Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ron Paul on term limits

  1. #1

    Default Ron Paul on term limits

    My friend claims that despite Paul's support for term limits, he has yet to term-limit himself and thus he's hypocritical on that issue.

    Is this an act of hypocrisy or does Paul have an explanation for why he has served so many terms despite supporting term limits?
    Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition

    - Thomas Jefferson



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    No, it's not hypocritical.

    If the good guys term-limit themselves, the good guys come home and the bad guys stay. Term limits work only if they apply to everyone.

    Ron Paul has voted for every term limits bill that came across him.

  4. #3

    Default Ron and Rand always consistent on term limits

    Low Preference has it just right.

    Ron -- and his son, Rand -- both support term limits for the entire body. Neither one has made a self-limit pledge, so they haven't contradicted themselves or acted in a hypocritical manner. But both support term limits and their support is genuine. Ron was one of the earliest modern supporters of term limits, sponsoring bills in the early 1980s! One of Rand's first acts as a senator was to sign on as cosponsor of Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) term limits amendment.

    For more info, see: http://pblumel.blogspot.com/2008/11/...rm-limits.html

    To sign an online petition for Congressional term limits, go here:
    http://www.termlimits.org/content.as...Y&contentid=28

  5. #4

    Default

    This is one issue that i hafta disagree with RP on: I've seen firsthand the political engineering that goes on with 'term limits'-- the incumbents and establishment simply have a handpicked person that they wrangle support for, and you're back to The System.

    Term limits undermine the will of the people. I do think that addressing election fraud would go a long way to seeing destructive incumbents legitimately voted out. Kinda like RP's position on illegal immigration: address the ROOT of the problem instead of a bandaid solution. As Ron Paul has demonstrated, it's not being in office for forty years that is the problem.....it's the people who gain office w/ corrupt means and continue the corruption.

  6. #5

    Default

    It can take time and experience to aquire the skills to craft a good bill on something and be able to get it passed. If you have term limits, it is less likely that a person will aquire those skills. If they are not allowed the time to do that, then elected polititians will have to rely on (and surrender more power to) either experienced carreer staffers (not elected) or lobbyists who will tell them what to put in bills (or even write them for them). This is not to mention the loss of choice if a good person gets into office and is forced to leave. If we had term limits now, Ron Paul would be out of Congress and perhaps out of policics altogether.
    "The only thing we have to fear is.... fear itself!" Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
    "Be afwaid. Be berry afwaid" Donald Trump.

    The optimists built this country and made it great- not the fearful. Fear can only destroy.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  7. #6

    Default

    I'm against term limits. If the voters want to elect someone to 20 terms that's their choice.
    I am the spoon.

  8. #7

  9. #8

    Default

    Enacting mandatory term limits takes away the voters' freedom to determine whether a politician needs to be term-limited.

    The BIG question is how to eliminate the corruption? Recently there was an article about how much the freshman tea-party congressmen have raked in so far.

    http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/11/18...=topics-drawer
    "Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    I'm against term limits. If the voters want to elect someone to 20 terms that's their choice.
    20 terms of Clinton or Bush or Obama? No thanks!
    Freedom Report

    Twitter Page


    "I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe." -- Ron Paul

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It can take time and experience to aquire the skills to craft a good bill on something and be able to get it passed. If you have term limits, it is less likely that a person will aquire those skills. If they are not allowed the time to do that, then elected polititians will have to rely on (and surrender more power to) either experienced carreer staffers (not elected) or lobbyists who will tell them what to put in bills (or even write them for them). This is not to mention the loss of choice if a good person gets into office and is forced to leave. If we had term limits now, Ron Paul would be out of Congress and perhaps out of policics altogether.
    If term limits were in place, couldn't someone just sit out one term and then run again 2 years/1 term later (and spend his "off term" criticizing the incumbent)? /curious
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tod View Post
    Enacting mandatory term limits takes away the voters' freedom to determine whether a politician needs to be term-limited.

    The BIG question is how to eliminate the corruption? Recently there was an article about how much the freshman tea-party congressmen have raked in so far.

    http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/11/18...=topics-drawer
    Would you argue that the 2 term limit on the presidency should be repealed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Would you argue that the 2 term limit on the presidency should be repealed?
    I think it would be an easy argument to make.

    But only after we've cleaned out the problems with our election fraud, monetary system, and dumped welfare/ IRS/ FED/ UN.

  14. #13

    Default

    Could the country just hold a periodic vote of "Confidence" or "No Confidence"? Sort of voting on whether we think we need an election?

    I mean what if we get someone in there who is good and gaining valuable experience? Maybe we could vote to just keep them going and skip the election and the campaigns that waste time and money?

  15. #14

    Default

    I used to think term limits would be a check on power, but now I am not so sure with the duopoly party system set up.

    How about liar limits? Pass a rule if a politician is caught deliberately lying to public while holding a public position they are out (without benefits). Now a days there is video in every phone to record. It would be politically poison to vote against a Liar's limit bill.
    USE THIS SITE TO LINK ARTICLES FROM OLIGARCH MEDIA:http://archive.is/ STARVE THE BEAST.
    More Government = Less Freedom
    Communism never disappeared it only changed its name to Social Democrat
    Emotion and Logic mix like oil and water

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seapilot View Post
    I used to think term limits would be a check on power, but now I am not so sure with the duopoly party system set up.

    How about liar limits? Pass a rule if a politician is caught deliberately lying to public while holding a public position they are out (without benefits). Now a days there is video in every phone to record. It would be politically poison to vote against a Liar's limit bill.
    lulz...problem with that is that Boobus LIKES to be lied to-as long as it's a bunch of feel-good lies. It happens even on these forums.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao!

  17. #16

    Default

    i think it would be good to term limit the senate, but not the house. in the house they don't seem to have as much trouble with long term congressmen






Similar Threads

  1. Government Reform: Ron Paul & term limits.
    By kusok in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2011, 07:53 PM
  2. Rand Paul says we should have term limits, why not this?
    By dude58677 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-10-2010, 06:23 PM
  3. Rand Paul on Term Limits
    By mconder in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 03:30 PM
  4. Did Ron Paul break his term limits pledge?
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-02-2010, 08:44 PM
  5. Rand Paul for term limits?
    By werdd in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 10:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •