TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

I don't want another Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, ad nauseum.

baldeagle wrote: I don't want another Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, ad nauseum.

Ted Kennedy

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

I don't want another Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, ad nauseum.

You don't get to make that decision anymore than Californians get to decide of Ted Cruz is your Senator. This confirms my earlier point; people want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Everyone votes for the President, not so for Congressmen and Senators.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

I don't want another Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, ad nauseum.

You don't get to make that decision anymore than Californians get to decide of Ted Cruz is your Senator. This confirms my earlier point; people want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Everyone votes for the President, not so for Congressmen and Senators.

Chas.

I understand the argument, but here's the problem. The longer politicians are in office the more likely they are to become corrupt, to think they are special and the laws should not apply to them, to pass legislation that benefits their financial benefactors regardless of how it affects the country. I want Congresscritters to come home after a decade or two in Washington and be forced to live under the laws that they've passed. Let them find out what it's like to be frustrated by what someone else in DC is doing to them for once.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
You don't get to make that decision anymore than Californians get to decide of Ted Cruz is your Senator. This confirms my earlier point; people want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Everyone votes for the President, not so for Congressmen and Senators.

Chas.

Wait...
So if the people of Massachuteses get to elect Ted Kennedy for nearly 47 years, and that's ok, why shouldn't the people of the U.S. be able to elect Obama for 47 years?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

I have to disagree. Term limits is what has gotten us to where we are today in Washington in my opinion for exactly the reason you are saying. They are all afraid to make hard tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. They already do what they want and that is no compromise or cooperation and that is the problem. There a bunch of little kids that all want there way. That's not what we as Americans elect them for, pay them for or deserve.

I guess you can see it both ways but if the president needs term limits so does everyone else. Congress has probably more power than the president as a whole because they can make laws. This is where the founding fathers were short sighted in my opinion. The longer there in there the longer big business and special interest have to get their hands on them.

I've long waited for term limits and to a tee everyone I've ever mentioned it to agrees and I've talked to a lot of people about it.

If they already know that 70% - 80% of the people support term limits, why do we need to sign a petition?

pcgizzmo wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

I have to disagree. Term limits is what has gotten us to where we are today in Washington in my opinion for exactly the reason you are saying. They are all afraid to make hard tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. They already do what they want and that is no compromise or cooperation and that is the problem. There a bunch of little kids that all want there way. That's not what we as Americans elect them for, pay them for or deserve.

I guess you can see it both ways but if the president needs term limits so does everyone else. Congress has probably more power than the president as a whole because they can make laws. This is where the founding fathers were short sighted in my opinion. The longer there in there the longer big business and special interest have to get their hands on them.

I've long waited for term limits and to a tee everyone I've ever mentioned it to agrees and I've talked to a lot of people about it.

Then vote out your Congressman, but you don't get to vote on mine. Then our votes can compete for our Senators, but we don't get to vote on the Senators of other states.

I don't want any elected official "making hard tough decisions." I don't vote for a guidance counselor or a mentor. I vote for a robot who will do what I want him or her to do. I don't trust their judgment over mine. Obviously I can't have that, so the only way I can make them do what I want and not what they want to do is by joining with other people who share my view and forming organizations that have the power to remove them from office during the next election.

When Jerry Patterson was a State Senator he said it best. He said he has nondiscretionary and discretionary votes. A non-discretionary vote is one on an issue concerning which his constituents have told him how to vote. His opinion doesn't matter; he's there to do what his constituents tell him to do. A discretionary votes occurs on an issue when his constituents haven't told him how to vote, or they are evenly split on an issue.

Chas.

This conversation would be moot if lobbying/big money were not able to influence/corrupt those in office. It's a CRIME that billions of dollars get spent in elections and pay-offs. That money would be better used to address our social and economic issues. Unfortunatley, since that's not the case, we have the behavior that we have. The perks are too great. No matter how well-intentioned those entering office are, they will generally do whatever necessary to stay at the trough.

I would have to respectfully disagree with those against term limits. Term limits prevent dictatorship, look at Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Granted, the elections there are rigged, but they are here too, at least I believe so in this last election. There were to many "anomalies" to ignore.

I have heard many conspiracy theories for a long long time about Obama trying to go for a third term, a now it looks to be true.

If you follow popular conspiracy theory and look at current events, the dots are easy to connect.

Obama trying for third term - Why are we dicussing term limits now?

Martial Law coming - 18 wheeler gets pulled over in Houstn with signs "martial law in effect", military and police drills in miami and houston and other places

Financial collapse- debt ceiling crisis and devaluing the us dollar

Gun confiscation- see martial law, if they cant get it done legislatively they will do it this way

Secret FEMA camps all over US-for those who dont comply

Create financial crisis
Induce panic-no one will be able to get goods/services because trucks stopped rolling because banking system shutdown and or hyper inflation makes things unaffordable-people resort to violence to survive as supermarket shelves go empty to justify institution martial law
Confiscate guns using financial system-turn in guns or get bank accounts frozen, everyone dependent on government, commie dictatorship accomplished.
Dissenters/ non compliers sent to FEMA camps.
When things stabilize, government effectively steals your 401k by only allowing investment in government bonds that will default.
Everyone dependant on goverment.

There are to many things happening for me to believe all is well. When and how things will play out I can only speculate.
We are living in some very interesting times to say the least. Dont ignore they warning signs!

To those who say it cant happen here, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!!!!!!!!

When Jerry Patterson was a State Senator he said it best. He said he has nondiscretionary and discretionary votes. A non-discretionary vote is one on an issue concerning which his constituents have told him how to vote. His opinion doesn't matter; he's there to do what his constituents tell him to do. A discretionary votes occurs on an issue when his constituents haven't told him how to vote, or they are evenly split on an issue.

If the philosophy above were practiced by the majority of elected officials, I would agree with the "no term limits" supporters.

But it isn't.

In my opinion being a Senator or Representative should be treated like Jury duty. You get selected by your peers, you serve, you leave. I am all for term limits.

bagman45 wrote: It's a CRIME that billions of dollars get spent in elections and pay-offs..

Spending a billion on a presidential election compared to a $20+ TRILLION economy is a tiny expenditure compared to the impact. What you call a crime, I call free speech. I am correctly allowed to contribute to the campaigns of people that share my views.

Jumping Frog wrote:

bagman45 wrote: It's a CRIME that billions of dollars get spent in elections and pay-offs..

Spending a billion on a presidential election compared to a $20+ TRILLION economy is a tiny expenditure compared to the impact. What you call a crime, I call free speech. I am correctly allowed to contribute to the campaigns of people that share my views.

I have to agree with 'bagman45'.

My contributions to any particular candidate are absolutey dwarfed...not by the $20+ Trillion economy but by the spending power of Super PACs, Corporations and wealthy individuals. It makes my contribution absolutely moot.
Despite this, I still send a few bucks to the NRA whenever I get the urge.

As far as I can tell 15 states have term limits in effect. This chart shows them. You can look the their experience to see for yourself if the concept has merit. There are arguements for both positions. An interesting side note, In previous years of legislators who reported their profession, lawyers were the majority. Now the largest reported group are full time legislators.

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-electi ... tates.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;