Some liberal do-gooders say that the restriction to two terms of office for a US president is required to assure the stability our our great republic.
Have they ever read such interesting documents as the 9/11 Report? While some allgiations of the comession are undoubtedly unfounded, there is no doubt in my mind that had the Democratic nitwits passed information to the Bush administration properly, we might have been better prepared to deal with or even avert the tragedy of 9/11.
Despite our best efforts, the threat of terrorism is as real today as it was in 2001; even more so as the Al-Quaida are naught but wounded, cornered rats.
Would not continuous leadership for at least another term of office be more effective in dealing with this threat? It is time to reconsider outdated laws and constitutional amendments!
2007-07-19 03:19:37 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
your avatar and your question do not seem to match
2007-07-19 03:22:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although I generally agree that Bush has handled the threat of terrorism better than any Democrat, I do not believe that another term should be offered. Term limits are designed to keep political leaders from becoming power-hungry and making decisions based solely on power-brokering. Whether you agree with Bush or not, at least you know that he isn't doing anything to get ahead with special interest groups for the election in 2008. Contrast that with the passel of power-hungry presidential candidates that are out there, and you can definitely tell the difference!
Of course, "campaign-finance reform" only made things more corrupt -- notice the lack of serious presidential candidates.
The fix isn't to take off presidential term limits -- it's to put them on Congress so they can't play the "power" game. Maybe we would actually get more people with proven character in the race if the money situation wasn't so "fixed". It's a lot like celebrities and shoe contracts. As long as the celebrities keep winning, the shoe makers will keep giving them money.. In politics, it's a recipe for keeping around inept senators and congressmen.
2007-07-19 13:19:33 · answer #2 · answered by Brian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, We saw the danger of having a President for more than 2 terms when FDR was elected 4 times. They immediately passed the 22nd Amendment after his death.
2007-07-19 10:23:49 · answer #3 · answered by booman17 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's very difficult to see the upside in what you propose when we have a very, very authoritarian president right now. There's too great of a chance that 'continuous leadership' would just be a polite way of saying 'dictator'.
2007-07-19 11:16:49 · answer #4 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try and knock Exodus and ask Moses.
On how to rule and lead in guiding the survival and advancement of living human kind on planet earth.
The answers has been waiting for years.
Waiting for someone to pass by and give a knock in search for a solution.
2007-07-19 10:27:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
spoken like a true internet troll.
can we say CONDITIONING?!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
peace
2007-07-19 11:12:11 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
white house, senate & congress all GOP on 911, yet the DEMS somehow screwed Bush over...ummmm hmmmmmmmmm
2007-07-19 10:23:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
leadership? since when? thomas Jefferson?
2007-07-19 10:51:39 · answer #8 · answered by train120 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked your avator, lol
2007-07-19 10:28:11 · answer #9 · answered by yowuzup 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YEAH AND LETS INVADE IRAN, TOO!!
2007-07-19 10:22:53 · answer #10 · answered by livinhapi 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋