http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
According to this, the republicans are floating the idea of changing the constitution to allow Bush to run for a third term.
Printable View
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
According to this, the republicans are floating the idea of changing the constitution to allow Bush to run for a third term.
Wait.. you mean people would actually vote for him a thrid time?! ... I think the democrates would really have to mess something up for that to happen... seems to me bush is just losing more and more popularity.
Anyways I don't know if that is such a great idea.. but meh I don't know what effects this would have on history... might be good if we had an excellent president to keep in power... but then again maybe not.
I don't think it would be a bad idea. Many democracies have unlimited terms. If the voters want the same man again & again is it not undemocratic to not let them vote for him?
I see why it is there, to stop a camouflaged dictatorship, but Ireland, the UK and many others have never had this bar on terms & as far as I know no European country has had a dictator since democracy was introduced to that nation & STAYED a democracy. That would happen only in corrupt governments and corrupt voting & the only major power to have it's voting questioned to a large degree was...well America. It serves a purpose in fragile democracies & corrupt administrations but surely America is neither, is it?
Prior to being a constitutional amendment, it was an unwritted formality to not run for more than two terms. FDR just did his own thing and so they set the limit.
So really, Bush would just be more of an asshole if he ran for a third term. I guess you could call FDR an asshole too, but there was that whole World War II thing so that kind of redeems him.
Plus he had polio. I mean, c'mon. You don't just go and make fun of sick people, jerk.
You mean the Republicans Steny Hoyer, Howard L. Berman, Martin Olav Sabo, and Frank Pallone Jr.? The ones who get a natty little 'D' after their names?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
On the one hand I see a strong case, as was shown by Cuchulainn's post, for abolishing term limits. On the other hand, everyone needs protected from the government, so restricting their powers in any and all ways is a good thing.
It would be funny if they pass the amendment and then Bush doesn't get re-elected, or better still, Clinton comes back to be president again. Oh, the late-night TV jokes will be endless. I'm all for it.
lol how true that would be prime lol... though I would hope the democrates could float a great canidate rather then going back to clinton(not bad, but I am sure there are better out there.. or I hope so).Quote:
Originally Posted by -N-
Ugh. This better not happen. And no, not even the potential of having Clinton able to run again would make this appealing. Clinton really wasn't as great as we remember him being, and this comes from a man who loathes the Bush administration with every fibre of his being.
Why do you think they are putting this up?Quote:
Originally Posted by -N-
I don't know why anyone would want to be president of the US any longer than 8 years. The stress puts such a huge strain on all officeholders. I can't imagine Clinton would be up for being President again, especially when he could just be the First Husband.
This'll never happen.
I...don't particularly care.
If anything, I could probably be persuaded to agree with getting rid of term limits.
Getting rid of term limits would be a horrible thing. Think of things this way... Someone like Ronald Reagan could easily have served three terms. Thats reason enough to keep a two term limit.
People who vote for people like Reagan deserve the results.
I don't think Reagan could have stood up long enough to campaign again
That and he'd forget where he was in the middle of a speech or debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
I agree with this, but I certainly don't want to have to live through it.Quote:
People who vote for people like Reagan deserve the results.
Not gonna happen. Period. You are basically asking to appeal what the forefathers of America established, and it is an extremely rare thing to do, but for Bush to put his shelfish reasons into the Constitution is complete ludicrious
Bush doesn't have anything to do with this, as far as I see.
I stand corrected
While the prospect of a third term under Bush is frightening, the term limit probably isn't necessary, but I would only support this with the abolition of the Electoral College so that the popular vote really was the deciding factor. Oh, and I also would want more parties to choose from (and that actually stand a chance of getting elected).
Well, is it really going against what the "forefathers" established? To my understanding, they wanted goverment run by the people, with a leader chosen by the people. So, if the majority of the people liked a president enough to vote him/her in a third term, isn't that still going with the whole idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye
Of course, I may be wrong. Politics usually aren't my thing and I'm going through U.S. History this coming school year.
Anyway, as for the topic, I can see how it can be good or bad, and ultimately, I suppose that if a President was doing that good or the majority of people supported him/her, it wouldn't be terrible to have the President go a third term.
Oh god no.
While I can't agree with the reason the amendment was put there in the first place, it's a relief knowing that Bush can't run for another term. Most of the Republican hopefuls for 2008 I don't mind, at least the best publicised ones. But if Bush were allowed to run for a third term... *shudder*
Well, seeing how more than half of the United States citizens dislike how Bush is running the country, I think I can saftley say that he will not get a chance to run for a third election by a popularity voteQuote:
Originally Posted by Rase
He can always start another war, and then people will vote him cause "in times of war it's better to stay strong and not change our leaders". Hey, I have actually heard that from people. Isn't it lolersome?Quote:
Well, seeing how more than half of the United States citizens dislike how Bush is running the country, I think I can saftley say that he will not get a chance to run for a third election by a popularity vote
The forefathers established nothing about two-terms.Quote:
You are basically asking to appeal what the forefathers of America established, and it is an extremely rare thing to do, but for Bush to put his shelfish reasons into the Constitution is complete ludicrious
Yes, I was speaking in a more general sense, such as future presidents, which is why I used him/her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye
Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. At this juncture.
Oh lawd, not another term.
No way it will happen, and I wouldn't want it to...though I wouldn't care if the current president wasn't the current president.
It's been a huge tradition, started with Washington. It wasn't put into law until the '40s when Roosevelt took on a third and fouth term to win in WW2. After that, they amended the Constitution to allow for only two terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I find this strange because of the general way this administration is behaving. Part of me suspects that there may be more too this than meets the eye.
You all keep saying 'oh no not another term' while forgetting voting has a part to play in this. If the majority of America votes Bush again then it's a democratic decision by the majority of Americans. If Americans don't vote Bush again then you won't have to worry about another term & his replacement will be a party decision, and the party won't want a candidate who no one votes for. Either way it is true democracy in action.
You forefathers never made this Amendment, as has been said it was done in the 1940s, in any case why worry what your forefather would think? Not everything old is good. Most is dated. Your forefathers burnt witches at the stake & conducted slavery, they have been stopped. True Democracy lies at the hands of the people. If a democratic decision is take out of their hands & put in the hands of a Constitution it falls short of a true democracy.
I agree with Cuchulainn. Look at Canada. A term can last up to five years (When a PM pushes to five years you know that he knows he going to loose). In Canada we have unlimited terms, but after 10 years most people get fed up with the PM anyways, so then there is usually a new one elected. Save for a few in history who were really loved by the people, bu that is rare inciddents (I think the most is 24 years by MacKenzie King...I think I can't exactly remember). sO if they made it unlimited, it is more than likely that the majority of Americans would get fed up with the President after 8 years or so. Void has a good point, I find it really dull that the US basically only has two federal parties. (Mind you Canada has many but only three really have the potential of winning, yet only two [Liberals and the Conservatives] have ever held office).
This would be great, because the reps. would think it would be the return of Bush, when it'd actually be the return of Clinton!!!! ;)
>=/ This is a BAD idea. FDR was a special case; he had already asked for more powers than usually given to presidents at the beginning of his term, and that can sort of justify his running three times. But that's not the case now, and this is a terrible idea!!
But I agree with Chuchu that if Americans do indeed vote for him, then it's democracy in action and no one can deny that. Pffft the rest of the world disagrees though. xD Surely the Democrats won't be that awful next time ;__;
who was fdr?
the entire thing is to stop dictatorhsips being set up. voting does not make a country democratic. iraq had lots of elections. zimbabwe had one a few months ago. germany had a few. russia had some too. but the amount of people you could vote for where just a little small.
i would like a term limit here. it keeps things fresh at least. and some people just win because people "voted for him last time". blair has been successful because of pr. i mean based purely on presentation who would it be? him? michael howard the vampire and charles kennedy the drunk. if blair was to go then we are left with either prescott the fat man. or george brown, who while been quit good noone much cares for him as he mumbles alot.
it would just make things more even.
You're kidding? O_oQuote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Even I know that FDR is Franklin Delano Roosvelt, 32nd President of the USA.
now if you said roosevelt then i would have understood.
That makes me cry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
I suppose this could be a good thing, depending on how you look at it, but I honestly think people would vote for Bush a third time, and that's a chance I don't want made availible to him.
But yeah it'd be cool if we could vote for Clinton again. :D
Give Cloud a damn break. He's not an American and wouldn't know our cutesy titles for the presidents.
You'd like him, too, Cloud. He all but destroyed whatever semblance of capitalism we had.
I actually liked FDR in highschool. However, his "court-packing" idea was too nutjob even for me then.
I don't understand how "I wouldn't mind third-terms, but not if Bush gets reelected" is valid reasoning.
star wars episode 2 on episode 3 me and many others will find refuge and exile in the great country of canada.
Yeah thats hwat i summed it up to.This will most likely pass if it was a real bill is it?I suir ehope not because i havent read the article yet.
What the smurf??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
Looks like intoxication to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
hey its a good analogy
Good analogy (I think), poor execution. It's usually a good idea to make sure people can at least get the gist of what you're trying to say.
I still don't know what the hell he was trying to say. :p
watch ep2 and ep 3 again and pay attention to certain events you'll find them similar lol in a way lol .
i think it's a reference to chancellor palpatine taking absolute control and the brak down of the republic.
ps. it was actually a closer to hitler's rise.
What is Dubya Anakin? Cause I could soooo see Rove as Palpatine!
he is the only president refered as FDR lol its kewl though no one expects the whole world to know this.Then theres TR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
oh go on then tell me.
I don't think that's a reputable site to be getting your "facts" off of and I know all of America and the Democrats are not going to go for possible third term elections.
If it did happen I'd vote for Bush just like I voted for him last election. I think he's doing a good job. I know not everyone agrees, especially the liberal youth who follow Micheal Moore's teachings :rolleyes2 .
I think the true affect a president has doesn't actually hit until their time has been served, then we start to see it during the next president's term.
This is all just my opinion and I'll be more than happy to hear your's, but please don't flame me for what I believe :) .
Or the liberal youth who actually think for themselves.Quote:
If it did happen I'd vote for Bush just like I voted for him last election. I think he's doing a good job. I know not everyone agrees, especially the liberal youth who follow Micheal Moore's teachings
If anything, I'd probably fall on a slight conservative side. And I can't stand Bush. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Lockheart
I like this excuse. Notice how during most Republican administrations, the economy has been crappy. But it all must somehow be the Democrats' fault! In some cases it is, but "the true effect a President has doesn't show up until the next Democrat administration who improves the economy"(which is what it typically ends up being) smells a bit of bullQuote:
I think the true affect a president has doesn't actually hit until their time has been served, then we start to see it during the next president's term.
.
Just because you hold an opinion doesn't make it of any value.Quote:
This is all just my opinion and I'll be more than happy to hear your's, but please don't flame me for what I believe :) .
actually raistlin it does.
Republicans want to remove the admendment that they made because they hated FDR so much? HOLY
Seriously though....I don't want them to remove it. No one should serve more than 2 terms as it is. I don't want a monarchy ruling my country. I want a psudo monarchy ruling our country(at least it seems that way).
Ed, as was pointed out, it's a Dem sponsored bill, not Rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnmRepublicans want to remove the admendment that they made because they hated FDR so much? HOLY
Seriously though....I don't want them to remove it. No one should serve more than 2 terms as it is. I don't want a monarchy ruling my country. I want a psudo monarchy ruling our country(at least it seems that way).
I figured I would get it smurfed up as it was passed after he died. Either way the second point stands.
*this is what I get for not reading the thread or looking anything up
Edit: Wait...are you talking about this bill or the admendment that was already passed?
The bill (that would repel the amendment).Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
Okay. Then I was right on the actual history part and should not have even listen to the person who made this thread. I regain my credibility but still should have read the thread.
so yeah bush being th epuppet manipulated by a bunch of corrupt coperate bastards and screwing us over and making the wholoe world hate us even more blah blah blah yet oyu still support him.Wow Canada here i come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Lockheart
Not really. "I like Bush." "Why?" "It's just my opinion - I have a right to it!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
You have the right to believe whatever irrational, nonsensical thing you want, but I don't consider any conclusion valid unless it is backed up by reasons. A conclusion without a reason is just a slogan.
Here I'd have to say, "A conclusion without a reason is just a slogan."Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinI like this excuse. Notice how during most Republican administrations, the economy has been crappy. But it all must somehow be the Democrats' fault! In some cases it is, but "the true effect a President has doesn't show up until the next Democrat administration who improves the economy"(which is what it typically ends up being) smells a bit of bull
Reason:
Yet I also agree with:Quote:
The Joint Economic Committee (JEC) of Congress has just published a comprehensive report analyzing economic performance among the world's major economies (available at www.house.gov/jec.) Titled "International Economic Performance Since the Stock Market Bubble," the report compares growth rates and job creation in the U.S., Japan, the European Union and Canada.
The report finds the U.S. economy has significantly outperformed other developed economies. This does not necessarily mean President Bush has done a great job, but it unambiguously means his economic policies have performed better than those of our major foreign competitors. In a global economy, it's an unbiased — and important — way of measuring who has done the best job.
The JEC report notes all developed nations suffered an economic downturn earlier this decade. Financial markets declined and unemployment rose in every major country. The key question is how various leaders responded. Mr. Bush aggressively moved to lower tax rates. He saw how lower tax rates during the 1980s helped trigger a record economic boom and wanted to repeat Ronald Reagan's successful formula. According to the JEC study, President Bush made the right decision:
c The U.S. economy has expanded 7.8 percent since the recession, the best performance in the developed world. Indeed, it has grown more than 3 times faster than European economies.
c The U.S. unemployment rate has fallen by 0.8 percentage points — again, the best performance in the developed world. The U.S. unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is far lower than the 8 percent unemployment rate in Europe.
On the two main indicators of economic prosperity, the United States is head and shoulders above the world's other developed nations. Many of these other nations are governed by politicians who think government should be bigger and taxes should be higher. But this approach inevitably fails, condemning citizens to economic decline and higher unemployment.
Both found here.Quote:
America has the world's most powerful economy, but our advantage won't last if Republicans and Democrats waste money on ineffective government programs. We don't want France's stagnant economy and high unemployment, so our lawmakers shouldn't behave like French politicians. That means they should compete to make government smaller, not bigger. They can be sure the numbers will vindicate them if they do.
----------------------------------------------------------
I value my opinions. I don't ask you or any other person in this world to do so.Quote:
Just because you hold an opinion doesn't make it of any value.
Couldn't put it better myself I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
Tifa: I whole-heartedly agree government should be minimized, and that greater prosperity is reached through less taxes and less interference of government in business. You just have to look into many of the threads here which turned into capitalism vs. communism debates to see my opinion, which is probably fairly well-known by now in this forum. :)
I've read about the Bush taxation policies. The government, last quarter(or maybe the one before last?) collected more money than ever before - despite Democratic objections that his tax cuts would cause a further deficit.
My comment was meant more towards the other major deficits of our country, some of which(the Great Depression, anyone?) were caused by Republican interference with business, despite that being against their entire platform.
However, the Republicans make the mistake of being hypocritical. They want small government when it comes to business...but big government when it comes to social issues, example: anti-gay marriage amendment proposal, anti-abortion activists, etc. The Democrats are, of course, the opposite: they want big government in economic issues, but small government in social issues. Both of their ideas show blatant flaws when it comes to government-funded social businesses(such as schools). Both are equally inconsistent in their logic.
Me, I don't want the government in economic or social issues.
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just very... uhm.. open with my opinions.
I do agree with you though on the gov. being hypocritical, but I think both Dems and Rep have that problem. It's hard to say just one side does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Lockheart
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
"The Democrats are, of course, the opposite:..."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Lockheart
I mentioned both. :p
Yea... I'll just go back under the rock from which I came :confused: .
Sorry, I read your post all the way through, but only the parts about Republicans stuck with me :rolleyes2 .
thats the hting though america is a really kinda fake/corperate society.Those commercials.I mean there ar emore commercials on one US channel then on 3 canadian channels combined.Anyway heres the thing and the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth.
these corporations took it to there advantage to have the two party system and make the 3rd parties useless.They took it to there advantage to make sure anything bush sends passes.Now if you remove the terms of the president to lifetime then things get worse.
You see in america these corporations keep you busy scared of crap that doesn't exist and no one in the US has a brain because its been drained by the media through brain washing.
I wouldn't be opposed to removing the limits, but dear god, not for an existing president. If it went through it should start from scratch.
But hey, I bet someone a tenner in virtual money that Bush would find a way to get a third term. I could use some fake money!
Did you just quote Civ 3?! :greenie:Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
No, George H. W. Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsie
Kill me now!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
As has been mentioned quite a few times, it's the democrats who are sponsoring this bill, and not the republicans.
Yeah so point fingers at your selves not us :p. Anyways If it passes then good if not then good who cares? Not me :p I love Bushy and all but I wouldn't vote for him again. TIME FOR A NEW PRESIDENT (well in 2008 atleast :p)
Oh, so Civ 3 quoted him... that makes more sense. Ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Bush is the lesser of two evils. The democrats are messing the government up more than our president. Look at eminant domain voted on by DEMOCRATIC appointed judges.. hrm.. wern't demos for the little guy? too bad they just USE this image now.
I have not like the direction of the demecrats for this and many other reasons. I look at it like this:
Democrats are like the farm. Now they are comercialized and looking to spread out wide and make money.
Republicans are like Retail. Anything will be done to get you to shop at thier stores (low prices - disigner clothes), but someone else gets stuck with the bill.
lol persion ally I just wanna vote whatever independant there is in to the White house.
Bipper
-I love my country but fear my government