Limiting consecutive terms to 2 terms in the Senate and 6 in the House. Good idea or no?

1/13/2012 9:43:21 PM

Those fuckers will never vote themselves term limits. Never.

If you'd like, you can send Gingrich back to try again.

1/13/2012 10:05:57 PM

^ this and if they did pass it they would run every other term with a partner.

1/13/2012 10:27:05 PM

Its a great idea, but it will never happen

1/14/2012 4:06:50 PM

This would probably require a constitutional convention. There'd need to be some kind of national movement to pressure state legislators to do it.

1/14/2012 4:08:11 PM

horrible idea.

1/14/2012 4:09:56 PM

Yeah, man. Imagine how many good politicians we would lose if term limits were implemented.

For real, though, explain yourself.

1/14/2012 4:17:31 PM

I've been thinking about this as well. There's always bitching about Senators getting too comfortable and too many corporate ties when he's in there forever, and the only way to get them out is term limits or scandals.

1/14/2012 4:38:02 PM

I think its a bad idea too. I can barely find this reasonable for the house, and I'd say no more than 20 terms then.

1/14/2012 5:02:33 PM

Its a horrible idea because he is employed by the political machine.

1/14/2012 5:32:26 PM

Quote :

"I've been thinking about this as well. There's always bitching about Senators getting too comfortable and too many corporate ties when he's in there forever, and the only way to get them out is term limits or scandals. "

On the other hand, look at the revolving door between regulators and the industries they regulate. Term limits might cause the same thing to happen in congress, where you go in, do some people some favors and come out with a new cushy job. Not that something like that doesn't happen now, but at least the desire to be re-elected might be holding it down for some.

Also, there's a decent argument to be made that these people (in both houses now, sadly) have been elected to represent the people, and the people shouldn't have to change representatives if they are happy with their current one.

1/14/2012 5:49:42 PM

I'm out of politics chance.

But at the end of the day all term limits do is hand over power and knowledge of the legislative system from the elected representatives to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists.

1/15/2012 5:00:13 AM

Well, right now, a member of Congress must serve at least five years to be eligible for any pension, so I think term limits is a great idea in that aspect.

I like the age requirements for both houses.

I actually think TOTAL service to 12 years is enough. They can split it up any way they decide.

Lifetime (federal) politicians are always a bad idea, especially if they don't have other jobs.

Now that I think about it...what about letting a person serve more than 12 years in office, as long as they forgo their congressional pensions?

1/15/2012 10:19:45 AM

I think we should be able to Democratically elect whoever we want, regardless of how many times they've served in the past. I'd prefer to remove all term limits for all offices, including the Presidency, and also remove all requirements regarding age and the "natural born citizen" thing. Why be so afraid of letting the people electing who they want to elect?

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 11:54:11 AM

Because a lot of people don't know what's good for them. They're dumbed down people that haven't been taught to think for themselves. Anything we can do to prevent career politicians from taking hold is moving in the right direction.

Quote :

"Why be so afraid of letting the people electing who they want to elect?"

"Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree."

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2012 12:24:24 PM

1/18/2012 12:26:22 PM

How many times have you ranted about Socialists and Liberals thinking people are dumb babies who have to be coddled and have their decisions made for them? Now you're attacking Democracy itself because people are too dumb to know what's good for them? Jesus Christ you are the most oblivious little ball of contradiction and hypocrisy imaginable. Either that or you're not thinking a quarter as much as I'm giving you credit for and just react to stuff, your general heuristic being "Gubmint bad Capital gud!"


Seriously, what you're saying amounts to "People can't be counted on to make the right decision for themselves, so we should regulate elections to ensure they make the right choices."

You realize if we replaced "election" with any kind of commerce whatsoever, you'd be in a spitting fury?

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 12:29:57 PM

I'm against democracy because it's mob rule by another name. The inescapable truth is that, in representative democracy, the slim majority (or even a simple plurality) gets to force the rest of the country to go along with whatever they say.

Would you really deny that the majority may very well force the minority to go along with something that is not in the minority's best interests? I mean, I get it - in your mind, the "majority" are the working class, and the minority are "capital owners", but this isn't how it actually works out.

Democracy is only acceptable in a heavily decentralized system.

Quote :

"Seriously, what you're saying amounts to "People can't be counted on to make the right decision for themselves, so we should regulate elections to ensure they make the right choices.""

Uh, what? How are you failing to make the distinction between "decisions for themselves" and "decisions that will affect others"?

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 12:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2012 12:36:12 PM

Lmao now you think individual commerce decisions don't affect others, how deep does this rabbit hole go...

Quote :

"The inescapable truth is that, in representative democracy, the slim majority (or even a simple plurality) gets to force the rest of the country to go along with whatever they say. "

Have you been asleep the past 3 years? Have you noticed how absolutely nothing can pass through congress without a supermajority of support? Do you ever actually think about reality when you argue, or is it entirely from these fantasy carnival of strawmen dancing in your head that you derive your opinions from?

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 12:40:47 PM

Quote :

"Lmao now you think individual commerce decisions don't affect others, how deep does this rabbit hole go..."

Only you could extract that from what I posted.

Quote :

"Have you been asleep the past 3 years? Have you noticed how absolutely nothing can pass through congress without a supermajority of support?"

That's due to political gridlock, but it doesn't change the fact that laws are frequently passed with very little controversy that end up hurting the average person. I can see no reason why someone in California should be able to tell me how to live in North Carolina, and vice versa.

I don't know how to get through to you on this. I don't want a very powerful, centralized federal government. It causes more harm than good. I want decentralized government, not chaos. Decentralization allows you to get what you want. It allows me to get what I want. Our current system leaves both of us fucked with no recourse.

1/18/2012 12:46:15 PM

Quote :

"Have you been asleep the past 3 years? Have you noticed how absolutely nothing can pass through congress without a supermajority of support? Do you ever actually think about reality when you argue, or is it entirely from these fantasy carnival of strawmen dancing in your head that you derive your opinions from?"

Supermajority in congress != supermajority in the population.

Quote :

" is it entirely from these fantasy carnival of strawmen dancing in your head that you derive your opinions from?"

Just about every post you make includes some kind of logical fallacy. Just sayin dawg. Look in the mirror.

1/18/2012 12:49:16 PM

Quote :

"Only you could extract that from what I posted."

You posted

Quote :

"Uh, what? How are you failing to make the distinction between "decisions for themselves" and "decisions that will affect others"?"

To try and reconcile your apparently contradicting views of the dependability of individual decision-making. Presumably, you're trying to differentiate between commerce (Where you have utmost faith in individual decisions) and democracy (Where you apparently have no faith). So I would guess that "decisions for themselves" = market and "decisions that will affect others" = democracy. Did I misinterpret?

Quote :

" That's due to political gridlock,"

It's due to the US not being a simple-plurality/majority direct Democracy like you constantly try to strawman it as.

Quote :

" but it doesn't change the fact that laws are frequently passed with very little controversy that end up hurting the average person."

And why isn't there controversy? Shouldn't the market-driven media be producing what's best for the consumers, according to supply and demand? Products get sold every fucking day that hurt people worldwide either through pollution or exploitation, but you have no problems with that because the market does it and the market never fails.

Quote :

" I can see no reason why someone in California should be able to tell me how to live in North Carolina, and vice versa."

I see no reason why a homosexual should have to pick up and move his life across the country just because he was unlucky enough to be born into the wrong state to be gay in.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 12:53:07 PM

Quote :

"I see no reason why a homosexual should have to pick up and move his life across the country just because he was unlucky enough to be born into the wrong state to be gay in."

There are good arguments on both sides for this. If a state creates an unjust law, most people can afford to move to another state. If a country creates an unjust law, it's unavoidable for most people. Your argument assumes the US government is more benevolent than state governments. True in some cases, untrue in others.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:04:20 PM

Hmm it's almost as though blanket statements like "Federal government always best" or "Always leave it to the States" are, like all blanket statements, wrong...

1/18/2012 1:08:16 PM

So how would you determine what should be handled by the federal government, and what should be handled by the states?

1/18/2012 1:12:22 PM

Quote :

"If a state creates an unjust law, most people can afford to move to another state."

Then why don't all the gay people live in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, DC, New York, or motherfucking Iowa?

1/18/2012 1:12:53 PM

Quote :

"Then why don't all the gay people live in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, DC, New York, or motherfucking Iowa?"

Probably because they decided they'd rather stay where they are than get married. Let me rephrase, if it makes you feel better: a lot more people can afford to move to another state than another country.

I mean, I wish weed was fucking legal, but I'm not moving out of North Carolina for it.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:15:01 PM

Quote :

"Presumably, you're trying to differentiate between commerce (Where you have utmost faith in individual decisions) and democracy (Where you apparently have no faith). So I would guess that "decisions for themselves" = market and "decisions that will affect others" = democracy. Did I misinterpret?"

I don't have utmost faith in individual decisions. That's the entire point. Yes, companies make decisions that affect others, and when those decisions violate rights (note: this doesn't mean "not paying workers enough"), that's just as bad as when governments do it.

You shouldn't get to vote yourselves other people's money or labor.

Quote :

"It's due to the US not being a simple-plurality/majority direct Democracy like you constantly try to strawman it as. "

It's not a direct democracy, but you still have situations where legislators are forcing large sections of the population to abide by laws they didn't agree to and are not in their best interests.

Quote :

"And why isn't there controversy? Shouldn't the market-driven media be producing what's best for the consumers, according to supply and demand? Products get sold every fucking day that hurt people worldwide either through pollution or exploitation, but you have no problems with that because the market does it and the market never fails. "

That's...not supply and demand. You have no idea what you're talking about.

"The market" (I've said time and time again, this is just "people", not some magical force) makes mistakes all the time. People get hurt. We have ways of dealing with that. The federal government can deal with some of those problems. It shouldn't be given the power to deal with everything, because it's demonstrated a propensity to abuse that power.

Quote :

"I see no reason why a homosexual should have to pick up and move his life across the country just because he was unlucky enough to be born into the wrong state to be gay in."

It sucks, but you have to look at the other possibilities. A federal government that can do "good" (according to you) is just as likely to do bad. And, however it works out, legislation is unlikely to be repealed once it is passed.

1/18/2012 1:16:46 PM

Quote :

"So how would you determine what should be handled by the federal government, and what should be handled by the states?"

Sorry there's not really a simple rubric for this, which is very disappointing to everyone who loves to have an answer for everything that fits on a postcard. It depends on the time in history and the issue. Back in the days of the fugitive slave laws, I'd side with States. In the 60's when we were trying to break segregation, I'd go with the Federal.

It comes down to the principles you have for society and humanity. These levels of government are arbitrary anyway. Why do State when you can go County? Why go County when you can go Township? I'm anti-racist, for instance, and that's way more important to me than being pro- or anti-Federalism. All forms and levels of governments are just tools for bringing us closer to whatever society we desire. I see no reason to be devoted to one arbitrary level of government over another as a matter of principle in and of itself.

Quote :

"I don't have utmost faith in individual decisions. That's the entire point. Yes, companies make decisions that affect others, and when those decisions violate rights (note: this doesn't mean "not paying workers enough"), that's just as bad as when governments do it."

I'm talking about individual purchasing decisions, not corporate decisions. I'm not talking about violating rights either, I'm talking about millions of consumers buying products that, for instance, shift jobs overseas, costing way more in the long run than the few bucks they save. Or buying products that pollute some river in Nebraska. Of course, nobody living on that river buys the product, but the rest of the country does because they don't think about it.

Quote :

"You shouldn't get to vote yourselves other people's money or labor."

Unless you're in a shareholder meeting, right?

Quote :

"That's...not supply and demand. You have no idea what you're talking about."

No destroyer, you don't, you rarely ever do. The media is a market-driven industry. People tune in to hear the news they want to hear, and the media bases its programming on that feedback. It's not state controlled no matter how many times Glenn Beck says it is. Why aren't people informed about controversial laws? Because most people are bored by that stuff and want to hear what people are tweeting about the most recent Missing White Girl.

Quote :

"The federal government can deal with some of those problems. It shouldn't be given the power to deal with everything, because it's demonstrated a propensity to abuse that power. "

Good thing nobody here is advocating it deal with everything.

Quote :

"It sucks, but you have to look at the other possibilities. A federal government that can do "good" (according to you) is just as likely to do bad. "

"It sucks"? You might not feel that way if straight whites males stopped being the majority and thus no longer the last ones to see their rights trampled.


[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:20:28 PM

Quote :

"Sorry there's not really a simple rubric for this, which is very disappointing to everyone who loves to have an answer for everything that fits on a postcard. It depends on the time in history and the issue. Back in the days of the fugitive slave laws, I'd side with States. In the 60's when we were trying to break segregation, I'd go with the Federal. "

so, what you are really saying is, "if I agree with it, then the federal gov't should be able to do it. If I don't, tjhen the states should overrule the Federal gov't" that's fine, but you need to understand how shallow and foolish that is. you aren't really making any distinction at all, rather just saying that people should do what you want them to do.

1/18/2012 1:23:20 PM

^^
Geez, dude, are you capable of replying to anything without condescending sarcasm?

Quote :

"It comes down to the principles you have for society and humanity. These levels of government are arbitrary anyway. Why do State when you can go County? Why go County when you can go Township? I'm anti-racist, for instance, and that's way more important to me than being pro- or anti-Federalism. All forms and levels of governments are just tools for bringing us closer to whatever society we desire. I see no reason to be devoted to one arbitrary level of government over another as a matter of principle in and of itself."

The reason why it's better for states to have more control, is because, like I said earlier, it's much, much, easier to move to another state than to another country. State laws are avoidable, relative to Federal laws. Anything below that (county, city, etc.) becomes arbitrary.

Also agree with ^

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:24:38 PM

Again, that's totally dependent on other factors. It's easier to move from Germany to Luxembourg than from Florida to Alaska. The sooner you realize the various levels of government are mostly arbitrary lines of distinction, the sooner you'll see how foolish it is to take firm positions on it.

And...seriously...you'd put anti-Federalism above anti-racism?

And yeah, aaronburro is always condescending, it's because he's a fucking moron and knows it so he tries extra hard to project intellectual superiority.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:30:42 PM

Quote :

"Again, that's totally dependent on other factors. It's easier to move from Germany to Luxembourg than from Florida to Alaska. The sooner you realize the various levels of government are mostly arbitrary lines of distinction, the sooner you'll see how foolish it is to take firm positions on it."

That's like me saying it's easier to move from NC to SC than from Iceland to Turkey. You're taking two extremes here to make your point, which is pretty disingenious. Of course it's easier to move from one EU country to another. There are significant costs associated with moving from the US to another country, and most people can't even come close because they have no way of being approved for permanent residence.

There is a significant distinction between country and state.

Quote :

"And...seriously...you'd put anti-Federalism above anti-racism?"

I'm with you, but a lot of things we would agree on, most of the country might not.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 1:44:33 PM

Quote :

"That's like me saying it's easier to move from NC to SC than from Iceland to Turkey. You're taking two extremes here to make your point, which is pretty disingenious. Of course it's easier to move from one EU country to another. There are significant costs associated with moving from the US to another country, and most people can't even come close because they have no way of being approved for permanent residence"

It's because of the Federal Government that its' easy to move from NC to SC, particularly the (Federal) Constitution that guarantees free travel between the States. What happens if we over-decentralize? Suddenly Alabama has an electrified 10 foot border fence with patrolmen with KOS orders on anybody with a lisp or a pair of leather chaps.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous, and I think my point being what it is shows that: that the lines delineating various scales of government are mostly arbitrary, and one-size-fits-all answers to "Which level of government handles it?" are completely missing that aforementioned arbitrary quality.

1/18/2012 1:49:06 PM

Quote :

"It's because of the Federal Government that its' easy to move from NC to SC, particularly the (Federal) Constitution that guarantees free travel between the States. What happens if we over-decentralize? Suddenly Alabama has an electrified 10 foot border fence with patrolmen with KOS orders on anybody with a lisp or a pair of leather chaps. "

Where have I seen this line of thinking before...

"If gays get married, what's stopping people from marrying dogs next??"

I don't think anyone in this thread is asking for that level of decentralization. They are just asking that states be allowed to govern according to the Constitution.

1/18/2012 1:54:20 PM

Quote :

"I'm talking about individual purchasing decisions, not corporate decisions. I'm not talking about violating rights either, I'm talking about millions of consumers buying products that, for instance, shift jobs overseas, costing way more in the long run than the few bucks they save. Or buying products that pollute some river in Nebraska. Of course, nobody living on that river buys the product, but the rest of the country does because they don't think about it."

Pollution is an issue that could be (and probably should be) dealt with by the federal government. Otherwise, it's a race to the bottom.

As far as consumers buying products from overseas manufacturers, what's the problem? National borders are arbitrary, right? Someone's getting paid to make them, we get the cheaper products. Should we have artificially high prices just to keep jobs in the U.S.?

Outsourcing is a concern for the federal government, just not in the way that you're arguing. The federal government is chasing capital out of country. We should be inviting it back in, but you advocate policies that would guarantee that no one ever wants to run a business in the U.S. again.

Quote :

"Unless you're in a shareholder meeting, right?"

You don't have to work for a public company. There are ways to deal with this problem, though. Unions work. Strikes work. Developing new skill sets and leaving the company works.

Quote :

"No destroyer, you don't, you rarely ever do. The media is a market-driven industry. People tune in to hear the news they want to hear, and the media bases its programming on that feedback. It's not state controlled no matter how many times Glenn Beck says it is. Why aren't people informed about controversial laws? Because most people are bored by that stuff and want to hear what people are tweeting about the most recent Missing White Girl."

You're only arguing my point for me. People don't know what's good for them because they're under-informed. Democracy doesn't solve this problem, it amplifies it.

Quote :

"Good thing nobody here is advocating it deal with everything."

You're advocating that it deal in many areas, seemingly based on your personal whims. Your internet ramblings are not a good guide for what should be left to the federal, state, or local governments. We need something a little more concrete than that. You know, like a constitution.

Quote :

""It sucks"? You might not feel that way if straight whites males stopped being the majority and thus no longer the last ones to see their rights trampled."

I feel that many of my rights are trampled, living in North Carolina. The fact that people in this thread who are "socially liberal" argue for federalism should tell you something. I know what kind of people live in North Carolina, and I'm still saying that the state should have these powers, rather than the federal government. I mean, this is the state that is going to vote on a gay marriage amendment in a few months.

The reason I make this argument is because the alternative is that much worse. By giving the federal government the power to tax, to control money, and do everything else it does, we have released a shit storm upon the rest of the world. The U.S. has destroyed entire nations. It has severely hindered social progress in many areas with the military and drug policy. The U.S. has instigated a global debt crisis that is not likely to end well.

Even though I strongly believe that homosexuals and minorities should have the same rights as every other person, I think the externalities of a centralized government (such as the U.S. federal government) are much more serious, and that we need to look at stripping the federal government of its power. The best way to do this is to remove its ability to tax and manipulate the currency. Control of money is the military-industrial complex's lifeblood.

Quote :

"I'm not trying to be disingenuous, and I think my point being what it is shows that: that the lines delineating various scales of government are mostly arbitrary, and one-size-fits-all answers to "Which level of government handles it?" are completely missing that aforementioned arbitrary quality."

I agree that national borders are arbitrary, but scale of government is not. The larger the population is that the government controls, the more subjects there are to tax and indoctrinate. That is the danger; the more tax revenue the government collects, the more war machines it can build, the more effectively it can enforce bad laws, etc.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2012 1:54:38 PM

Quote :

"I feel that many of my rights are trampled, living in North Carolina."

If you don't like it, move.

GTFO of NC.

1/18/2012 1:58:54 PM

I'm glad that's what you got out of my post, bro.

1/18/2012 2:01:23 PM

You don't subscribe to adultswim's idea that if you don't like it, you should just move?

Moving is easy, you know.

Anyone can do it.

1/18/2012 2:10:06 PM

What? That's clearly not the point I was making. I don't expect anyone to move because they disagree with some of the things their state does.

I'm saying that if it were to become bad enough, the option is there. On the other hand, most people can't escape the country.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 2:12:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that if it were to become bad enough, the option is there."

So...

"If you don't like it, move" is exactly what you're saying?

1/18/2012 2:15:44 PM

Option A. Government bans marijuana for all states.

Option B. Government lets state governments decide whether or not to ban marijuana.

Many more people are able to escape this unjust law in Option B than Option A.

Am I going to move out of this state so I can smoke weed? No. But I appreciate that I have that choice. At a certain point, if enough of my lifestyle is violated, I absolutely would move. It hasn't reached that point for me.

Again, yours and str8foolish's beliefs assume that the federal government is more benevolent than the states. That is simply not quantifiable. I would rather leave most things up to the states, where it's easier to make yourself heard, or leave if you feel that it's necessary.

If you want to dumb my argument down so you can comprehend it, that's your prerogative.

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2012 2:37:40 PM

Quote :

"Again, yours and str8foolish's beliefs assume that the federal government is more benevolent than the states. "

There's a whole lotta assumin' goin' on here. Also, is it a forgone conclusion that government will only make poor and incorrect decisions? I'd really hate to dumb down the thread with assumptions about how the government will or will not behave...

The states do not get to decide the rights of the individual, whether those rights be smoking pot or gay marriage. Whether or not smoking pot and gay marriage are, in fact, rights can be discussed in one of the many threads dedicated to those topics.

1/18/2012 3:19:37 PM

You're being obtuse. The federal government can (and has) made decisions I agree with. The problem we're discussing is what happens when it makes bad decisions. How do you limit the damage?

When the federal government makes bad legislation, we're fucked. When the state makes bad legislation, we're a little less fucked.

1/18/2012 3:22:05 PM

I was completely unaware that the United States lacked courts, repeals, and an election process.

Thank you for educating me. Now that I know every decision the federal government makes is perpetual and everlasting, I wholeheartedly agree that the federal government should be completely eviscerated. Fifty individual governments--with no meaningful oversight or binding framework--will surely be better.

1/18/2012 3:32:51 PM

unfortunately, this:

Quote :

"But at the end of the day all term limits do is hand over power and knowledge of the legislative system from the elected representatives to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists."

the staffers will become the real doers, as if they aren't already.

I say term limits for anyone in an elected position, positions related to an elected position, and positions appointed by an elected member!

[Edited on January 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM. Reason : by]

1/18/2012 3:34:20 PM

Quote :

"I was completely unaware that the United States lacked courts, repeals, and an election process. Thank you for educating me. Now that I know every decision the federal government makes is perpetual and everlasting, I wholeheartedly agree that the federal government should be completely eviscerated. Fifty individual governments--with no meaningful oversight or binding framework--will surely be better."

We all know that laws can be repealed or overturned. The problem is that they often aren't or linger for years and years, even after public sentiment has shifted. Furthermore, bureaucracy typically grows to accommodate enforcement of laws, so there exists a class of people that want to maintain the status quo for the sake of staying in a job.

1/18/2012 3:41:02 PM

...and your proposed solution is to essentially eliminate the federal government. Is that correct?

1/18/2012 3:42:37 PM

No, it's to limit the federal government to roles defined by the Constitution.

...after repealing the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act, of course.

1/18/2012 3:45:05 PM

ha nutsmackr was all "nope horrible idea" no explanation. nothing. ha

who in the WORLD would ever think that limiting human public power figures to time limits would be a good thing

1/18/2012 3:45:59 PM