On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:54 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > It has long been said that term limits are for the purview of the > voter...each election is another choice...freedom I say.
Yes, this is true. Ultimately politicians can get voted out. However, the longer the seat of power is held the more difficult it is to do so. I shouldn't even have mentioned term limits as that's not the issue i was really concerned about. I don't think we need a super star on the SC. I'd bet the farm we won't get it either. We ain't that stupid yet. dj > > On Feb 22, 3:50 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? >> >> 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 -- 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.
