On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> I actualy have no problems with this concept.  I think of it this way.
>
> No matter what we think of any politician they are, like the rest of
> us, merely performing within the remit of their employment.  With any
> worker the idea is not remain at the same level for the course of your
> working life, but to move on upwards.  Would you have similar problems
> with the tire fitter moving sideways and upwards to car mechanice?

Of course I wouldn't.  Besides, there is no where to move up from the
POTUS.  Nor side move either.  Politics is a totally different ball of
wax then the private sector.  Politicians spend half their time
campaigning, 25% doing actual work for the people, and the other 25%
with their families.  Career politicians don't really know what real,
results based work is.  They just don't.  It's all perception over
reality.  Thus the creative book keeping and statistic manipulations.
>From both sides.

dj

>
> On 21 Feb, 22:24, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sheesh.  With comments like these from my European friends it
>> perplexes me how us Americans are accused of "swollen head syndrome."
>> Must be our superior athletic abilities...
>>
>> The main issue with me is having a cult of personality like a head of
>> state remain in an important and pivotal political role after his term
>> is over.  It allows for him/her to garner too much power.  The balance
>> is upset.  I believe this is true no matter who the leader is.  Even a
>> paragon such as Ronald Reagan.  They should go into the job with the
>> knowledge they have a maximum of 8 years to get things done.  After
>> that it's time to play golf and write your memoirs and build houses
>> for poor people and raise money for charity/disaster victims.  Stay
>> out of politics.
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> > One could add that those democracies which use a more sophisticated
>> > mixture of legislative/executive structures. with the practical, day-
>> > to-day executive elected by and responsible to parliament, don't seem
>> > to need term limits. Governments are elected by parliament and, should
>> > they lose their majorities (either through the collapse of coalitions
>> > or, more usually, as a result of general elections) are replaced by
>> > them. Prime Ministers lose their positions, go into opposition, and
>> > are occasionally even reelected some years later. It's only in the
>> > rarer, more primitive forms of republics, based on an eighteenth
>> > century model which simply replaces a monarchial executive with a
>> > presidential one (e.g. USA, France and Russia), that the concept of
>> > term limits is even seems to be necessary.
>>
>> > Francis
>>
>> > On 21 Feb., 22:11, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Don,
>>
>> >> There's no limit on terms here in the UK. However, as the current Labour
>> >> government has found out (lead by Blair or Brown), if you're in power for
>> >> much more than a decade you end up rewriting your own policies and the
>> >> population falls out of love with you. Obama on the Supreme Court sounds
>> >> like a good idea -- he'll probably be be able to say awake during events 
>> >> and
>> >> meetings, unlike some of the geriatrics serving there now.
>>
>> >> Right now America could probably do with abandoning democracy altogether 
>> >> and
>> >> coming back under British rule. It'll be for your own good. We're living 
>> >> in
>> >> a time where, because of your clumsy foreign policies, more people are
>> >> offended by the American flag than the flag of Nazi Germany. We'll show 
>> >> you
>> >> how to do it properly without drawing too much attention to yourself -- 
>> >> just
>> >> like we're doing with our theft of the Argentinian's oil. It'll do you 
>> >> good,
>> >> rolling with the pros.
>>
>> >> Ian
>>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> > ""Minds Eye"" group.
>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> > [email protected].
>> > For more options, visit this group 
>> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> ""Minds Eye"" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.

Reply via email to