Term Limits - Would They Work?

Apparently America does. They voted for Obama didn't they?

Relax, Jonnythan. Just a discussion. Neither of us are really going to change this whole system ourselves.

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate three times.

I'm relaxed - I'm trying to explain to you how a discussion forum works.

When one poster quotes another and asks questions, it generally means that the first poster is addressing the quoted poster with his questions and comments.

I quoted leeberttea and posed questions and comments to him, and you apparently misunderstood that as me posing those questions and comments to you.

Hope that explaining this helps us avoid that kind of confusion in the future.

You partially make my point. Term limits limit the amount of time in a specific elected office. It doesn't necessarily preclude the limited office holder from running or holding another office that would continue to contribute to their skills and experience. We'll still get very good, very effective leaders. Our current President made it into office with almost no appreciable political experience in the long-term sense. Half of what he had was spent campaigning for higher offices.

Long-term tenure in political offices does not mean the office holder is either good or effective in the held office or any office gained thereafter.

You are aware, aren't you, that you come off as a relatively arrogant individual? You presume to know better than those with whom you hold a discussion. Anyone has the right to respond to another's post on these forums. If you don't want that, state it in your post or go PM.

Of course anyone can respond to anyone. However, you appear to have misunderstood a couple of questions and comments directed at another poster as directed at you. I'm just trying to help you avoid misunderstanding posts that way in the future.

Same tone. So, let me get this straight. You read all posts carefully enough to identify their specific construction and have not commented on posts you identify as specifically directed to another poster? Is that it?

I'm not sure why you're still having trouble with this.

When a poster quotes another poster, that poster is generally addressing the quoted poster with any direct questions and comments.

For instance, if I quote leeberttea and directly ask questions, you should understand that as me posing questions to leeberttea. You are certainly welcome to respond, but please don't misunderstand that post for addressing you with the questions and comments.

However, to answer your question, yes, I do read all posts carefully enough to identify who the questions and comments are directed to before I just assume they're directed at me. It seems simple enough. I "engage brain" before responding to posts.

OK, then its your position or personal policy that no posters, other than the one to whom you direct a post, should answer any post you post. Just want to make sure I'm not "still having trouble with this". Guess my brain must've been disengaged.

Anyone posting, please read Jonnythan's posts carefully enough to identify that he actually wants a response from YOU.

Again, we are having a massive reading comprehension failure! I'm honestly not sure where the problem lies.

Let's go over the things I have said on that topic in this thread:

"Of course anyone can respond to anyone."

"You are certainly welcome to respond, but please don't misunderstand that post for addressing you with the questions and comments."

I have specifically said more than once that anyone is of course welcome to respond to anyone.

It should be obvious that your statement on my "position" is entirely wrong.

Please read the thread! It's no wonder you're having so much trouble here - you're not reading anything!

Jonnythan, are you always wound this tight? Perhaps you're the only one who really understands what you're writing/asking, you lucky guy you.

I think we've gone back and forth enough for now. I'm headed out to do some of the work I have scheduled for today. Looking forward to your weighty response. I just know you'll have to do it.

Two good points! Chikdren gain experience when they climb out of K1 until K12 and more. So too should our public servants. --> Progessively from city council to President.

Good stories! Maybe youall might opine on the below!
You should be able to decide if "term limits" work
1993-June-24
POLITICAL CLASS vs TERM LIMITS
George Wllls wrote "Political Class vs Term limits" and hit
the root problem of our system of electing the people to be
our representatives in Washington.
When in power too long, it has been found (empirically)
that they no longer represent the people. They represent
political action groups and their own self aggrandizement.
They wish to perpetuate themselves and their purse.
Speaker Tom Foley is a prime example of the perpetual
politician. As a Democrat, elected from Washington in 1964,
"he is suing his state for their impertinence last November
(1992) when they voted to impose term limits on the States US
?Senators and Representatives."
Other States, too, have passed laws to limit terms. And
the politicians have revolted. In the process, too many have
used tax money to fight the laws.
Using taxes to defeat a law passed by the people is
illegal and the people can and should sue the politicians to
recover any monies spent by them.
Fifteen States have imposed term limits on their
Senators and Representatives. Others are following rapidly.
Now, it is up to us to sue any and all politicians who dare
to (or have used) public funds to fight their incorporation.
Foley "contends that State imposed limits are
unconstitutional because they add a fourth qualification for
office to the three (age, citizenship, residency) the
Constitution requires."
Foley forgets that those parameters have been observed.
But the TOTAL time in office (except as stated in the
Constitution) is determined by the people of the several
States and is specified by the tenth Amendment.

Well this could have been a good topic of discussion.