 |
|
|
|
| World Leaders Should Be Allowed No More Than One Term. |
| Why should world leaders (such as the British Prime Minister or US President) be allowed more than 4 or 5 years in office? If they have not fulfilled their vision of the future through their policies, or got the ball rolling to the extent that the next leader will want to finish what they've started, why should they be allowed another 4 or 5 years? Perhaps it would give them the added incentive to hurry through their policies. On the other hand, is the advantage of a leader who has served one term, the added experience? Thoughts?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this statement. I think politicians do enough damage in the time there in power anyway.
There is one exception however...Rudy Giuliani was great when NYC was in turmoil he totally stepped
up to the plate. Maybe they should try something new like be in power for a year until they find
someone whose beneficial for the city or country or whatever the case may be. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
One term works out quite nicely if you're a dictator. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Srry Bush stunk at his job but not enough to do that |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07 Apr 2008 22:53
Sign In
