http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...on_030416002722

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this guy needs to go back to work

___________________
"Republicans LOVE progressive!"

clear blue voice.

*************PLUR**************

If you're suggesting they eliminate the presidential limit of 2 terms, I'm with you. The people should be able to elect whoever they want.

why should smart men be restrained?

___________________
"Republicans LOVE progressive!"

clear blue voice.

*************PLUR**************

Yes the 2 term limit is stupid. It was intended as a sort of ensurance nobody would grasp the power for a lifetime, but many of the former USSR countries show that if the country is corrupt, such a limit can easily be avoided or removed.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Yes the 2 term limit is stupid. It was intended as a sort of ensurance nobody would grasp the power for a lifetime, but many of the former USSR countries show that if the country is corrupt, such a limit can easily be avoided or removed.

What? You're not making sense ... the two term limit is expressely meant to avoid that situation. Regardless of how much power or corruption a President may accumulate, they cannot stay in office for more than 2 terms. Personally I think it's a great idea that one person doesn't stay in power .... it's one of the checks and balances of power-wielding in our country.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What? You're not making sense ... the two term limit is expressely meant to avoid that situation. Regardless of how much power or corruption a President may accumulate, they cannot stay in office for more than 2 terms. Personally I think it's a great idea that one person doesn't stay in power .... it's one of the checks and balances of power-wielding in our country.

Yeah, well, check out the most post-soviet republics. Each one states in its constitution that a president is limited to 2 5-year terms. Now, take the president from Uzbekistan for example (similar as to what happened in Byelorussia, Kazahstan, Turkmenistan, Ukrane...). During his first 5-year term, he first extended his term to last for 7 years by changing the constitution. That was in 4th year of his term, I think. Then he stated that the law says a president is allowed to have only 2 5-year terms, and since he is serving a 7-year term, he still has 2 more 5-year terms to go. Then he organized a referendum (on which he of course cheated) which gave him additional 2 years mandate, which expanded his term to 9 years. After that, he "fairly" won the elections for his "first" 5-year term. Now, he's planning a new referendum which will expand his presidency once again.

What I'm saying is that if a country is corrupt and it's law system is faulty, a president can easily manipulate it to stay in power for as long as he wishes. And if a country is organized and has a good legal system, the presiden't won't be able to cheat, regardless of how long he's been in power.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What? You're not making sense ... the two term limit is expressely meant to avoid that situation. Regardless of how much power or corruption a President may accumulate, they cannot stay in office for more than 2 terms. Personally I think it's a great idea that one person doesn't stay in power .... it's one of the checks and balances of power-wielding in our country.

i think he means the party power not personal...ie communist in the former ussr

let me ask you this...if the incumbant's party won the election after his second term, why should he have to leave??...hes obviously doing a good job...look at fdr

im not even gonna go into the present...but do you feel safe with bush rulling present day rome?

___________________
"Republicans LOVE progressive!"

clear blue voice.

*************PLUR**************

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Now, take the president from Uzbekistan for example (similar as to what happened in Byelorussia, Kazahstan, Turkmenistan, Ukrane...). During his first 5-year term, he first extended his term to last for 7 years by changing the constitution. That was in 4th year of his term, I think. Then he stated that the law says a president is allowed to have only 2 5-year terms, and since he is serving a 7-year term, he still has 2 more 5-year terms to go. Then he organized a referendum (on which he of course cheated) which gave him additional 2 years mandate, which expanded his term to 9 years. After that, he "fairly" won the elections for his "first" 5-year term. Now, he's planning a new referendum which will expand his presidency once again.

OMG, that's harsh! good to know that everywhere is corrupt anyway..

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Yeah, well, check out the most post-soviet republics. Each one states in its constitution that a president is limited to 2 5-year terms. Now, take the president from Uzbekistan for example (similar as to what happened in Byelorussia, Kazahstan, Turkmenistan, Ukrane...). During his first 5-year term, he first extended his term to last for 7 years by changing the constitution. That was in 4th year of his term, I think. Then he stated that the law says a president is allowed to have only 2 5-year terms, and since he is serving a 7-year term, he still has 2 more 5-year terms to go. Then he organized a referendum (on which he of course cheated) which gave him additional 2 years mandate, which expanded his term to 9 years. After that, he "fairly" won the elections for his "first" 5-year term. Now, he's planning a new referendum which will expand his presidency once again. What I'm saying is that if a country is corrupt and it's law system is faulty, a president can easily manipulate it to stay in power for as long as he wishes. And if a country is organized and has a good legal system, the presiden't won't be able to cheat, regardless of how long he's been in power.

But that's a defeatist look on things ... you might as well say abolish ALL checks and balances since inevitably they will only hinder the righteous presidents since the corrupt ones will always find a way to circumcede those checks and balances.

The process to repeal amendments is a long, arduous process that takes many, many months and possibly years to acomplish. I believe that the only way to modify the constitution is for a bill to pass in both the house and the senate and then it goes to the states where it must obtain 3/4 of the vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just seems inconceivable that a corrupt president can manipulate so many people AND states in the way the system is set up.

I don't think it would be right to classify the 2 term limit as part of "checks and balances."

Checks and balances are ways in which different branches of a multi-branch government can influence each other to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. The presidential term limit only affects one branch, so it doesn't really affect the relationships between the different branches of government.

All the 2 term limit does is restrict the options of the voters, eliminating those candidates who by virtue of their experience are likely the most qualified. I'm afraid I can see no rational justification for this restriction.

Lemme ask you something ... if this were Bush's second term, and there were no term limits, how many of you would be advocating against term limits if he were to be voted back into the white house ? It's very likely he'll get a second term considering his approval rating ...

The 2 term limit is necessary to eliminate ANY stranglehold on the Presidency.

It is necessary