Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Terms for president in office.Follow

#1 Jul 27 2004 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Do you think the length of the terms should be adjusted? Instead of 2 terms consisting of 4-years do you think it would be better to implement just ONE 6-year term. I like the idea of having just ONE but longer term. It would allow the president to concentrate on what he needs to instead of worrying about gaining votes for his next term. I just feel that the system we have currently is out-dated and stale.
#2 Jul 27 2004 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
It would allow the president to concentrate on what he needs to instead of worrying about gaining votes for his next term.


What he needs to do are the things that got him elected in the first place, which also tend to be the same things that get him reelected. The system is the way it is to help prevent abuse.

He would really have a chance to do everything he wants if he was in for life, or even more so if they just passed leadership down through the bloodline, firstborn son and all that. We already tried that and it didn't work out so hot, hence the system we have today.
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#3 Jul 27 2004 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
***
1,213 posts
I agree. Leaders aren't given enough time to focus on the important issues. But if a President is doing really badly they should be able to call for early elections possibly after 3 or 4 years. So the President would have to focus on the issues rather than gleaning votes.
#4 Jul 27 2004 at 10:16 AM Rating: Good
I'd rather see a single 2 year term, renewable up to 5 times. That would grant a total term of up to 10 years. Any term not renewed would result in elections being held. The outgoing termholder would NOT be eligible to run again.

That way, a President would work HARD to stay popular, because it's a one-shot deal. Get in, do well and you may be a 10 year President. Get in, do poorly, and we put your *** right back out. And you can't get back in.

The staggering of short terms and potential election times would ensure that a President was always under review by the general public. Right now, all we have is media hype in between lection years.
#5 Jul 27 2004 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'd rather see a single 2 year term, renewable up to 5 times. That would grant a total term of up to 10 years. Any term not renewed would result in elections being held. The outgoing termholder would NOT be eligible to run again.


It'd be a powerless office. There'd be about four days when the President wasn't campaigning for re-election.

The six year thing is a better idea, but still too long. I do think they should limit it to two consecutive terms instead of two terms absolute. Not because I'd want to see Clinton in particular re-elected, but because it's very likely in the best intrest of the country to allow a young two term president to be elected to a third term later in his life.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jul 27 2004 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
729 posts
Good idea TStephens. We are definetly do for some changes in government. I would think dueling between representives would be a good idea, especially if one turns out to be a politician (aka. One who is only interested in what they get out of it, not what is good for the country as a whole!). It would be a great way to clean out the house. ~grin~
#7 Jul 27 2004 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
It'd be a powerless office. There'd be about four days when the President wasn't campaigning for re-election.

The six year thing is a better idea, but still too long. I do think they should limit it to two consecutive terms instead of two terms absolute. Not because I'd want to see Clinton in particular re-elected, but because it's very likely in the best intrest of the country to allow a young two term president to be elected to a third term later in his life.


The office is what you make it. It can be a coke-room or a whorehouse. Both have been proved in recent years.

I'm wholly opposed to longer terms. I want accountability. The entire idea behind having shorter, but renewable terms is that a President IS campaigning for his office while he's in it. The way these jerks get into office is by making promises. Well, let them put up or shut up. They, like most employees, will be more productive if held accountable.

Face it, if GWB had done the job he's doing right now for the past four years....Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. But GWB did a ****-poor job until it started looking mighty bleak for the ole GOP. Kerry stands a very good chance, IMO. I don't know which one of these knuckleheads will get the Presidency out of the election. But I want a chance to hold him accountable before 4 years go by....and not just by impeachment.
#8 Jul 27 2004 at 10:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Face it, if GWB had done the job he's doing right now for the past four years....Kerry wouldn't stand a chance


Intresting logic. Horribly flawed, but intresting in a psychotic arguing with himself on the street kind of way.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Jul 27 2004 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Intresting logic. Horribly flawed, but intresting in a psychotic arguing with himself on the street kind of way.


I do NOT argue with myself on the street.

I have a home where I pursue hobbies.
#10 Jul 27 2004 at 11:50 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I do NOT argue with myself on the street.

I have a home where I pursue hobbies.


The above statement has a "sure, I have lots of black friends" kinda ring to it.
#11 Jul 27 2004 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
The above statement has a "sure, I have lots of black friends" kinda ring to it.


I hear the same thing from liberals everyday. "Like OMG wow I have a gay friend in New York, maybe you know him"

(rolls eyes)
#12 Jul 27 2004 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Pulseczar wrote:
Quote:
The above statement has a "sure, I have lots of black friends" kinda ring to it.


I hear the same thing from liberals everyday. "Like OMG wow I have a gay friend in New York, maybe you know him"

(rolls eyes)


You really hear that every day?
#13 Jul 27 2004 at 12:01 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I hear the same thing from liberals everyday. "Like OMG wow I have a gay friend in New York, maybe you know him"

(rolls eyes)


As opposed to the conservative version:

"Hey you FU[i][/i]CKING ***!" with a side of swift kick to the head.

Umm...OK.
#14 Jul 27 2004 at 12:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
As opposed to the conservative version:

"Hey you ******* ***!" with a side of swift kick to the head.


Far from the truth.
#15 Jul 27 2004 at 12:12 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Far from the truth.


You are a shaved head, tattooed fa[/i]ggot in Texas. Get a fu[i]cking grip!
#16 Jul 27 2004 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Far from the truth.


Nah, not really. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of people who engage in gay hate crimes aren't voting for Kerry, don't you?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jul 27 2004 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
There are two kinds of straight people in America:

Those that are nice to a gay person's face but talk crap about them behind their backs (liberals)


Those that talk crap right to a gay person's face (conservatives)



let's not beat around the bush shall we?
#18 Jul 27 2004 at 12:33 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

There are two kinds of straight people in America:

Those that are nice to a gay person's face but talk crap about them behind their backs (liberals)


Those that talk crap right to a gay person's face (conservatives)



let's not beat around the bush shall we?


Right, because all straight people universally hate gay people.

Sterotyping is fun!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jul 27 2004 at 12:35 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
Quote:
Those that are nice to a gay person's face but talk crap about them behind their backs (liberals)


Is this the "Its ok that I'm a biggot because secretly everyone is doing it" argument?
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#20 Jul 27 2004 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
Right, because all straight people universally hate gay people.

Sterotyping is fun!


Finally thanks for fessing up!

Quote:
Is this the "Its ok that I'm a biggot because secretly everyone is doing it" argument?!


Nope it's the truth.

Edited, Tue Jul 27 13:40:46 2004 by Pulseczar
#21 Jul 27 2004 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Pulse, do you have self-hate issues?

#22 Jul 27 2004 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
I luvs myself. =D And breeders can shove it!

Edited, Tue Jul 27 13:43:58 2004 by Pulseczar
#23 Jul 27 2004 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
Pulse,

Your perception is seriously skewed by your Texan-ishness.

It ain't like that everywhere.

#24 Jul 27 2004 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
I am not from Texas silly. I moved here for my job.
#25 Jul 27 2004 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
**
729 posts
Some of us don't have any problems with gays. I'm fine with whatever they want to do until they make a pass at me, and then I hope they have learned their lesson after they get out of the hospital. In fact, I am a big fan of the, "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule. You don't talk to me about it, and you damn well better believe I'm not going to ask about it. Keep that sort of sh*t to yourself please!
#26 Jul 27 2004 at 12:47 PM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
Some of us don't have any problems with gays. I'm fine with whatever they want to do until they make a pass at me, and then I hope they have learned their lesson after they get out of the hospital. In fact, I am a big fan of the, "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule. You don't talk to me about it, and you damn well better believe I'm not going to ask about it. Keep that sort of sh*t to yourself please!


Oh don't worry!

(rolls eyes)
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 289 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (289)