would think that allowing for as much freedom as possible, governmentally, would be logical. Allowing term limits restricts freedom of choice.

No, you miss the big picture. Government is too powerful, and must be held in check, as tightly as possible.

Interesting. That is my position, precisely. So, since people react in both situations, identically, shouldn't the rules in both situations be identical?

No. Because one is just stuff, the other is power. Power is dangerous.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Tis why we have laws, standards... those little things to keep things orderly and ensure people do the right thing.

Quantifying.

It happens.

It "COULD" be done, but the cost upfront to create, market and out hustle MS would be very hard to do.

... Tiger Woods redefined golf. Babe Ruth Baseball... Michael Jordon Basketball.


There has only been one person that changed the world, and he got nailed to a tree for it.

No, people forgot why the term limits were in place to begin with, and the mayor made a hard push to change things. He's fairly popular here.

No, you miss the big picture. Government is too powerful, and must be held in check, as tightly as possible.

No. Because one is just stuff, the other is power. Power is dangerous.

This is an excellent debate, but I must call it a night, or I will end up getting no sleep because of DP...again. :doh

I will pick this up tomorrow. Good debating with you.

 

[Renae]

This is an excellent debate, but I must call it a night, or I will end up getting no sleep because of DP...again. :doh

I will pick this up tomorrow. Good debating with you.

I'll have to agree, this is good stuff.

 

[Psychoclown]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, Captain. Yes, people are not perfectly rational. Yes, they make poor decisions. However, a vast majority of the decisions have little impact on anyone other than the person that made the decision and those directly dependant on him. If all my neighbors are uninformed idiots and buy inefficient, dangerous, and overpriced products, it doesn't affect me. I can still go buy a superior product at a better price. If enough of my uninformed, idiotic neighbors go and vote in some moron into government, I have to live with that moron's policies as well. Government affects us all. Individual purchases affect the individual. Therefore there is a far greater need to protect us from voter stupidity than there is to protect us from consumer stupidity.

 

[Orion]

I'm less concerned about voter stupidity and more about voter fraud. The more powerful a President becomes, the more links he can have to the voting system. Bush's election was controversial because so many machines failed, and there have been failures ever since their introduction. At least with term limits, a President that may be corrupt or frauded into office can be terminated regardless of how hard he tries to stay in power.

I'm not concerned about voter stupidity. Everyone has the right to vote, even stupid people. If some kind of collective stupidity puts a bad guy in office, then that is still democracy in action and I don't see the term limits protecting that. Also, a President can change over the course of his administration.

Some play it safe in the first four years, and then when they are re-elected and know their power is about to come to an end, they start kicking their agenda into high gear. Bush did this, Clinton did this, Obama will surely do this too. Removing term limits might allow more long-term moderation since the President wouldn't panic in his final days and implement radical policy.

Again, I would be in favour of removing term limits if there were more checks and balances introduced, I'm just not sure what they could be given that the U.S. is a two party system.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm not sure what you're driving at here, Captain. Yes, people are not perfectly rational. Yes, they make poor decisions. However, a vast majority of the decisions have little impact on anyone other than the person that made the decision and those directly dependant on him. If all my neighbors are uninformed idiots and buy inefficient, dangerous, and overpriced products, it doesn't affect me. I can still go buy a superior product at a better price. If enough of my uninformed, idiotic neighbors go and vote in some moron into government, I have to live with that moron's policies as well. Government affects us all. Individual purchases affect the individual. Therefore there is a far greater need to protect us from voter stupidity than there is to protect us from consumer stupidity.

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.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Tis why we have laws, standards... those little things to keep things orderly and ensure people do the right thing.

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.

Quantifying.

Different word. Same concept.

It happens.

True.

It "COULD" be done, but the cost upfront to create, market and out hustle MS would be very hard to do.

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

... Tiger Woods redefined golf. Babe Ruth Baseball... Michael Jordon Basketball.

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.

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.

There has only been one person that changed the world, and he got nailed to a tree for it.

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.

No, people forgot why the term limits were in place to begin with, and the mayor made a hard push to change things. He's fairly popular here.

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

No, you miss the big picture. Government is too powerful, and must be held in check, as tightly as possible.

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

No. Because one is just stuff, the other is power. Power is dangerous.

Stuff gives you power.