User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:33:29 AM EDT
[#1]
FDR was actually the major reason for the 22nd Amendment. He was elected to four terms, and he was a socialist extraordinaire. We are in a welfare mess today because of him. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:33:40 AM EDT
[#2]
That's a big negity tory.
Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:36:28 AM EDT
[#3]
Not a bad idea. Of course, if you get a big ol' shitbag like Carter in there, six years would seem like sixty. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:40:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Fuck no. The current system works...if the guy sucks, like Carter, we only have to put with him for 4 years...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:42:39 AM EDT
[#5]
No the question.
And. . . uh . . .
The President is in the executive branch of government. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:50:02 AM EDT
[#6]
No.
HH |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:54:39 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:56:38 AM EDT
[#8]
I've never seen this much agreement on arfcom about ANYTHING.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:00:59 AM EDT
[#9]
The dems would then embrace war as a way of life,instead of protesting it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:07:00 AM EDT
[#10]
A President has a huge amount of power under the Constitution in time of war. And it’s essential that he does for the safety of the nation. But it’s not good to give any one man that amount of power long enough for him to get used to it.
So, hell no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:07:39 AM EDT
[#11]
Make a note. Doesn't happen often. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:20:51 AM EDT
[#12]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:27:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Bump to see if anyone wants the term extended and why...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:29:48 AM EDT
[#14]
Oh my god NO!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:31:34 AM EDT
[#15]
FUck no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:32:06 AM EDT
[#16]
no!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:32:41 AM EDT
[#17]
I want to watch Sean Penn, Barbara Steisand, George Clooney and Michael Moore commit suicide, so go for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:32:47 AM EDT
[#18]
Get rid of term limits altogether. Why limit ourselves in the event we find an incredible President?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:32:54 AM EDT
[#19]
FUCK NO!
Why am I not suprised? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:36:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Leave it to you to disagree vehemently, without supporting argument. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:45:59 AM EDT
[#21]
No way. Absolutely not.
In fact, now that we are in the information age, and communication is instantaneous instead of taking 2 weeks to get 100 miles, I think that a presidential terms should even be shorter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:46:31 AM EDT
[#22]
No need to support anything - it's like saying I need to support my disagreement with your opinion that the sky is green. This is America. We follow the example of the Founders. Two Terms. That's it. End of Discussion. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:48:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Except that 2 term limits didn't take effect until FDR. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:51:01 AM EDT
[#24]
I didn't say that. I saw we follow the "example of the Founders." Washington served 2 terms, then left office. Everyone but that socialist FDR followed Washington's example. Then we had to pass a law making it so. Prior to that, Presidents "followed the example of the Founders" Follow me? 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:51:49 AM EDT
[#25]
No, and if a tyrranical gov't takes his/her place than we need a revolt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:54:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Okay, why Reagan? I liked him, but he did nothing about the Beirut barracks bombing and other things. He signed the '86 MG ban, granted the overall effect was positive for gun owners in general, but fucked those who later wanted MGs. Oh, it helped those that already had them. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:55:37 AM EDT
[#27]
NO! Just think if Clinton had been in office when we went to war!!! Makes my spine crawl.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 9:57:05 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm pretty sure that there was an "also" missed in that statement. As in: "I also think" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:00:32 AM EDT
[#29]
Hell NO!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:05:37 AM EDT
[#30]
No farging way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:05:47 AM EDT
[#31]
It probably would not matter since we haven't declared war since 1941. I think the old declaration of war is a thing of the past. I guess it is no longer politically correct to declare war so congress just authorizes the use of force. We don't want to piss anyone off while we are killing them by declaring a state of war.
Now the President is Commander In Chief of the our military forces when the congress decides to authorize the funding to kill people without declaring a war, thereby not having a need for another country to actually surrender. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:13:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Some people disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. By providing a reason, a disagreement evolves into debate, which is much more respectful. You feel that since GW1 and the founders limited themselves to 2 terms, that's the way it should be. I disagree. I think that they specifically wanted certain things to be law, thus the way the Constitution was written. I feel if it was important enough an issue that they would have passed the law then. They imposed no term restrictions on anyone in the Constitution, and I don't think they felt the need to. So long as the "important" things were addressed, it didn't really matter to them who was in office. Thus the impeachment process is included, etc. I feel that the only reason term limits were imposed were that there was enough of the population unhappy with FDR and instead of simply moving on and relying on the vote to change things, they felt there "needed to be a law" to prevent it from happening again. The reliance of yet another law to address an issue where there was already a system in place to deal with it. YMMV, but that's my thoughts. If someone gets in office and does a simply amazing job, and the vast majority of the citizens like the way he runs things, look forward to someone introducing legislation to repeal the 2 term limit amendment. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:35:17 AM EDT
[#33]
No. It sets up a situation where a dictatorial president with charismatic or other sway over the people could remain in power by agitating war. Two turns, boot to the curb, NEXT! Jim |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:36:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Hillary 08' to 10' nah.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:37:59 AM EDT
[#35]
NFW
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:39:19 AM EDT
[#36]
JESUS CHRIST!!! DIDN'T YOU WATCH STARWARS!!!??? IT HAS A MESSAGE!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:39:26 AM EDT
[#37]
There is something to be said for npd233's position regarding term limits.
In today's government system, (local, state, and federal) politics has become a very complicated thing to get into. Most politicians are "professional politicians" and provide for their families that way. It's not as good a living as if they were in the private sector by a longshot, but many do it because they care. What happens to your local politicians when they are termed out of their current elected offices? In SoCal, they just plan it out and jump to the next post. Once they have name recognition, it's actually pretty easy to get elected to another office. Here's my point: When a politician gets good at his/her job, why in the world would we kick them to the curb? Isn't this a subversion of the will of the people to elect their chosen representatives? I don't believe in term limits in general, but I do believe that POTUS should be limited for several political reasons. As I said before, a six-year term would be ideal, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:46:35 AM EDT
[#38]
No. Otherwise the whole Orwellian 1984 thing is just one step closer to reality. Keep them in a constant state of war to control them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 10:48:23 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:15:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Absolutely not!
-James |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:26:04 AM EDT
[#41]
I'm a bit late, but no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:31:53 AM EDT
[#42]
Personally I think that presidents should be limited to one six year term. Period. No re election.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:32:26 AM EDT
[#43]
I don't agree with term limits anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:36:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Imagine someone like Billy boy having more than two terms. He did enough damage as is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:39:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Two terms should be the max for anyone in any public office - anywhere. Too many jaded politicians these days.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:39:49 AM EDT
[#46]
NFW.
That is all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:42:43 AM EDT
[#47]
NO WAY
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:44:53 AM EDT
[#48]
How about limiting Senate terms also. I think it is past due.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:47:32 AM EDT
[#49]
Hell no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 11:48:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Noooo!!!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
