Its Official, Hillary: "I'm in..."

[drumcorpssnare]

rockyusmc- Doesn't it stand to reason that four terms, even for a "good" politician, is enough time for them to effect positive change? For the average mayoral candidate, that's eight years! For a "good" US Senator, it's twenty-four years! If you can't accomplish something decent in that time span, you're in the wrong business.
And, using Senator Hillary Rodham Slutface as an example....from the time she swears in for that 6-yr. Senate term, until that 6 yrs. has been fulfilled...
she should not be eligible to run for any other office. Period! If she quits the Senate early, she has to sit around on her fat a$$ until her six years is up!

Just my thoughts...
drumcorpssnare

[hoytarcher45]

All good points. I definatly think that for every genuine and good polititian that is lost because of these theoretic term limits, there will be 10 times more bad ones that need to be replaced.

It is unfortunate that so many people don't vote because they think their vote does not count. If nothing else, you should vote out of principal. If you don't vote, you should have no reason to complain about the current situation. An youv'e got to think...if 80% of the population is apathetic or uninformed about politics, what do they use as the basis of their vote? Looks? Maybe you should be required to take a test before you are allowed to vote to insure that idiots who know nothing about politics or government aren't deciding who get to be our leaders. Of course, this will never happen. Stupid people are still people too.

[drumcorpssnare]

hoytarcher45- Anytime I get in a conversation with someone who complains about the government, the war, the military, etc., I ask who they voted for.
Not that I care who...but if! If they say they didn't vote, I just tell them I don't want to hear their nonsense. If ya don't vote, ya don't have the right to complain, in my book.

Also, I remember in grade school having a mock election. We actually got to use the voting machine. Then we filed back to the classroom from the gym. One at a time, we stood up, said who we voted for, and why. The teacher tallied the votes, etc. But the lesson really was...."Don't just vote. Know who, and what you're voting for!"

drumcorpssnare

[rockyusmc]

drum&hoy,thanx you guys are absoulty right!why dont all of us get busy and take our country back from these d*** parasite politicians.they only care about filling their own pockets.isnt it amazing bubba&hil were so broke in the white house and as soon as they left the white house they got ahouse in ny state,atown house in dc and aplace in nyc.i wrote to hil once.i heard she ran 1,000 bucks up to 100,000 bucks.i told her i had 2,000 dollars to invest and all i wanted as a return was 5,000 dollars.she never answered.if god forbid she should get elected will her and bubba ran the b&b at the white house again?

[drumcorpssnare]

rockyusmc- Remember when Bubba was prez and he charged people to spend a night in the "Lincoln" bedroom?
The Hildabeast will probably charge women $1,000.00 a pop, to "kneel where Monika knealt."
drumcorpssnare

[3077India]

rockyusmc- Doesn't it stand to reason that four terms, even for a "good" politician, is enough time for them to effect positive change? For the average mayoral candidate, that's eight years! For a "good" US Senator, it's twenty-four years! If you can't accomplish something decent in that time span, you're in the wrong business.
And, using Senator Hillary Rodham Slutface as an example....from the time she swears in for that 6-yr. Senate term, until that 6 yrs. has been fulfilled...
she should not be eligible to run for any other office. Period! If she quits the Senate early, she has to sit around on her fat a$$ until her six years is up!

Just my thoughts...
drumcorpssnare

I tend to think that 2 terms for a US Senator (that would be 12 Years) and 6 terms for a US Representative (that would be 12 years also) would be sufficient for them to effect a change. If a US Senator, which serves 6 yr term, were limited to 4 terms, that would be 24 yrs to me that is too F***ing long. If a US Representative, which serves a 2 yr term, were limited to 4 terms, that would be 8 years. For me 12 years for both houses should be the maximum allowed. People like old Ted "Sausagehead" Kennedy would've been out along time, since he and other career politicians have outlived their usefulness.

[3077India]

One of my pet peeves in American govt. is "career politicians." These elected officials who serve thirty, forty, even fifty years, have developed their "good-old-boy" network of self-serving, behind the scenes wheeling and dealing, that is really not in our best interest. They cater to lobbyists and "pork-barrel spending" instead of representing the interests of their constituents.
It is my belief that our founding fathers wanted the average American to govern this country. I think it's unfortunate that terms of office are not limited by the Constitution. Only the President of the United States is limited to two terms.
I would like to see politicians in this country limited to four terms, total, in office. This would include all levels of government....local, state, and federal.
So, for example, if I am elected to my state assembly and serve two terms, then run for the US Senate, I can only serve two terms there. Then, I am done as an elected official in this country. Four total terms...no exceptions!

What do you think of term limits?

Drumcorps, perhaps the States need to take another look at Article V of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The bold type is one clause that tends to be completely overlooked; the States (two-thirds of 'em) have the authority to petition Congress to call a Convention to propose Amendments to the Constitution. The only draw back to this is that the last time we had a Constitutional Convention (in 1787) the Convention delegates decided to scrape the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new form of gov't. The concern is that such a Constitutional Convention might do the same thing; however, the difference is that the Convention of 1787 wasn't bound by the Articles of Confederation to consider only amendments, while under the Constitution Article V clear states that such a Convention would be limited to proposing Amendments.

Having stated that I submit that we petition our States to demand that Congress call a Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution. I know it's a long shot, but we'll never know unless we try. All in favor say, "Aye!"

drum corps,you have apoint.the only problem might be if you get areally great guy,who does the job right,we could lose some one great.but by and large lets limit these guys.one other thing i'd like to see,is if you want to run for a differant office you must quit the one you are holding.the politicians should not have a safety net in case they lose.if you wanted to move to a better paying job you would have to give up your current one.

I understand your points, the problem is the Constitution, under Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2, merely requires that a person elected as Senator or Representative may not serve in two posts at the same time. This clause is why you have many Congressmen (or women) running for other offices while they continue to serve in Congress; the down side is that while they are out campaigning for their other office, the people they represent tend to suffer for their lack of attendance at a session of Congress.

[rockyusmc]

drum--who knows she may put a red light up.bubba would be her star attraction.all those hollywood ho's would pay a lot more to play with bubba.i dont think very much of politicians.and think even less of her.

[rockyusmc]

india im with you .the only problem is we would be asking other politicians to limit terms.given the nature of the beast,do you really think they would do as we ask?as it is they ignore us now.

[3077India]

india im with you .the only problem is we would be asking other politicians to limit terms.given the nature of the beast,do you really think they would do as we ask?as it is they ignore us now.

That is so true, I tend to look at the clauses in the Constitution rather liberally; no where does Article V state that delegates to such a Constitutional Convention have to be members of Congress. The States could send whomever they choose. A Convention would be the opportunity for the People (if they would get off their a**es) to influence the process more closely, than if we relied on the career politicians in Congress to approve constitutional amendments. The people tend to have greater and more direct influence over their State legislatures than over Congress, so petitioning our States to demand a Constitutional Convention is actually better and more democratic than the other option, since no one would be able to get any politician in DC to agree to limit their own terms.

Incidentally, in Lousyana (my home state) our Legislators, surprisingly, submitted an amendment to the State Constitution back in the 90's that limited their terms and it was approved, to their utter shock.

[killerinstinct]

this still just baffles me why she would run for president as if she would win. I don't want to be sexist but a woman like that for president having a say so on where the Marine Corps is deployed and I can just see her forcing co-ed training into the mix which im against anyways.

This will be a sad sad day in America if that woman is president.

[rockyusmc]

killer,its the idea of power.these people love being able to dictate to the peasants.they are the only ones who know what is good for you.and by god they will jam it down your throat.she wanted to be in control back when bubba was pres.remember?parents dont know how to raise children,it takes a village.thats where it all starts grab the kids,and brain wash them.then you rewrite history.sound familar?the reds did it,the nazis did itand the fascists did it.hellary and all the other liberals will destroy this country if we let them.

[bootlace15]

Bush,Clinton,Bush,Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bootlace15 out

[MOUNTAINWILLIAM]

How can anyone criticize Hillary? Don’t you folks realize that she is the smartest woman in the world and is going to provide Universal Health care for us all, as well as make us all fat and happy (dumb is already spoken for). She will definitely implement her health care package this time around and not have to worry about Bill running around with his pecker in his hand as he will just be a shadow on the wall (he will just be first dude and not running things as before). She also has “A Plan” to resolve this Iraq thing too (tucking our tails between our legs and Shagging A$$ out-o-there).

So, let us all pull together and get her elected, we need a woman in the White House (and just imagine the joy if Obama runs as her VP).

[3077India]

MountainWilliam, I have a suggestion for you, next you have a thought, just let it go.