Congress has the right to set the length of term for all our elected Federal officials, and has done so. But to set specific limits on the number of terms that can be served, now, must be proven to be for some reason other than some group of legislators is upsetting a different group, or 'hindering the smooth flow of business'. Or has simply been in office too long. Who is to say what is "to long"? A politician in Washington, or the people who keep sending him back to do their work in Washington? Remember, We the People get what we elect, and throw out what we don't like when it gets too bad. But WE decide for ourselves ! (don't we?)

This is exactly what is wrong with mandating term limits... provided you, wmou, are not one of his constituents. He may be an "SOB", but he is not your SOB, so you have NO SAY in whether he stays or goes. If McConnell was so 'disgusting' why is he still in office? Must not be so disgusting to the people who has been chosen to represent. Mitch is their SOB, so we should all stay out of their business. That goes DOUBLE for financing ANY thing to do with his election OR defeat. People have NO BUSINESS in interfering in elections OUTSIDE their political jurisdictions. George Soros, are you listening???

You were doing fine, until you began to attribute reasons to actions.

The promotion of moral values will divide any number of groups, or at least individuals in them. Saying that this is intentionally directed at specific groups is making a bit more of it than intended, unless it is actually intentional, in which case that weakens the whole argument of morality, since morality should apply evenly across the population spectrum.

Wasn't this 'asked and answered' earlier? Even verbatim, possibly?

Yes there is. Constitution says that all judges '...serve during good behavior". I presume good behavior means no more than following the testimony of their oath of office.

Defense in a necessity, but NOT something the individual can adequately do for himself. Health care MAY become necessary, but it is not something the government must provide for the people (except by some extraordinary stretch of the imaginative mind) but which the people CAN do, and have done. Besides, the Medical Profession has managed quite well to care for everyone that needed care BEFORE the advent of widespread health insurance, private at that. It can do it again. Fact of the matter is...ever since third party insurance and government participation in payment, the image of the local doctor has slid, both in income and prestige. i

Well, not having a gun won't prevent a car crash, or other mistake in judgement on your part. we're talking about violent crime.

Reasoning with some people is like trying to pick a t*rd up by the 'clean' end.

How about a law that requires you to keep your tally-wacker in your pants? You be in favor of that? That 'standard' enough for you? No, I am not in favor of abortions, just against some of the "logic" that surrounds it's promotion.