|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:28 pm
So who thinks we're headed for another civil war? And who think that we should overthrow our current government?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:20 am
Somehow, the way things are set up with Congress, I believe that will happen at some point. Of course we're currently trying to avoid a civil war, but that all depends on whether or not any other methods can fix Congress--currently, they're pretty much where the main problem is as there are no term limits. No term limits means everything one does is to just get re-elected. Compare that to the Presidency--one can only serve two terms as President and thus during their second and last term, they can't focus on a third term as they cannot legally run for one.
The problem with getting term limits in place is this: Congress is the branch of government that can make laws. There is no way any Congress would impose term limits on themselves and the President cannot enforce a law that doesn't exist. The only thing outside of an overthrow of the government that I can see impose term limits on Congress is if there is such a massive shakeup in our legislative branch of government such that the current culture of Congress is completely dismantled, leaving a clean slate for such self-imposing limits to be placed. o.o
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:51 pm
The already imposed a Presidential term limit once and that was after FDR. So, I doubt it will happen again, and I don't think it is fair to limit a good President to one term. However, this guy is a terrible President who could very well lead us down the road to Revolution or Civil War. For that I think he should be impeached.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:33 pm
Term limit for the Presidency, yes, but for Congress, not done yet. The way I see it, Obama is likely the least of our worries--it's House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and all of their interests and subordinates that are a bigger problem, which pretty much makes Congress the biggest threat to our liberty, along with the drive-by media and their interests.
If anything, Obama once mentioned he'd rather be a one-term president that was "good" than a "bad" two-term president. He should be careful what he wishes for, because we'd love to make him a one-term president when it comes time to vote him out two years from now.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:11 pm
It depends, what should we replace it with?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:16 am
I personally don't think much needs to be replaced except for Congress. We do need a legislature and our Founding Fathers had their heads in the right place when they split government into legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. What they didn't see was how the lack of term limits on the legislature would cause them to go out of control, which is what they have done.
Here's what changes I'd make to Congress:
1) Term Limits: Lack of term limits means everything one does in one term is to get re-elected. That leads to a perpetual cycle that forces legislators to lose focus of the reason they were elected in the first place and thus, lose touch with their constituents. 2) Backbenchers: The entire legislative process was supposed to be open to the public--that meant everything they did on the floor of the House and Senate could not be behind proverbial closed doors. Why? It's to remind those we elect that they are beholden to us and no one else and our Representatives and Senators would know if they're doing something their constituents disapprove of when the backbenchers get into an uproar.
That's pretty much all I'd change, really. o.o
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:18 pm
CrazyBunnyShota 1) Term Limits: Lack of term limits means everything one does in one term is to get re-elected. That leads to a perpetual cycle that forces legislators to lose focus of the reason they were elected in the first place and thus, lose touch with their constituents. But if this is a democracy that will indirectly work against them. If they spend all their time campaigning they won't get anything done and people will realize how bad they are. Plus, term limits means that if the people want someone to be in office 2 or more terms they can.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:33 pm
I did a cow CrazyBunnyShota 1) Term Limits: Lack of term limits means everything one does in one term is to get re-elected. That leads to a perpetual cycle that forces legislators to lose focus of the reason they were elected in the first place and thus, lose touch with their constituents. But if this is a democracy that will indirectly work against them. If they spend all their time campaigning they won't get anything done and people will realize how bad they are. Plus, term limits means that if the people want someone to be in office 2 or more terms they can. Yea but people don't elect people based on productivity, progress, or anything that matters. They elect people based on how good of a speaker they are, how good of a liar they are, and who they're used to; that last one would mean that someone who has been in office for 10 years will probably stay there for the rest of their life, regardless of how sucky they get.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:55 pm
death angel712 I did a cow CrazyBunnyShota 1) Term Limits: Lack of term limits means everything one does in one term is to get re-elected. That leads to a perpetual cycle that forces legislators to lose focus of the reason they were elected in the first place and thus, lose touch with their constituents. But if this is a democracy that will indirectly work against them. If they spend all their time campaigning they won't get anything done and people will realize how bad they are. Plus, term limits means that if the people want someone to be in office 2 or more terms they can. Yea but people don't elect people based on productivity, progress, or anything that matters. They elect people based on how good of a speaker they are, how good of a liar they are, and who they're used to; that last one would mean that someone who has been in office for 10 years will probably stay there for the rest of their life, regardless of how sucky they get. But thats an inevitable side effect of a free society. Thats what us conservatives want. Its much better than the alternative. However you do make a point: people vote based on ads, not policies.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:08 pm
One should realize that voting for a new canidate for president, Governor, Mayor, senator or to accept new laws or taxes won't change anything for the country. The only thing that would work would be a REBELLION or a REVOLUTION!!! twisted The question is how we would go about arranging it. Or if the people have the BACKBONE to start one.... rolleyes
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:31 am
Pretty much my point exactly--no term limits means anyone elected to any office will just get too comfortable. That's why I strongly advocate term limits for Congress to mirror that of the Presidency and besides, it's alot like when you get a project that's due in, say, two weeks, as opposed to a project with absolutely no deadline whatsoever--term limits can be thought of in terms of deadlines and one tends to be more productive when a deadline is in mind.
As for a revolution, if it indeed does come to that, I would support it. (This is the real reason why we have the Right to Bear Arms--in case it really does come down to the last straw of us against tyranny) That said, it should only come if we've exhausted everything and it is clear that nothing can reverse any changes the tyranny in question has made. So far we still have 2010 and 2012, so we should shoot for those two elections before anything else. o.o
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 4:10 pm
Kamui Kenshin One should realize that voting for a new canidate for president, Governor, Mayor, senator or to accept new laws or taxes won't change anything for the country. The only thing that would work would be a REBELLION or a REVOLUTION!!! twisted The question is how we would go about arranging it. Or if the people have the BACKBONE to start one.... rolleyes DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT! rolleyes Really, you think that a rebellion will work? All of the people who are in power now will stay in power. Yes, I am saying politicians have no real power Corporations do So here's the ******** the corporations Make people open small businesses Lobbyists go away Problem solved.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:17 pm
I'm not saying it's likely, but if it did happen it would probably be us gun-loving conservatives against war-hating liberals.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 10:46 pm
We shouldn't over throw our government. we need to relax and utalize our rights, treating them as our swords and shields. so long as we stay calm and stick together as one nation under God we can over come anything, whether it be Nazis or Progressives, over seas or within our homes, we have the power.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:18 am
Your_punk13 We shouldn't over throw our government. we need to relax and utalize our rights, treating them as our swords and shields. so long as we stay calm and stick together as one nation under God we can over come anything, whether it be Nazis or Progressives, over seas or within our homes, we have the power. Pretty much. If anything, a revolution would only be justified if everything else fails. Hopefully it won't come to that point, but if it does, I'll be one of the first to support the revolution. Just to make sure things don't degenerate to said scenario, we must focus on what we can get done now--the elections of 2010 and 2012 being our two major opportunities to turn things around.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|