Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (132518)	3/20/2001 6:19:02 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<<<Term limits is the only way to accomplish meaningful campaign reform. If you can't run again you sure as heck ain't gonna be raising money>>> The very best way to "accomplish meaningful reform" is to limit the power of the legislature to what the Constitution actually allows in the way of legislation. To allow a blockhead in Washington to determine what my toilet should be is a crime. If they had proper power(Constitutional) there would be no reason to try to influence them with campaign monies.

To: DMaA who wrote (132518)	3/20/2001 8:49:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769667

Term limits is the only way to accomplish meaningful campaign reform. If you can't run again you sure as heck ain't gonna be raising money. Uhh, you have the vote. If you and enough other people don't like the incumbent, why not just retire him? What's the matter with just voting him out of office? And that way, if don't have term limits and have somebody in office who is doing a good job, you can keep them in office. They won't be thrown out by an arbitrary restriction. Remember Slick? Well, according to the hyper-Dems, if he had ran again he would have won again. So if he is one of your heros (RETCH!!!), you'd still have him as President without term limits. Term limits is the panacea of the stupid and lazy. You "campaign reform" geeks couldn't carry a logical argument if we gave you a basket. And, BTW, if you want term limits at the federal level, you're going to need a constitutional amendment. I don't don't think you'll get it.