Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
All you've done is post people, some on liberal sites, debating the question. There were those arguing for, and those arguing against. I argue against, because this scares me:
As for House Res 5. The representative has introduced that same bill every two years since 1997, for a total of seven times. Yes, he even introduced it when Bush was President.
snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Check out the Snopes article. It even has Republicans, like Mitch McConnell submitting similar legislation.
Do you have some type of point or are you just being your normal hack self?
Did you read the Snopes article, or are you just offended by my fear of what Reagan might have done in a third term? But there are some good opinions on repealing the 22nd.
Here's an interesting op-ed piece from 2006 on the subject:
No More Second-Term Blues
It is interesting that our greatest political scandals happened in second terms. Ike's secret wars, Nixon's plumbers, Reagan's selling and giving arms to terrorists, and Clinton's blowjob. Does term limiting the President make him less accountable? Perhaps, but I still fear an imperial presidency....
While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.
And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.
...
While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.
Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.
Why should I read it? I never said Democrats are the only idiots, I was pointing out that there are people who want Obama to have more than 2 terms. If you want to point out that there were people that would have been happy to let Bush have a few more terms I will gladly admit you are correct.
That makes you the partisan hack, not me.