Beltmann Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 It would be a limit imposed on the government by the people (if it passed).But the people already have the power to impose that limit, whenever and wherever they see fit. As long as we have the ballot box, no amendment is necessary to limit a public servant's career. What term limits really does is remove options from voters--an amendment might not be undemocratic, but it does strike me as a violation of the principle of representative democracy. But like you, I'm sympathetic to the other side, too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 But the people already have the power to impose that limit, whenever and wherever they see fit. As long as we have the ballot box, no amendment is necessary to limit a public servant's career. What term limits really does is remove options from voters--an amendment might not be undemocratic, but it does strike me as a violation of the principle of representative democracy. True enough, but we violate the principle of representative democracy all the time when we protect the rights of minorities. Principles are useful and all, but can hurt us as much as they harm us. I think that term limits are a great thing for presidents, I think that consitutional amendments are a great thing for constituents - specifically minorities - and I think that term limits are not a great thing for lawmakers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Term limits are an idea that sounds good on paper, but is essentially undemocratic (except in the case of President??). If people want to keep electing a douche bag representative or a statesman over and over again, that is the perogative of those being represented. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I'm all too familiar with Bayh, and I think I can say with some certainty that he just never seemed real comfortable being in the Democratic Party. Especially being from Indiana. Now like I said I'm not going to be real sad when he's gone, but the thing that rubs me wrong is the way he went about this. He announced at 2 PM yesterday, and at noon today anyone who wanted to be a candidate had to file (with 4500 signatures). Everyone assumed he'd be the guy. So now there will be no primary for the Dems. It's like he slapping us in the face on his way out the door.My understanding is that it's not just 4500 signatures, but also a certain amount in every congressional district. Not going to happen. Apparently he wants the party bosses to pick the nominee, which is not very democractic (lowercase d). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 True enough, but we violate the principle of representative democracy all the time when we protect the rights of minorities. Principles are useful and all, but can hurt us as much as they harm us. I think that term limits are a great thing for presidents, I think that consitutional amendments are a great thing for constituents - specifically minorities - and I think that term limits are not a great thing for lawmakers.Without opening a can of worms, we attempt to protect the rights of minorities. Whether they are truly helped or not despite the best of intentions depends on how successfully it can be protected and defended against abuse. And then, it still calls attention to the minority, so it flies in the face of equal treatment. I like the comment about statesmen. I watched a program on that liberal den PBS, where two old pundits from both sides of the aisle said that there was a time when you fought tooth and nail, and afterwards went to dinner and drinks and found common ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Without opening a can of worms, we attempt to protect the rights of minorities. Whether they are truly helped or not despite the best of intentions depends on how successfully it can be protected and defended against abuse. And then, it still calls attention to the minority, so it flies in the face of equal treatment. We do attempt to protect the rights of minorities, of course, but surely you can agree with me that there are situations where preserving equal rights for all requires us to overlook the opinion of the majority. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 I like the comment about statesmen. I watched a program on that liberal den PBS, where two old pundits from both sides of the aisle said that there was a time when you fought tooth and nail, and afterwards went to dinner and drinks and found common ground. . Here's an old photo of Gary Hart finding "common ground." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 As far as foreign debt it is ... so no argument on our total debt, huh? while we're having fun with random unsourced graphs, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 does it really bother any of you that bad that Palin resigned as governor? or is it just part of the fun Palin-bashing thing? if she's so bad why would you want her to stay in office? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 It's an extremely rare occasion when I respond to obvious trolling here, but I just have to say this has to be one of the most mean spirited things I've ever read in the 4 years I've been on this board. Wow, just wow.Mean spirited in what way? Everything I said is absolutely true. Now if your a Kennedy I can see where you might not appreciate hearing the unvarnished truth but that's just too bad. I have had many opportunities over the past 37 years to vote for a Kennedy and they've never earned my vote. That's not trolling that's fact. I didn't realize this board was so tame. Sorry to offend your sensibilities but you really should toughen up. You'd never survive Massachusetts politics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 JohnO's version of reality is like a cartoon where all the dialogue was written by a half-awake Sean Hannity. To criticize Bayh for being a quitter while praising Palin's decision requires a special brand of super-partisan, hypocritical, irrational blinders. I mean, defend Palin's decision to resign if you want; I suppose a case could be made. But to then turn around and suggest that the guy who actually is fulfilling his contract is somehow more of a quitter than the person who left halfway through her contract is, simply, laughable. It's also profoundly unserious. I'm normally nicer than that. But seriously, JohnO, your partisanship is showing big-time, and it's kind of embarrassing.Your own partisanship is causing you to miss the point entirely. No need to be nice on my account cuz I'm not very nice either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Mean spirited in what way? Patches Kennedy on the other hand has legitimate disabilities to deal with including extended pre-pubescence and genetic lack of responsibility. It's too bad his drunken murderer of a father couldn't have set this example for the kid decades ago. that way. if you wanted to comment on the fact that Patrick Kennedy seems to suffer from pretty severe addiction issues, which are likely partially genetic in origin, you could have pointed that out in an appropriate way. The method you chose is what is commonly referred to as "assholish," and is the tone you seem to enjoy using repeatedly here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 We do attempt to protect the rights of minorities, of course, but surely you can agree with me that there are situations where preserving equal rights for all requires us to overlook the opinion of the majority.Equal rights requires no qualifiers. The laws are to be applied equally to all people PERIOD. Attempting to protect the rights of some special group in some manner differently than you do for others is the very definition of unequal rights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 that way. if you wanted to comment on the fact that Patrick Kennedy seems to suffer from pretty severe addiction issues, which are likely partially genetic in origin, you could have pointed that out in an appropriate way. The method you chose is what is commonly referred to as "assholish," and is the tone you seem to enjoy using repeatedly here.I'll express myself however I like thank you. Feel free to do the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Equal rights requires no qualifiers. The laws are to be applied equally to all people PERIOD. Attempting to protect the rights of some special group in some manner differently than you do for others is the very definition of unequal rights. Oh goodness, I entirely agree, and I can't wait to get married on account of those equal rights! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I'll express myself however I like thank you. Not here you won't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I'll express myself however I like thank you. Feel free to do the same. you asked the question "mean spirited in what way?" I answered it. I didn't say you couldn't be a douche. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 so no argument on our total debt, huh? while we're having fun with random unsourced graphs, Fiscal Year 2009 is the last budget under George W. Bush, not the first under Obama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 I pulled that graph off the first website I saw to make the point that these are just ass-grabbed graphs (you provided no source for yours). I'm fairly sure Obama and congress had something to do with how much the national debt went up in 2009, but I welcome being shown that I'm wrong. he's painted with attacks of raising the deficit (more than the previous president? cant) you made a point that Obama couldn't possibly run up the deficit the way Bush did, now you've qualified your point to mention only foreign debt. again, you sure about your point that Obama couldn't possibly raise the deficit more than Bush? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Mean spirited in what way? Everything I said is absolutely true. Now if your a Kennedy I can see where you might not appreciate hearing the unvarnished truth but that's just too bad. I have had many opportunities over the past 37 years to vote for a Kennedy and they've never earned my vote. That's not trolling that's fact. I didn't realize this board was so tame. Sorry to offend your sensibilities but you really should toughen up. You'd never survive Massachusetts politics.Well, to speak ill of the dead, especially with the words you chose to use, would be considered by many to be a not-too-classy move. But - I'm all about freedom of speech, so rave on, brother, rave on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Equal rights requires no qualifiers. The laws are to be applied equally to all people PERIOD. Attempting to protect the rights of some special group in some manner differently than you do for others is the very definition of unequal rights. Can you provide some concrete examples of situations in which minorities have been afforded rights not extended to the majority? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Well, to speak ill of the dead, especially with the words you chose to use, would be considered by many to be a not-too-classy move. But - I'm all about freedom of speech, so rave on, brother, rave on. No problem I talked about him in the same way when he was alive. I fully support your stance on freedom of speech! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnO Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Can you provide some concrete examples of situations in which minorities have been afforded rights not extended to the majority?Can you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 What? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted February 17, 2010 Share Posted February 17, 2010 Can you? I know you are but what am I - answer the question or don't, either way, I don't really care all that much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.