CDZ Time for One-Term Presidents?

[hjmick]

Perhaps it is time for three term Presidents?

 

[320 Years of History]

Perhaps it is time for three term Presidents?

That makes more sense to me as a proposal than does the idea of it being time for us to limit Presidential terms to one.

 

[oldsoul]

When you come up with a better founding document that the US Constitution, and accually get the states to agree to it, I will give your statement consideration. Until then, be thankful that they safe guarded your right to say such hateful things.

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today

I thought you to be of higher character and intellect that to need reminding of what you said. So, when has it not been an insult to call a person (dead or not) a "f*cker"? That is what I would call an insult. How would you define it? As to whether or not a person can insult a deceased person, I would wager that if someone where to call your Grandmother a derogatory name, you would see things differently.

Calling someone a "f*cker," is tantamount to defaming or slandering them, insulting them, albeit vaguely. My grandmother or not, one who is living simply cannot defame the dead. Period.

• Can you defame the dead?

It doesn't matter how I feel about someone speaking that way of my dead grandmother. The fact is that she feels no insult and incurs no harm that we can identify. Thus if she's not insulted by one's calling her that, neither am I. No matter how "thin" be her (presumably) decomposed/-ing skin, the fact is that she doesn't care what one says of her. The same is so of the Framers.

FWIW, though none of my ancestors (that I know of) signed the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, some of them were "influencers" in my nation's founding and fought in the Revolutionary War. My use of "f*ckers" applies equally well to them as it does to the men who participated directly in the creation of the U.S.

You may be correct in a legal sense, however, the law is not the only way of defining things. How narrow of a scope you must think in.

 

[320 Years of History]

My recognizing the flaws and weaknesses in the Constitution the founders got ratified in no way suggests I can or could have done better. One need not be able to do better to also see that what one has accomplished is imperfect or that it could have been improved upon.

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today

I thought you to be of higher character and intellect that to need reminding of what you said. So, when has it not been an insult to call a person (dead or not) a "f*cker"? That is what I would call an insult. How would you define it? As to whether or not a person can insult a deceased person, I would wager that if someone where to call your Grandmother a derogatory name, you would see things differently.

Calling someone a "f*cker," is tantamount to defaming or slandering them, insulting them, albeit vaguely. My grandmother or not, one who is living simply cannot defame the dead. Period.

• Can you defame the dead?

It doesn't matter how I feel about someone speaking that way of my dead grandmother. The fact is that she feels no insult and incurs no harm that we can identify. Thus if she's not insulted by one's calling her that, neither am I. No matter how "thin" be her (presumably) decomposed/-ing skin, the fact is that she doesn't care what one says of her. The same is so of the Framers.

FWIW, though none of my ancestors (that I know of) signed the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, some of them were "influencers" in my nation's founding and fought in the Revolutionary War. My use of "f*ckers" applies equally well to them as it does to the men who participated directly in the creation of the U.S.

You may be correct in a legal sense, however, the law is not the only way of defining things. How narrow of a scope you must think in.

You posit that I think in a "narrow scope" and yet of all that I've written in this thread about how the Framers viewed the matter of term limits, you've opted to focus on my having used the term "f*ckers" rather than the content I shared that actually is substantive?

Legal sense or other sense, the fact remains that dead people feel no insult. "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That cannot be more so for anyone than it is for the dead.

 

[oldsoul]

Hence the provisions within the constitution to "improve" it, AKA amendments. While you may have intended to simply point out the "flaws and weaknesses", what you accually did was to personally insult them. Thus, my reaction.

Since when is it an insult to point out one's failings and shortcomings that can be demonstrably shown to indeed be just that? Moreover, just as one cannot libel and slander the dead, one cannot insult them either.

If you ask me, those f*ckers did exactly what politicians do today

I thought you to be of higher character and intellect that to need reminding of what you said. So, when has it not been an insult to call a person (dead or not) a "f*cker"? That is what I would call an insult. How would you define it? As to whether or not a person can insult a deceased person, I would wager that if someone where to call your Grandmother a derogatory name, you would see things differently.

Calling someone a "f*cker," is tantamount to defaming or slandering them, insulting them, albeit vaguely. My grandmother or not, one who is living simply cannot defame the dead. Period.

• Can you defame the dead?

It doesn't matter how I feel about someone speaking that way of my dead grandmother. The fact is that she feels no insult and incurs no harm that we can identify. Thus if she's not insulted by one's calling her that, neither am I. No matter how "thin" be her (presumably) decomposed/-ing skin, the fact is that she doesn't care what one says of her. The same is so of the Framers.

FWIW, though none of my ancestors (that I know of) signed the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, some of them were "influencers" in my nation's founding and fought in the Revolutionary War. My use of "f*ckers" applies equally well to them as it does to the men who participated directly in the creation of the U.S.

You may be correct in a legal sense, however, the law is not the only way of defining things. How narrow of a scope you must think in.

You posit that I think in a "narrow scope" and yet of all that I've written in this thread about how the Framers viewed the matter of term limits, you've opted to focus on my having used the term "f*ckers" rather than the content I shared that actually is substantive?

Legal sense or other sense, the fact remains that dead people feel no insult. "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." That cannot be more so for anyone than it is for the dead.

The fact that I have not commented on the content that you have shared that is substantive, is more a statement that I do not disagree with you on those points, rather than a testament to my own scope of thinking.
As to whether or not the comment in question is an insult or not, we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that it is highly disrepectful to refer to someone as a f*cker whether or not they are living. Therefore, I find it to be an insult. You are welcome to your opinion, and I will stay with mine.

 

[320 Years of History]

The fact that I have not commented on the content that you have shared that is substantive, is more a statement that I do not disagree with you on those points, rather than a testament to my own scope of thinking.

As to whether or not the comment in question is an insult or not, we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that it is highly disrepectful to refer to someone as a f*cker whether or not they are living. Therefore, I find it to be an insult. You are welcome to your opinion, and I will stay with mine.

I'm okay with that. Agreed.

 

[I amso IR]

How about a "Queen" for life. We could start with Frau Klinton. Should not be a problem to amend the Constitution, oh wait! All I considered was pleasing FiFi. My bad. Little Melissa Click of the University of Missouri... oop's my bad again. She is toast! More in line with the OP's question, how about a single six year term? Seems to me that would be plenty of time to have a bust or boom administration for any individual or political party. Think of the pee, pain and extreme mental anguish Obama could have been spared with a six year term. As with "Slick Willie" Obama could have already banked big bucks for the past year, as that is any Presidents goal, anyhow.