- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,244
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
Last edited: