Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Fightdirecto -> Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 11:56:37 AM)

quote:

A Democratic congressman Jose Serrano on Friday introduced a resolution seeking to repeal the 22nd Amendment and thus remove the limit on how many terms a US president may serve in office.

Although some websites are reporting the move as evidence in support of Obama-conspiracy theories, reports say that REP. JOSE SERRANO (D-N.Y.) HAS INTRODUCED SIMILAR LEGISLATION EVERY CONGRESS SINCE 2001.

{FYI: In 2001, Barack Obama was a lawyer, a professor and a state senator. The Secret Kenyan Socialist Muslim Sleeper Cell Conspiracy must have been well entrenched by then, I guess.}

According to The Blaze, the 22nd Amendment which prohibits any US president from serving more than two full terms in office was passed by Congress in 1947 and was ratified in 1951 after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four terms.

Although Serrano’s bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it is not expected to go far. The resolution has no cosponsors and it would require the approval of both the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states to amend the Constitution.

According to The Blaze, this is not the first time that effort has been made to repeal the 22nd Amendment. THE LATE REP. GUY VANDER JAGT, WHO WAS THEN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, INTRODUCED A BILL TO REPEAL THE AMENDMENT IN 1986 AND ALLOW PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN A THIRD TERM. Vander Jagt said: "The 22nd Amendment is an insult to American voters who are wise and well-informed."

A similar resolution introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 1989 also did not pass. In 2005, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) attempted an unsuccessful bipartisan move cosponsored by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.).

Several presidents have, understandably, expressed support of allowing presidents to serve more than two terms. REAGAN REPORTEDLY SUPPORTED JAGT'S MOVE. HE SAID THE 22ND AMENDMENT VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO “VOTE FOR SOMEONE AS OFTEN AS THEY WANT TO DO.”


From uninformed/clueless Obamaphobes on Twitter:

quote:

chaselindley *** Washington’s tradition & the 22nd Amendment were put in place for a reason: to discourage would-be dictators. Obama is a would-be dictator.

WMDOwl *** RepJoseSerrano Why do you want to repeal the 22nd Amendment and install an Imperial President?

cjgrisham *** RepJoseSerrano wants to turn US into another Venezuela or Cuba & repeal the 22nd Amendment giving Obama a 3rd term.

TruthAboutObama *** Here we go again, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) again proposed to repeal 22nd amendment in an effort to get #DictatorObama a 3rd term.

freetarian Blind as a bat *** RT *** fputch: HORSESHIT!“ *** ValVenisEnt: Obama pushing to become a dictator. TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA ->


Rep. Jose Serrano pushes bill to repeal presidential term limit

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 12:18:52 PM)

fr

Seeing as how I'm totally against the 17th Amendment, how could I be against repeal of the 22nd? Unless, of course, the considerations of the founders, in the modern sense, not be taken into account. It's not like they did not have express ideas of nobility or Monarchy now is it? The 22nd removes the right of the people to their desires under the Constitution.

Like so many arguments denied under the rubric "how could they have known"? Before muskets there were long bows. Before that swords. It's not like they had no concept of innovation. They knew the dangers wrought in such a document as the Constitution. It was even opined that it would suffice for a generation or two and that it was wholly inadequate but to a religious people.

Repeal it. Also repeal the 16th as I'm sure they grasped such as a personal tax. Matter of fact, get us back to intentions of liberty sans the social aspect so many idiots claim Constitutionalists would demand. Also the 14th. The Republic was intentionally a confederation of sovereign states. One nation under God? Hardly. It was many.




Aylee -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 12:43:42 PM)

Yeah, repealing the 22nd is not going to go anywhere.  I still want to repeal the 17th though.




mnottertail -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 12:45:48 PM)

Actually the 22nd amendment repeal has been introduced around once a year for the last two decades, there has been alot more than one or two bills introed. 




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 1:41:41 PM)

Your efforts to educate are commendable, but the Obamaphobes will sadly continue their nastiness. Facts and information are not what they seek. [sm=2cents.gif]




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 2:39:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Your efforts to educate are commendable, but the Obamaphobes will sadly continue their nastiness. Facts and information are not what they seek. [sm=2cents.gif]



The left taught them well.[8D]




mnottertail -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 2:44:32 PM)

The right is unteachable.  So, not at all.




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 2:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The right is unteachable.  So, not at all.


Then mea culpa mea culpa. Guess it's that the left can't teach then. Is it any wonder the kids can't read. [;)]




thishereboi -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 2:53:39 PM)

One of these days you two (and several more on here) will realize that not everything is left vs right and that there are assholes on both sides. Until then I see little point in taking anything either of you say seriously.




Nosathro -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:06:10 PM)

I do not favor the appeal of the 22nd Amendment, yes it is based on George Washington deciding not to be President for a 3rd term. FDR is the only President who was elected for a 3rd term. Grant did try to run for a third term as well. But still having the same person as President for more than 2 terms, Hail the Emperor! The 17th Amendment was to have Senator elected by the public, before then they were political appointees, I perfer the election process. Now the 16th Amendment that should be repealed!




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:15:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The 17th Amendment was to have Senator elected by the public, before then they were political appointees,


Quite so. But why were they political appointees? Whom did they represent and why?




jlf1961 -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:19:17 PM)

If we are talking about repealing amendments, what about repealing the amendment that allowed good looking women to wear clothes in public?




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:22:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

If we are talking about repealing amendments, what about repealing the amendment that allowed good looking women to wear clothes in public?



What amendment... but isn't that San Francisco? [8D]




jlf1961 -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:26:55 PM)

The 22 amendment was put up after FDR was president for what seemed like a thousand terms.

Personally, I have a problem with a president serving more than two terms since it tends to cause problems in the long term.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:30:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
The 17th Amendment was to have Senator elected by the public, before then they were political appointees,

Quite so. But why were they political appointees? Whom did they represent and why?


Yup, yup, yup!!

Historical perspective being instructive, innit, Yachtie? I recommend not holding your breath on this one...




DomKen -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:44:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The 17th Amendment was to have Senator elected by the public, before then they were political appointees,


Quite so. But why were they political appointees? Whom did they represent and why?


They were political appointees because the Founders did not trust the common man to elect responsible individuals. By the time the 17th was proposed Senators functionally represented various large corporations who could funnel bribes to the state legislatures that did the choosing.

Cons are pushing the repeal of the 17th because they know people pay far less attention to state legislative races and they can more freely employ the sleezy tactics that are not working so well on the federal level.




Yachtie -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 3:48:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
They were political appointees because the Founders did not trust the common man to elect responsible individuals. By the time the 17th was proposed Senators functionally represented various large corporations who could funnel bribes to the state legislatures that did the choosing.


So they were not the representatives of the several sovereign states, giving the states voice in the federal government? Really?

(adjusts historical knowledge to reflect revisionist perspective)

Ahhh. Saved[8D]




Aylee -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/11/2013 4:06:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

The 17th Amendment was to have Senator elected by the public, before then they were political appointees,


Quite so. But why were they political appointees? Whom did they represent and why?


They were political appointees because the Founders did not trust the common man to elect responsible individuals. By the time the 17th was proposed Senators functionally represented various large corporations who could funnel bribes to the state legislatures that did the choosing.

Cons are pushing the repeal of the 17th because they know people pay far less attention to state legislative races and they can more freely employ the sleezy tactics that are not working so well on the federal level.


Or because we do not like the way that cities overwhelm what the rural/town areas want.

You see, I as a voter have a lot more control over who is elected to our state legistator house. And that will control the Senators sent to Washington.

An added bonus is that Senators will be there to work for their state instead of their political career.




jlf1961 -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/12/2013 4:48:52 AM)

Getting back to Obama, he is not Kenyan, or an American for that matter...

He is an alien sent here to further the conspiracy for an alien take over of the planet.

Or he is an American who has a problem standing up for his convictions.




mnottertail -> RE: Before the Obamaphobes go crazy, the truth... (1/12/2013 6:49:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The right is unteachable.  So, not at all.


Then mea culpa mea culpa. Guess it's that the left can't teach then. Is it any wonder the kids can't read. [;)]


A rock is unteachable as well, and nothing to do with the teacher, and since the right possesses even less intellect collectively....... 




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125