Term Limits

Ed · 12th January 2006, 08:10 PM

I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?

peptoabysmal · 12th January 2006, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?

I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito.

I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed.

Quote:

``We started these hearings seeking answers,'' said Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. ``We come away with even more questions about Judge Alito's commitment to fairness and equal justice for all.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...hn2BQ&refer=us

"We come away with even more questions ..."

What B.S.

shecky · 12th January 2006, 10:00 PM

We can still vote 'em out. Does happen once in a while. Do we need more limitations?

DavidJames · 12th January 2006, 10:03 PM

I'm 100% against term limits.

I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them.

peptoabysmal · 12th January 2006, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I'm 100% against term limits.

I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them.

Are you by any chance a member of Congress?

Kerberos · 13th January 2006, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected.

Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border.

I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy.

I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories.

I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world.

I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits:
- We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda

Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found.

Anyhoo, what do you folks think?

Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality?

Beerina · 13th January 2006, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I'm 100% against term limits.

I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them.

$2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem.

Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever.

Ed · 13th January 2006, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality?

I suspect that they are less crooked.

As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook.

Ed · 13th January 2006, 07:07 AM

And why is it that, seemingly, the interests of the people appear to be better represented by talk show idiots like O'Reilly? Because, I wager, that the handlers of these pols advise them to never take any position that is edgy (because it hurts their chance for reelection).

Ed · 13th January 2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

According to analysts, Cincinnatus had settled into a life of farming and knew that his departure might mean starvation for his family if the crops went unsown in his absence. He assented to the request anyway and within sixteen days had defeated the Aequi and the Volscians. His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of good leadership, service to the public good, and the virtue of modesty.

Wiki

Sort of a dirty word but that, to me, epitomizes patriotism. We ain't got none.

Kerberos · 13th January 2006, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

I suspect that they are less crooked.

As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook.

I don't see why people should be less croocked if they served only one or two term, more like the other way around. After all somebody who doesn't have to worry about reelection, doesn't need to concern himself with public reactions to whatever dirty schemes he might invent.

shecky · 13th January 2006, 09:47 AM

Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics.

Mark · 13th January 2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito.

I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed.

"We come away with even more questions ..."

What B.S.

Wow...ya gotta love Republicans and their "Persecuted Majority" mindset.

geni · 13th January 2006, 10:16 AM

No term limits in the UK for any position. Generaly your own party will stab you in the back before it becomes a problem.

Ed · 13th January 2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by shecky

Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics.

The nanny state can be a manifestation of people that have power wanting more. Perhaps getting rid of them might mitigate that. Remember also that they would, presumably, leave public service and return to their real job as so would have to live under the stuff that they pass. Ain't the case now.

DavidJames · 13th January 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

Are you by any chance a member of Congress?

No, I'm an American citizen who believes he should be able to vote for any candidate who meets the legal qualification to hold office.

DavidJames · 13th January 2006, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

$2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem.

I agree abuses of the system are a problem

Quote:

Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever.

I have no clue how this comment relates to not allowing someone to hold office because they have held office an arbitrary number of terms.

Ed · 13th January 2006, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

No, I'm an American citizen who believes he should be able to vote for any candidate who meets the legal qualification to hold office.

And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms?

DavidJames · 13th January 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Ed

And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms?

No, I don't want that provision to be included in the legal qualifications.

shecky · 13th January 2006, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ed

And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms?

Isn't that what elections are for? Why do we need to be saved from our own choices?

12th January 2006, 08:10 PM	#1
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Term Limits I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected. Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border. I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy. I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories. I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world. I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits: - We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found. Anyhoo, what do you folks think?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

12th January 2006, 09:59 PM	#2
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Originally Posted by Ed I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected. Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border. I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy. I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories. I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world. I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits: - We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found. Anyhoo, what do you folks think? I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito. I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed. Quote: ``We started these hearings seeking answers,'' said Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. ``We come away with even more questions about Judge Alito's commitment to fairness and equal justice for all.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...hn2BQ&refer=us "We come away with even more questions ..." What B.S.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

12th January 2006, 10:03 PM	#4
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	I'm 100% against term limits. I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

12th January 2006, 10:11 PM	#5
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Originally Posted by DavidJames I'm 100% against term limits. I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them. Are you by any chance a member of Congress?
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

13th January 2006, 01:22 AM	#6
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Ed I have been watching the performance of our elected officials for some time now. It is becoming grossly obvious to me that they will compromise anything, even the security of our country, in order to get elected. Whist some may argue, it seems pretty clear to me that the Republicans have an Hispanic strategy to take them into the future. They figure that the black vote is gone so they will get their own people of color, the hispanics. Nothing wrong with that except that they appear to be buying those votes by having a virtually open border. I noted with interest that at Alito's confirmation, the Republicans seemed pretty devil may care regarding Alito's notions as to the limits of Presidential power, forgetting, seemingly, that one day (maybe assuming the Democrats don't step on their own dick, a forlorn hope, I fear) they will not control the presidency and that they will have to live with this guy. I think that politions basically dispise the electorate. A good case in point is Bill Friske who, after publicly "diagnosing" Terry Schivo, turned around and denied that he did assuming that his "presence" and "gravitas" somehow outweighed our memories. I do not see any way to get these people to actually represent our interests other than to get back to the idea of citizen legislators, people who have a life and dedicate some years to public service and then return to the real world. I read of a major thing that is offered as an argument against the idea of limits: - We need experienced people to deal with the complexities ... yadda yadda Well, those of us who have worked in companies have met people who design their job to be secure. It seems to me that that is not a compelling reason for throwing them out regularly. Fact is, if it is that complicated, they made it so and that strikes me as malfeasence in the first place. Also, consider major corporations. Can you think of many that have unlimited appointments for CEOs? No. Corporations recognize that change of blood is a good thing. Do you know that the odds of getting reelected are 90% And anyway, with a population of 200,000,000 I somehow doubt that reasonably good people cannot be found. Anyhoo, what do you folks think? Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality?
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

12th January 2006, 10:00 PM	#3
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	We can still vote 'em out. Does happen once in a while. Do we need more limitations?

13th January 2006, 06:47 AM	#7
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by DavidJames I'm 100% against term limits. I've seen no arguments that come close to make me even consider them. $2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem. Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good *because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever*.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

13th January 2006, 06:54 AM	#8
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by Kerberos Do you think that the people in positions that do have term limits are of a generally higher quality? I suspect that they are less crooked. As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2006, 07:07 AM	#9
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	And why is it that, seemingly, the interests of the people appear to be better represented by talk show idiots like O'Reilly? Because, I wager, that the handlers of these pols advise them to never take any position that is edgy (because it hurts their chance for reelection).
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2006, 07:10 AM	#10
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: According to analysts, Cincinnatus had settled into a life of farming and knew that his departure might mean starvation for his family if the crops went unsown in his absence. He assented to the request anyway and within sixteen days had defeated the Aequi and the Volscians. His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of good leadership, service to the public good, and the virtue of modesty. Wiki Sort of a dirty word but that, to me, epitomizes patriotism. We ain't got none.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2006, 09:21 AM	#11
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Ed I suspect that they are less crooked. As my good friend Gov. Jerry Brown observed, if politition takes money, under whatever guise, he/she is a crook. I don't see why people should be less croocked if they served only one or two term, more like the other way around. After all somebody who doesn't have to worry about reelection, doesn't need to concern himself with public reactions to whatever dirty schemes he might invent.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

13th January 2006, 09:47 AM	#12
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics.

13th January 2006, 10:13 AM	#13
Mark Former Spinal Tap Drummer Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,529	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal I think prisoners in Guantanamo underwent less severe interrogation than Alito. I also think that statements like this from Jabba the Kennedy mean that the Dems ain't got nothin' on him and he will be confirmed. "We come away with even more questions ..." What B.S. Wow...ya gotta love Republicans and their "Persecuted Majority" mindset.
	__________________ "Give me immortality or give me death!"---The Firesign Theatre

13th January 2006, 10:16 AM	#14
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,568	No term limits in the UK for any position. Generaly your own party will stab you in the back before it becomes a problem.

13th January 2006, 10:19 AM	#15
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by shecky Money and power will always find each other. Term limits are just a move to more nanny state politics. The nanny state can be a manifestation of people that have power wanting more. Perhaps getting rid of them might mitigate that. Remember also that they would, presumably, leave public service and return to their real job as so would have to live under the stuff that they pass. Ain't the case now.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2006, 11:24 AM	#16
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by peptoabysmal Are you by any chance a member of Congress? No, I'm an American citizen who believes he should be able to vote for any candidate who meets the legal qualification to hold office.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th January 2006, 11:26 AM	#17
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by Beerina $2.6 trillion per year in spending? Should at least open your eyes. People becoming entrenched through the buying of votes via the handing out of money? This disgusting conflict of interest (bread and circuses) is the very problem. I agree abuses of the system are a problem Quote: Unless you view every single thing some charismatic leader can momentarily convince 51% of a collected group of power hungry people to do, to be all that is holy and good, holy and good *because 51% want to briefly do it, binding everyone for ever and ever*. I have no clue how this comment relates to not allowing someone to hold office because they have held office an arbitrary number of terms.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th January 2006, 11:43 AM	#18
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Originally Posted by DavidJames No, I'm an American citizen who believes he should be able to vote for any candidate who meets the legal qualification to hold office. And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2006, 11:54 AM	#19
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by Ed And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms? No, I don't want that provision to be included in the legal qualifications.
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

13th January 2006, 03:37 PM	#20
shecky Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Home of the Homeless Posts: 2,190	Originally Posted by Ed And suppose that included not having held the office for more than x terms? Isn't that what elections are for? Why do we need to be saved from our own choices?