Umm... All hail king Barry?
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Someone somewhere? A member of Congress whose able to put anything on the table for a vote is hardly someone somewhere.
1 person out of 435 members of the House of Representatives. Why, that is practically a majority!! And getting a 2/3 majority in both houses plus three quarters of the states to agree to the proposal is going to be a piece of cake.
BoneSoft wrote:
But they've been stacking everything else toward a perpetual majority play, why wouldn't they add this to their plan?
The question is based on a false premise. They have done nothing else toward a perpetual majority. And, like I said, abolishing term limits only means that Presidents have a chance to be re-elected. Term limits are no big deal either way. (It is a pity George Bush didn't have the chance to run for a third term; that would have been fun to watch.)
John Carson
Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
------------------------------------ "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." Dr Samuel Johnson
-
Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
------------------------------------ "Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good." Dr Samuel Johnson
Dalek Dave wrote:
Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
Not sure what point you are making.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, but we were clearly vunerable as FDR proved, which was the motivation for the original amendment.
Vulnerable to someone having a third term? Yes. But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship. FDR only got a third term because the voters elected him.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
John Carson wrote:
FDR only got a third term because the voters elected him.
Apparently, after yesterday's change in term limits, the same will soon be said of Hugo Chavez. Hasn't been long since they changed the term limits in Russia, either, alowing Vlad the Impaler Putin to seek another third term. You may remember that the former secret policeman at first declared that his would be a "dictatorship of the law," but has now decreed that it is a 'managed democracy."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
Oh come on! The UK has no limitaiton on the number of terms a PM can serve. In fact, limiting it is actually UN democratic since it FORBIDS people voting for who they want.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
John Carson wrote:
But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
What does that have to do with an absence of term limits? There is competition for office. If one candidate for president can "buy off groups of voters", then so can rivals for the position. Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
What does that have to do with an absence of term limits? There is competition for office. If one candidate for president can "buy off groups of voters", then so can rivals for the position. Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms? I think the census thing is way overblown. The migrant thing is more politically significant; changing demography is producing a shift in US politics (though migrants are not "certain" to vote Democrat). However, it is paranoia to regard it as a Democratic plot. There are powerful economic forces behind the migration flow and business is among its strongest supporters. The Republicans under Bush did nothing effective to change the situation.
John Carson
-
Well it is this Florida (I think, can't remember) whack job who always puts it forth. But I wouldn't be surprised if somebody suddenly likes the idea now.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Na, Jose represents the great metropolis of NYC (and part times as the Puerto Rican / Latin American at large rep). Latins in Florida are mostly of Cuban extraction, and have little sympathy for removing term limits, given their memories of Castro). Interstingly, his web page doesn't even mention this, so I guess his constituents don't even know what Jose is up to.
-
Oakman wrote:
Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
Oh come on! The UK has no limitaiton on the number of terms a PM can serve. In fact, limiting it is actually UN democratic since it FORBIDS people voting for who they want.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The UK has no limitaiton on the number of terms a PM can serve
I don't know how to break it to you, but the U.S. doesn't have a Prime Minister. We have a President who has far more power and far less responsibility to the legislature than does the UK's Prime Minister.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact, limiting it is actually UN democratic since it FORBIDS people voting for who they want.
But a minute ago you were comparing the president of the US who at least is elected by people from all over the land, with the UK's Prime Minister who is elected by 50%+1 of one house of Parliament. Kindly make up your mind as to what method of electing a national leader works best and get back to me. The real truth is that ultimately it doesn't matter. Presidents and Prime Ministers and Glorious Leaders are all selected by a relatively small group of people who then arrange to have them put into power. This is as true of the U.S. as it is of Venezuela or France. I did grow up in a time and place where this was hidden better than it is today, but now it is pretty clear that voting rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic, it doesn't change its course. That's up to the captain and his officers.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
John Carson wrote:
But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
So the Tweedledee and the tweedledum party have been able to stay in power 148 years. (You, yourself, in your saner moments have said that the Republicans and Democrats aren't all that different and that the true conservative cause (whatever that is) is not served by either of 'em.) Any dictatorship is an Oligarchy with a strong front man. There have been times when we have strong men and times when we have had weak ones, but the true power mongers faces change only with the generations. Bill Clinton recently pointed out, correctly, I think, that many of the changes in society that Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) proposed were actually implemented by his cousin, Franklin (a Democrat.) Later, Richard Nixon fulfilled the campaign promises of Adlai Stevenson by taking us off the gold standard and recognizing China. Your "national hero," Bush, tried really hard to grant amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens who still consider themselves native of a foreign power, doubled the national debt (Roosevelt was very cautious about that, comparatively) and nationalised the banks. You think your vote matters? Hah!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Tell that to the Weimar Republic.
Clearly the US today is a carbon copy.
Oakman wrote:
Apparently, after yesterday's change in term limits, the same will soon be said of Hugo Chavez.
And the US is apparently a carbon copy of Venezuela too. In other alarming news, New York has abolished term limits for mayor. Clearly a dictatorship is on the way there too. Even more alarming is the fact that 13 States in the US currently have no term limits of any sort for Governor and thus have been dictatorships for some time, including Texas I'm sorry to say.
John Carson
modified on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:55 AM
Memo to Carson: The Weimar Republic was, at least briefly a western-style republic. It might have continued to exist in much the same form except for the destructive economic forces that ripped Europe apart in the late twenties and early thirties. Look it up.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
What does that have to do with an absence of term limits? There is competition for office. If one candidate for president can "buy off groups of voters", then so can rivals for the position. Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
Nope, but if there is an absence of term limits, it makes it easier to stay in power for a long time. No-one has said that this and this alone will make all the difference. And your attempts at claiming that someone did so reflect badly on your arguments, not ours.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Tell me about it. I expected him to enact a bunch of socialist programs that would take generations to fix, but I didn't expect it to be a roller coaster ride quite like this. It's barely been a month and he's already got funding for everything. And on top of all that... Bush spent all his time dealing with the external, to the detriment of domestic issues. I'm wondering if Uhbama is going to be the opposite. And the outside world is coming unhindged.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And the outside world is coming unhindged
Let it. The last thing we need to do is to continue to be the world's 911. Fuck Africa; Fuck the Middle East; Fuck Europe, but most of all, Fuck Pakistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And the outside world is coming unhindged
Let it. The last thing we need to do is to continue to be the world's 911. Fuck Africa; Fuck the Middle East; Fuck Europe, but most of all, Fuck Pakistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. But we obviously need to stop our own bleeding before we consider continuing to concentrate so much on other countries. What I was referring to though, was more about the economy of the world, which I think would be best served by us concentrating on fixing our own (if that's even possible). That said, as we all know, there are some things that start to unfold in the world that really do need intervention. Like the possibility of nukes in Iran and the DPRK for instance. But when we do step outside our borders, I think we need to give a little more thought to the possible outcomes and to insuring that what we do really is in the best interest of everyone involved. We need to pick our battles a little better. Iraq needed to happen, but I think most of us would agree that the timing and planning were pretty horrible.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Na, Jose represents the great metropolis of NYC (and part times as the Puerto Rican / Latin American at large rep). Latins in Florida are mostly of Cuban extraction, and have little sympathy for removing term limits, given their memories of Castro). Interstingly, his web page doesn't even mention this, so I guess his constituents don't even know what Jose is up to.
Yeah I found his web site last night and was reminded that he represents NY. But I'd forgoten about this post. And I knew that Florida's hispanic population is primarily make up of Cubans who left for a reason. I can't imagine what his constituents were thinking, but he may do this kind of crap 'quietly' every time. I looked up most of his previous attempts to present this bill, and it's never come to a vote, but he may have a new audience this time. Time will tell.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. But we obviously need to stop our own bleeding before we consider continuing to concentrate so much on other countries. What I was referring to though, was more about the economy of the world, which I think would be best served by us concentrating on fixing our own (if that's even possible). That said, as we all know, there are some things that start to unfold in the world that really do need intervention. Like the possibility of nukes in Iran and the DPRK for instance. But when we do step outside our borders, I think we need to give a little more thought to the possible outcomes and to insuring that what we do really is in the best interest of everyone involved. We need to pick our battles a little better. Iraq needed to happen, but I think most of us would agree that the timing and planning were pretty horrible.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
What I was referring to though, was more about the economy of the world, which I think would be best served by us concentrating on fixing our own
It isn't. Our money is valueless and our government is doing everything in its power to go from inflation to hyperinflation.
BoneSoft wrote:
That said, as we all know, there are some things that start to unfold in the world that really do need intervention. Like the possibility of nukes in Iran and the DPRK for instance.
Iran's nukes threaten Europe far more than they do the US - let them worry about it.
BoneSoft wrote:
DPRK
N Koreas's nukes threan Japan far more than the US, let them worry about it.
BoneSoft wrote:
I think most of us would agree that the timing and planning were pretty horrible.
I think the word is criminal (even though Stan wants to nominate Bush as a "national Hero," because of his masterful showing as a war president.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
modified on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:31 AM
-
H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second amendment[^], thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. You've got to be f@#kin kidding me... What the hell is happening? :confused: We're taking our ques from Hugo now? Why has the news not reported anything about this one? More talk on fairness Doctrine[^], census control, giant big fat "stimulus" bill to pay for God knows what, and now this. What's next? Rep. José Serrano is a notorious Castro, Chavez, and other commies supporter. Apparently this guy does this every session starting in 1999 and refiles every time Congress enters a new session. Put on the table by a complete nut bag, but with a Congress full of nut bags, nothing would surprise me.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Rep. José Serrano is a notorious Castro, Chavez, and other commies supporter. Apparently this guy does this every session starting in 1999 and refiles every time Congress enters a new session.
This does undermine your title to this thread, you know?
This statement is false
-
John Carson wrote:
But that is not the same thing as vulnerable to becoming a dictatorship.
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Dear Margaret Thatcher Ruled for 11 years and three terms, and NEVER lost a vote, not one, ever!
Not sure what point you are making.
John Carson
-
Talk radio is the one place where conservative voices have flourished. And liberals can't manage to keep a talk radio audience for some reason. So they feel a need to try to shut it down. The guise is to claim that radio needs to present both perspectives evenly. Of course it has nothing to do with fairness, otherwise they'd work on TV and print first.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And liberals can't manage to keep a talk radio audience for some reason.
Liberal, yes; progressive, no. One host I can think of manages just fine at maintaining 4 million listeners. Fox News lost millions initially. The conservative radio programs are pretty good at self-marketing and trumpeting the horn when they have successes. Unfortunately most of the radio stations that progressive radio airs on is owned by the media conglomerates that are mostly conservative. So, the need to not anger the bosses play in. Its an interesting dynamic. I'm not sure I'd apply the same cavalier view you do, but it is interesting.
This statement is false