RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term?

RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 2:54:25 PM)
it has been a very long 8 years! the idea isnt implaaausaable. martial law could be imposed- a sorta national emergency. the election cycle disrupted. i thought the rule was 10 years. ya know with the gonzalez mess- was bush trying to control activist judges?

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 3:20:48 PM)
As far as the law, a president could serve more than 8 years today if he took office as Vice President after a President died or left office for some reason. He could serve out that term and then be elected for two more terms.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 3:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy it has been a very long 8 years! the idea isnt implaaausaable. martial law could be imposed- a sorta national emergency. the election cycle disrupted. i thought the rule was 10 years. ya know with the gonzalez mess- was bush trying to control activist judges? It's actually quite common that when a new president comes in, he fires all the prosecutors. The reason why is because he wants to put in people that will be loyal to him and follow his policies. And this is well within the president's constitutional authority. Is it common to happen mid-term? No. But it also isn't illegal. The reason Gonzalez is in hot water is because he's an idiot. He lied about something to congress and the media that isn't even illegal. Now he's lost everyone's respect. I doubt he'll be in Attorney General much longer. He made the same mistake Clinton made, why lie about something that is legal? Remember with Nixon, it wasn't the crime he got busted for...it was the cover-up.

pinksugarsub -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 3:31:52 PM)
The hubrus of Bush and his cabinet never ceases to amaze. BTW, i cannot imagine any grounds whatsoever for a Supreme Court decision rendering a properly-adopted amendment invalid. A 3rd term? Crickey, i'd be seeking a visa from another country. i hear Mexico is nice. pinksugarsub

MstrssPassion -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 3:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania It was not funny in the first place.. now the google one was funny. ok... I missed the google one... can I get a link to it so I can chase this horrible feeling of "not another 4 yrs" out of my system with something funny.

Sinergy -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 4:20:04 PM)
I think if AnencephalyBoy wants to rule a country to bad, we should let him go run for office in Iraq. After we bring the troops home, of course. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 4:27:19 PM)
Here ya go, MistressP. Amusing, I suppose, but I like watching people running around in a panic. http://www.google.com/tisp/install.html

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 4:30:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Title: Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge 22nd Amendment in 2008 Election Source: New York Times By PHILIP MCKRACK Published: April 1, 2007 JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina. April 1 — Vice President Cheney delivered a speech early Sunday morning before a formation of soldiers at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. [/quote] There are no 'soldiers' at Camp Lejeune, NC. Possibilly a very small liaison group, nothing more. Camp Lejeune, NC is the proud home of the 2nd Marine Division. To refer to Marines as 'soldiers' is an insult to anyone who ever worn the Marine uniform. Especially to those who died while wearing it. *Of course, if you've never worn Marine Corps Green,,,never sweated or froze at Parris Island or San Diego...you're not expected to understand the difference.* *'hawk* *Semper Fidelis to everyone who has...The Few, The Proud*

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 4:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 People say this same thing with every president near the end of his 2nd term. They did it with Reagan and they did it with Clinton. For some reason it is a big thing with conspiracy theorists. They always think the 2nd term president is going to challange the law and run again. But it never happends. What may happen though is someone on the GOP side may pick Jeb Bush as a running mate. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 FDR, did not do it. The constitution was amended after FDR so that presidents could only serve 2 terms. No president had ever run for a third term, but in 1940 FDR did so, feeling that http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/roosevelt-franklin.htm Um notice the lkink says .GOV Damn conspiracy theorists always trying to fuck up non conspiracy theorists wet dreams.... The problem with non conspiracy theorists is... well never mind and here is another Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt return to the White House after FDR was inaugurated for a third term on January 20, 1941. (Roosevelt Library) http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/winter/fdr-emerges.html?template=print

ferryman777 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 6:18:32 PM)
General entry: You are all bantering a speculative 'what if'; based on someone's insidious mis-information, a lie, an April Fools bad taste joke...... And, if Bush did, exactly as you say here....What the hell are you going to do about it anyhow. Don't you people get it...you do not matter. What you think does not matter. Your vote does not matter. What other nations want, think, their governments does not matter. Bush has proven that, time and time again. Invasion of a sovergin nation, the murdering of the leaders of that nation, all justified under no evidence of provaction, a war waged, destroying a culture, property, rebuilding grants being granted without bids, gasoline and food prices going through the ceiling, creating the largest decline in the american economy in it's entire history, Enron, and the rest; etc; the election, as it was called, being uner the most suspious circumstance ever; yet, Bush is the most powerful man this world has ever known in the entire history of the planet. The Father, that is, the son is the mirror puppet image of the Father. This thread started as an insidious mis-information gag; now you argue the validity of this April's Fools joke. Who are the fools now. There are at this moment, before congress, legit bills proposing real changes to the consitution, allowing non-americans to be president, the economy is already in a state of chaos....and you people banter over this fabrication. Real issues do not concern you, evidently, just these fantasties. The government doesn't need to worry about spreading lies and mis-information...they have you all do do the work for them. Someone, in another thread mentioned a bill being pressed to passage by the republicans...Amero. Why not research that, see if it is real, if it indeed will by-pass the constition. Instead you banter over this incredulous joke, this mis-information; how can anything on these threads be taken seriously with a seuto topic lie as this. Now, the person starting this insidious joke, has damaged, no, destroyed, any creditabilty any of these threads might have had. Laughing now?

lockedaway -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 6:32:43 PM)
LOLOL yes, I'm laughing a good deal harder now than I was. Oh...when you get the chance, try to read "The Iraq War" by John Keegan. It sets forth the reasons for the conflicts with Iraq under George Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. It details the U.N. resolutions that were violated by Iraq, etc. It is kind of odd, Keegan (perhaps the foremost military historian of our age) sees the wars with Iraq MUCH differently than you.

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 8:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania http://www.newyourketimes.com/content/article76649.html and here is what the link for the New York Times is for their home page http://www.nytimes.com/ All articles are referenced nytimes.com, but this one isn't. I searched through the NY Times and could not find it... very puzzling to me. Perhaps someone can clear up the mystery? yeh look at what that link says now!!! i do not know about you but when i clicked on it earlier it had the same story i listed in the op, its not the site i got it off of however. interestingly enough.... makes me wonder where it originated from? i had to go back to see what i must have missed that ferryman was so pissed about and there it is. Let anyone who has not made an error out here please stand up so i can make my first mark on the chart! i do not think it does anything to reduce credibility ferryman. at lewast not to those who seek truth in matters. there will always be those who hold party affiliations above all else who do not give a damn about truth and they will have their field day, but let them have their fun as this government continues to stick their dick so far up peoples asses they are chewing on it.... when things start to taste nasty enough they will figure it out. (maybe) cheers! r1

wfsubseeking1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 8:33:14 PM)
Sir i do not feel You should be so derogatory. sorry i was naive enough to believe it was real but based on what legislation Bush has passed is that so out of the realm? seeking

luckydog1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 9:56:22 PM)
Real, no president had ever run for a 3rd before (or at least won, perhaps a few tried) out of tradition, not by law. Washington was immensely popular and could have continued as leader if had chosen to, but he didn't. FDR had every legal right under the sun to run for as many terms as he felt like. It was after FDR that the Consitution was amended to forbid it. No president has attempted to challenge that. Real we all believe in some conspiricies. We are all conspiricy theory believers. The difference is whether or not you are a Tin Foil Conspiricy theorist. A Keeper Of Odd Knowledge. IE ignoring basic obvious facts.

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 11:16:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Real, no president had ever run for a 3rd before (or at least won, perhaps a few tried) out of tradition, not by law. Washington was immensely popular and could have continued as leader if had chosen to, but he didn't. FDR had every legal right under the sun to run for as many terms as he felt like. It was after FDR that the Consitution was amended to forbid it. No president has attempted to challenge that. Real we all believe in some conspiricies. We are all conspiricy theory believers. The difference is whether or not you are a Tin Foil Conspiricy theorist. A Keeper Of Odd Knowledge. IE ignoring basic obvious facts. so whats up is this another one of your play on words games? or would you like to explain this away: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt return to the White House after FDR was inaugurated for a third term on January 20, 1941. (Roosevelt Library) http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/winter/fdr-emerges.html?template=print i think i said that and everyone else knows that the 22nd bars from running more than twice and the point was eploring the possibility that that the king was arrogant enough to challenge the 22nd, so what you are saying about this makes no sense. i think you woudl find that this world is literally one huge conspiracy after another if you did your research well. The only thing i find truly troubling about conspiracies are those who ignore the most obvious to remain "tin hat non conspiracy" theorists, or we believe the governemnts "conspiracy theory" where the government has proven to be greatest bunch of liars known to man, and considering that history is literally peppered with thousands of documented and proven conspiracies that is very troubling. Frankly i think it is better to err on the side of believing in a conspiracy mistakenly than it is to err on the side of ignorance to the real. America and possibly the uk are about the only 2 countries where people are fooolish enough to trust the government where as everywhere else in the world people expect treachery from the government first and ask questions later. The former to be our undoing.

luckydog1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 11:29:22 PM)
Its not a play on a word game real. You said," fdr did it! you know the last one who stole all our gold? Why woudlnt gw do it, the one who stole all our liberties?". FDR did not get a corrupt court to allow him to run again on a technicality. He was legaly allowed to run. For Bush to run again he would have to get a wierd court ruling. You said FDR did it, I said he didnt. Break the law and run again, there was no law against it then. To compare FDR being elected a 3rd and 4th time to Bush breaking the constituion with a nonsene technicality, is not being in touch with reality. Furthermore the whole idea is nonsense, Bush was completely and duly elected President in 00, the electoral college elects the president, that's what it says in the constitution you pretend to value so much. He is innocent until proven guilty, at least according to the Constituion you pretend to value so much. He has the right to petion the courts for redress of grievances, at least according to the Constitution you pretend to value, thats all he did...he didn't steal anything. He won the majority of the electoral votes, in a razor thin election.

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/7/2007 11:53:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Its not a play on a word game real. You said," fdr did it! you know the last one who stole all our gold? Why woudlnt gw do it, the one who stole all our liberties?". FDR did not get a corrupt court to allow him to run again on a technicality. He was legaly allowed to run. For Bush to run again he would have to get a wierd court ruling. You said FDR did it, I said he didnt. Break the law and run again, there was no law against it then. To compare FDR being elected a 3rd and 4th time to Bush breaking the constituion with a nonsene technicality, is not being in touch with reality. Furthermore the whole idea is nonsense, Bush was completely and duly elected President in 00, the electoral college elects the president, that's what it says in the constitution you pretend to value so much. He is innocent until proven guilty, at least according to the Constituion you pretend to value so much. He has the right to petion the courts for redress of grievances, at least according to the Constitution you pretend to value, thats all he did...he didn't steal anything. He won the majority of the electoral votes, in a razor thin election. fdr was inaugerated, not to be read as fdr broke the law, that and challenging the 22nd is not breaking the law but being typical pushy has to have everythign his own way to hell with the world bush. i am not sure what you are arguing the 2000 election for since i never brought it up or referred to it or how you are coming to the conclusion that i do not value the constitution. like you took a serious tangent here after the fdr point. my point of course is that joke or not there is nothing stopping him from trying, and you are dreaming if you thinik the american public has the right to petetion and redress. we woundt be suiing if we did

luckydog1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/8/2007 12:00:16 AM)
my point of course is that joke or not (it was a joke and test of how much people examine what they read before they believe it) there is nothing stopping him from trying, (except the law)and you are dreaming if you thinik the american public has the right to petetion and redress. we woundt be suiing if we did I have no idea what you mean here, would you please be more clear?

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/8/2007 4:08:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 my point of course is that joke or not (it was a joke and test of how much people examine what they read before they believe it) there is nothing stopping him from trying, (except the law)and you are dreaming if you thinik the american public has the right to petetion and redress. we woundt be suiing if we did I have no idea what you mean here, would you please be more clear? So you think breaking the law is the same as challenging the law? It was a good joke ino because it is like it or not plausible and frankly exacatly what i would expect of the asshole. Like i said we would not be suing if we really had that the right to redress and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm and that is not a joke i am sure you like so many others actually "think" you have that 1st amendment right dont you? 2006 October 31 Update: Schulz Furthers Oral Arguments October 27 Update: Government's Position Is Monarchic, WTP Motion to Expedite Filed October 10 USCOA Hears Oral Arguments for RTP, WTP Files Motion for Injunctive Protection June 9 1040 Checkmate? DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Charges After PRA Defense Raised May 15 High Courts Grapple With Meaning of Right to Petition March 31 Powerful Amicus Brief Filed Feb. 28 Right-to-Petition Case Now Before U.S. Court of Appeals 2005 Sept. 13 USDC Dismisses RTP Lawsuit WTP article: "The Greatest Threat" Feb. 27 USDC Grants WTP Motion For Sur-Reply -- Final Word in Motion To Dismiss Battle Jan. 29 U.S. Court of Appeals to IRS: No USDC Order, No Enforcement Action (related) Jan. 26 IRS Commits Fraud On the District Court 2004 Dec. 22 In Defense of the Petition Clause October 20 The Right To Petition: Stopping Undeclared Wars Sept 23 Amended Complaint Filed August 23 Amended Complaint to Be Filed Shortly July 26 Lawsuit Begins w/ 3 hrs. Live C-SPAN Coverage & DC March to IRS/DOJ May 10 Government is Wrong: New Damning Research, Next Steps in Petition ProcessApril 4 Give Me Liberty 2004 -- Conference on the Right To Petition, Record Available 2003 Oct. 20 Phase One: Complete. Phase 2: $285,000 Needed Sept. 4 Update : Retaliation Against Those That Question Government Continues August 3 Two Questions for the Supreme Court July 25 We The People v. The U.S. Government (Lawsuit Announced) July 20 A Message to the Leaders

MiladyAngelique -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/8/2007 5:42:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "He simply appears (to me) not to care what anyone else thinks, or what they may want to do instead; and the fact someone else may have a different opinion (or even an entire nation, almost) simply doesn't seem to "register", with him. Even more so than with Bush, IMO." The word is "Sociopath". I don't know are you sure he actually knows right from wrong? If he doesn't, then isn't he a psychopath? quoting from "The pretender" I am not a psychopath, I am a sociopath. I know right from wrong, I just don't care) Angel

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625