Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That part I agree with!!...with NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 6 years.
I had to pinch myself to see if I was awake, 'cause I agree with him, too.I'd leave it as is but add billwald's idea to the mix. Hell must be freezing.
I think ALL federal elected jobs should be 4 year or 6 year one term only with NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 4 years or 6 years.
That would mean 4 years without a possibility of changing federal elected offices. 4 or 6 year terms I'm okay with, but I do think the terms should be staggered. For example, half of all seats in the House of Reps are up for election in 2014, the other half in 2016. That gives a chance for people to make known their dissatisfaction without having wait up to 4 years-- as such often has been done in our "off-year" elections. The U.S. Senate does stagger terms even now-- about 1/3 of all seats are up for election every 2 years, so under what you're saying ["...NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 4 years or 6 years"] that would change, too.
We already have a Constitutional mandate that allows us to limit terms any time we wish.
It is called the ballot box.
We should exercise our rights and use it. :wavey:
BUT why does Congress always get a low rating - BUT a (usually) 90% re-election rate?
Yes, once a solid, conservative statesman like Reagan again occupies the oval office. FDR had three terms to advance socialism and stack the courts. Don't undo the limit for the wholesale Marxist that occupies the office now.Should we change the term for the President?
We alrady have a Constitutional mandate that allows us to limit terms any time we wish.
It is called the ballot box.
We should exercise our rights and use it. :wavey:
In THEORY you are right -
BUT why does Congress always get a low rating - BUT a (usually) 90% re-election rate?
Answer - BACON!!! That and because the "out-of power party" doesn't even put up a candidate. :tear:
In THEORY you are right -
BUT why does Congress always get a low rating - BUT a (usually) 90% re-election rate?
Answer - BACON!!! That and because the "out-of power party" doesn't even put up a candidate. :tear:
In THEORY you are right -
BUT why does Congress always get a low rating - BUT a (usually) 90% re-election rate?
Answer - BACON!!! That and because the "out-of power party" doesn't even put up a candidate. :tear:
And the lack of opposition candidates is based on laziness. The American voters deserve what they get.
Wow. From one side of your mouth you condemn good men for speaking out against the tyranny of liberal politics and indict the peaceful and lawful utilization of the recourses available to them, and out of the other side of your mouth you deem them worthy of the despotic consequences of inaction.And the lack of opposition candidates is based on laziness. The American voters deserve what they get.