Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Speed Racer

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

 

14620136_Gary_Hart.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :thumbup

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. thumbup.gif

No problem I talked about him in the same way when he was alive. I fully support your stance on freedom of speech!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide some concrete examples of situations in which minorities have been afforded rights not extended to the majority?

Can you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...