repealing the 22nd amendment

that couldn't happen could it?

22 limits presidents to 2 terms.

http//thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109H.J.RES.24.IH

anything can happen under the bush administration....2 years ago i said (not only to myself) that if bush is re-elected, it would honestly not surprise me that he would try and change the law so that he could run for more terms, or that he could run for as long as he wanted.

people say im a liberal, left-wing conspiracy nut, but say that to me when its Syria next and the Draft has been implemented.

but politics dont seem to go down very well on these boards so im gonna stop while im ahead (of myself).

D

[quote9950f8973a="theysayjump"]anything can happen under the bush administration....2 years ago i said (not only to myself) that if bush is re-elected, it would honestly not surprise me that he would try and change the law so that he could run for more terms, or that he could run for as long as he wanted.

people say im a liberal, left-wing conspiracy nut, but say that to me when its Syria next and the Draft has been implemented.

but politics dont seem to go down very well on these boards so im gonna stop while im ahead (of myself).

D[/quote9950f8973a]

TERRORIST! P

lmao

[quote22fc04d629="theysayjump"]anything can happen under the bush administration....2 years ago i said (not only to myself) that if bush is re-elected, it would honestly not surprise me that he would try and change the law so that he could run for more terms, or that he could run for as long as he wanted.

people say im a liberal, left-wing conspiracy nut, but say that to me when its Syria next and the Draft has been implemented.

but politics dont seem to go down very well on these boards so im gonna stop while im ahead (of myself).

D[/quote22fc04d629]

no offense, guys...but you need to get a clue. that's a statement bill, introduced only for political exploitation. look at the bill sponsor (most importantly his party)--a real right wing conspiracy, huh? as usual though, someone finds a way to construe it as Bush's fault...never fails.

Yeah, there's no way that 3/4 of the states would ratify it(unless some terrorist attack occured), but it's still quite scary to think that it was even suggested. This could end up being just like Star Wars or Hitler's Germany if the right components were combined. All democracies will eventually fail when the people lose faith in them and decide that a supreme leader is required to protect them from unseen threat. The first step in something like that is to remove the term limitations.

[quote407be16494="Ethan"]Yeah, there's no way that 3/4 of the states would ratify it(unless some terrorist attack occured), but it's still quite scary to think that it was even suggested. This could end up being just like Star Wars or Hitler's Germany if the right components were combined. All democracies will eventually fail when the people lose faith in them and decide that a supreme leader is required to protect them from unseen threat. The first step in something like that is to remove the term limitations.[/quote407be16494]

You do realize that Star Wars is fiction, right?

On the other hand it could turn out like Star Trek where we give up using money and the president of the federation isn't human.

[quotedbed8d6e56="Ethan"]Yeah, there's no way that 3/4 of the states would ratify it(unless some terrorist attack occured), but it's still quite scary to think that it was even suggested. This could end up being just like Star Wars or Hitler's Germany if the right components were combined. All democracies will eventually fail when the people lose faith in them and decide that a supreme leader is required to protect them from unseen threat. The first step in something like that is to remove the term limitations.[/quotedbed8d6e56]

while I don't feel strongly about term limits one way or the other, I certainly don't find their potential absence threatening. we're not talking about a monarchy here; for someone to stay in power beyond two terms, the people would have to continue electing him--is that not a fundamental principle of democracy?

But, no, this bill isn't going anywhere (just as it didn't in the 107th Congress).

My main beef is with the absolutely absurd suggestion that it's an attempted power grab by Bush or the Republican party--the damn bill was introduced by a Democrat.

Look at all the good Roosevelt did with his 5 elections, term limits aren't great. I agree with dcrainmaker that this is not a partisan issue and no matter what the person in power would still need to be elected.

I would have voted for Clinton in 2000 =)

You're all wrong. We should set up a government that steals from the rich and gives to the poor. ROBIN HOOD!!!! I just watched Men in Tights... I see now how gay movie makers are

[quoteed72b8ea85="slease"]Look at all the good Roosevelt did with his 5 elections, term limits aren't great. I agree with dcrainmaker that this is not a partisan issue and no matter what the person in power would still need to be elected.

I would have voted for Clinton in 2000 =)[/quoteed72b8ea85]

Thats assuming that Bush doesnt rig another election. Would he still be geting reelected for another term or would it be the ultimate deception of controling the system and the presidency. FDR's presidency is overrated. He only got 1/3 of his initiatives passed. If it weren't for the war his legacy would be absolute crap.

Bottom Line

They made a 2 term limit for a reason and I would not wish to repeal that amendment for BUSH or for any republican for that matter , but especially puppet man.

I wouldn't want the 2 term limit repealed for anyone, Republican or otherwise. Eight years is long enough.

well yeah of course he(whichever president) would have to be re-elected....but considering how scared bush has this country, can you see him not being re-elected if this bill was to be passed?

[quote4523654882="theysayjump"]well yeah of course he(whichever president) would have to be re-elected....but considering how scared bush has this country, can you see him not being re-elected if this bill was to be passed?[/quote4523654882]

Too much historical perspective to change it now. Everyone still looks at GW's presiency as a model for all presidents. 2 and done. Would be next to imposssible to pass. I dont think were under extreme security right now where we need to implement marshall law. Plus Bush's popularity right now I tthink is the lowest for any Presient. Funny he set the record for highest and lowest approval percentages. Not gonna happen

[quote0feb7c229c="good2speed"][quote0feb7c229c="slease"]Look at all the good Roosevelt did with his 5 elections, term limits aren't great. I agree with dcrainmaker that this is not a partisan issue and no matter what the person in power would still need to be elected.

I would have voted for Clinton in 2000 =)[/quote0feb7c229c]

Thats assuming that Bush doesnt rig another election. Would he still be geting reelected for another term or would it be the ultimate deception of controling the system and the presidency. FDR's presidency is overrated. He only got 1/3 of his initiatives passed. If it weren't for the war his legacy would be absolute crap.

Bottom Line

They made a 2 term limit for a reason and I would not wish to repeal that amendment for BUSH or for any republican for that matter , but especially puppet man.[/quote0feb7c229c]

Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you?

As for election fraud, why don't you look at what's currently going on in Washington state? Or talk to the Daly family in Chicago? Or we can talk about the 30 rental vans in Milwaukee that were to be used by Republican campaign workers to get their voters to the polls having their tires slashed by Kerry supporters. Or we could talk about the numerous Bush campaign HQ's in FL and elsewhere that were subjected to severe vandalism and where workers were physically assaulted. Take your pick.

Oh, but I'm sure the same thing happened the other way around--it's just that the conservative-friendly media didn't report it (LMAO).

[quotec23587b445="theysayjump"]well yeah of course he(whichever president) would have to be re-elected....but considering how scared bush has this country, can you see him not being re-elected if this bill was to be passed?[/quotec23587b445]

yeah, it's Bush that has the country scared--terrorists, what are they? (sarcasm intended)

[quote02ca7c16d8="dcrainmaker"][quote02ca7c16d8="good2speed"][quote02ca7c16d8="slease"]Look at all the good Roosevelt did with his 5 elections, term limits aren't great. I agree with dcrainmaker that this is not a partisan issue and no matter what the person in power would still need to be elected.

I would have voted for Clinton in 2000 =)[/quote02ca7c16d8]

Thats assuming that Bush doesnt rig another election. Would he still be geting reelected for another term or would it be the ultimate deception of controling the system and the presidency. FDR's presidency is overrated. He only got 1/3 of his initiatives passed. If it weren't for the war his legacy would be absolute crap.

Bottom Line

They made a 2 term limit for a reason and I would not wish to repeal that amendment for BUSH or for any republican for that matter , but especially puppet man.[/quote02ca7c16d8]

Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you?

As for election fraud, why don't you look at what's currently going on in Washington state? Or talk to the Daly family in Chicago? Or we can talk about the 30 rental vans in Milwaukee that were to be used by Republican campaign workers to get their voters to the polls having their tires slashed by Kerry supporters. Or we could talk about the numerous Bush campaign HQ's in FL and elsewhere that were subjected to severe vandalism and where workers were physically assaulted. Take your pick.

Oh, but I'm sure the same thing happened the other way around--it's just that the conservative-friendly media didn't report it (LMAO).[/quote02ca7c16d8]

There are enoguh reports out there on how Bush rigged the election. I don't have the concrete evidence nor do I have the time to run through them all. Guess its safe to assume you love Bush though. Sorry to hear that.

Gotta love Bush-bashing. roll

If they repealed the 22nd amendment, I'll register to vote and vote for Bush.

If the election was rigged, do you think they would be dumb enough to be caught?

[quotea6837af9b8="nicd.01"]If the election was rigged, do you think they would be dumb enough to be caught?[/quotea6837af9b8]

I think the Bush administration is stupid enough to do anything. Most incompetent administration in istory. No messups by this adminstartion will surprise me.

[quoted33f91ab20="good2speed"][quoted33f91ab20="dcrainmaker"][quoted33f91ab20="good2speed"][quoted33f91ab20="slease"]Look at all the good Roosevelt did with his 5 elections, term limits aren't great. I agree with dcrainmaker that this is not a partisan issue and no matter what the person in power would still need to be elected.

I would have voted for Clinton in 2000 =)[/quoted33f91ab20]

Thats assuming that Bush doesnt rig another election. Would he still be geting reelected for another term or would it be the ultimate deception of controling the system and the presidency. FDR's presidency is overrated. He only got 1/3 of his initiatives passed. If it weren't for the war his legacy would be absolute crap.

Bottom Line

They made a 2 term limit for a reason and I would not wish to repeal that amendment for BUSH or for any republican for that matter , but especially puppet man.[/quoted33f91ab20]

Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you?

As for election fraud, why don't you look at what's currently going on in Washington state? Or talk to the Daly family in Chicago? Or we can talk about the 30 rental vans in Milwaukee that were to be used by Republican campaign workers to get their voters to the polls having their tires slashed by Kerry supporters. Or we could talk about the numerous Bush campaign HQ's in FL and elsewhere that were subjected to severe vandalism and where workers were physically assaulted. Take your pick.

Oh, but I'm sure the same thing happened the other way around--it's just that the conservative-friendly media didn't report it (LMAO).[/quoted33f91ab20]

There are enoguh reports out there on how Bush rigged the election. I don't have the concrete evidence nor do I have the time to run through them all. Guess its safe to assume you love Bush though. Sorry to hear that.[/quoted33f91ab20]

Ummm...where are these "reports?" Democratic Underground? The things I cite are documented by actual news organizations (liberal as they may be)--not baseless claims made my partisan fanatics. I honestly don't think I've encountered a less substantive response in my entire life.

However I feel about President Bush is irrelevant (certainly don't "love" him, by the way)--the reason I responded is because your post was ignorance and irrationality peddled as substantiated fact, and I simply can't stand to not challenge such nonsense.

[quote048119cf87="dcrainmaker"]
Ummm...where are these "reports?" Democratic Underground? The things I cite are documented by actual news organizations (liberal as they may be)--not baseless claims made my partisan fanatics. I honestly don't think I've encountered a less substantive response in my entire life.

However I feel about President Bush is irrelevant (certainly don't "love" him, by the way)--the reason I responded is because your post was ignorance and irrationality peddled as substantiated fact, and I simply can't stand to not challenge such nonsense.[/quote048119cf87]

I think you dont have an opinion on this whole subject. you polly have a political interest but are more concerned with arguing. Its definetely in you. I am a coder but did get a minor in Political Science so Im assuming I have good knowledge of politics. If you want to make a political debate then go for it. If you want to bash my post like a 15 year old than go for it. If you want to start a real political debate Im ready

[quote29a1ff5159="good2speed"][quote29a1ff5159="nicd.01"]If the election was rigged, do you think they would be dumb enough to be caught?[/quote29a1ff5159]

I think the Bush administration is stupid enough to do anything. Most incompetent administration in istory. No messups by this adminstartion will surprise me.[/quote29a1ff5159]

You've got me all wrong, I am strongly against Bush for a variety of reasons. I just realize that anyone who would rig an election would be damn sure to not leave a trail that could be traced back to them. The elites in this country (not only Republicans) aren't dumb enough to pull off a heist like that only to be caught.

[quotedefe9b76a1="nicd.01"][quotedefe9b76a1="good2speed"][quotedefe9b76a1="nicd.01"]If the election was rigged, do you think they would be dumb enough to be caught?[/quotedefe9b76a1]

I think the Bush administration is stupid enough to do anything. Most incompetent administration in istory. No messups by this adminstartion will surprise me.[/quotedefe9b76a1]

You've got me all wrong, I am strongly against Bush for a variety of reasons. I just realize that anyone who would rig an election would be damn sure to not leave a trail that could be traced back to them. The elites in this country (not only Republicans) aren't dumb enough to pull off a heist like that only to be caught.[/quotedefe9b76a1]

Oh the elites are dumb as hell. Donald Rumsfeld handling of Guantanmao and the Iraq prsion camps. You think he wasnt dumb by leaving his imprints on it all. Theyre real dumb but they always use scapegoats whenever pressure rises. Similar to CEO's who neve go to jail bc they get the people underneath them to take the blame. Whole administration is corrupt and theyve been pushing the envelope for years now. Sooner or later it catches up to them. All of these peoples political careers are over once the next democratic President is elected.

[quoteedf9470e26="good2speed"][quoteedf9470e26="dcrainmaker"]
Ummm...where are these "reports?" Democratic Underground? The things I cite are documented by actual news organizations (liberal as they may be)--not baseless claims made my partisan fanatics. I honestly don't think I've encountered a less substantive response in my entire life.

However I feel about President Bush is irrelevant (certainly don't "love" him, by the way)--the reason I responded is because your post was ignorance and irrationality peddled as substantiated fact, and I simply can't stand to not challenge such nonsense.[/quoteedf9470e26]

I think you dont have an opinion on this whole subject. you polly have a political interest but are more concerned with arguing. Its definetely in you. I am a coder but did get a minor in Political Science so Im assuming I have good knowledge of politics. If you want to make a political debate then go for it. If you want to bash my post like a 15 year old than go for it. If you want to start a real political debate Im ready[/quoteedf9470e26]

Nope, wrong again. As I stated before, I engaged because your original post was completely absurd, and I felt compelled to call it into question. It's certainly not because I want to argue for the sake of arguing. And, for the record, I don't consider this a debate when all you do is make baseless accusations and then, in response to my arguments, offer posts devoid of any substance whatsoever.

As for your Political Science minor, that's great. I majored in Political Science and have worked in politics for the past two years, but feel free to teach me. Regardless of those facts, one can have all the education/experience in the world and still put forth extremely irrational arguments. I just call em like I see em.

[quotea202de5ce9="good2speed"] All of these peoples political careers are over once the next democratic President is elected.[/quotea202de5ce9]

That's a bold claim (sarcasm intended).

Do you know what a tautological statement is?

[quote45a6f3ec1f="dcrainmaker"][quote45a6f3ec1f="good2speed"][quote45a6f3ec1f="dcrainmaker"]
Ummm...where are these "reports?" Democratic Underground? The things I cite are documented by actual news organizations (liberal as they may be)--not baseless claims made my partisan fanatics. I honestly don't think I've encountered a less substantive response in my entire life.

However I feel about President Bush is irrelevant (certainly don't "love" him, by the way)--the reason I responded is because your post was ignorance and irrationality peddled as substantiated fact, and I simply can't stand to not challenge such nonsense.[/quote45a6f3ec1f]

I think you dont have an opinion on this whole subject. you polly have a political interest but are more concerned with arguing. Its definetely in you. I am a coder but did get a minor in Political Science so Im assuming I have good knowledge of politics. If you want to make a political debate then go for it. If you want to bash my post like a 15 year old than go for it. If you want to start a real political debate Im ready[/quote45a6f3ec1f]

Nope, wrong again. As I stated before, I engaged because your original post was completely absurd, and I felt compelled to call it into question. It's certainly not because I want to argue for the sake of arguing. And, for the record, I don't consider this a debate when all you do is make baseless accusations and then, in response to my arguments, offer posts devoid of any substance whatsoever.

As for your Political Science minor, that's great. I majored in Political Science and have worked in politics for the past two years, but feel free to teach me. Regardless of those facts, one can have all the education/experience in the world and still put forth extremely irrational arguments. I just call em like I see em.[/quote45a6f3ec1f]

Thats wonderful. You seem really passionate about debating. Too bad I could care less. Baseless accusations will be whatever I say unless I can prove them to you. Guess even if I had evidence Id need to go the extra mile with you since you seem so set in your ways. No need to argue with you. You have your own opinion and stand behind Bush so no point for me to even post here again.

Oh ya I got a minor in it while I got a major in Comp SCI. I know not the right mix but I figured since I took so many damn classes I might as well just get the minor even though I had like 15 credits in POl Sci that wasnt needed for the degree. Internet arguments go no where. Like that site that says arguing on the net is like the special olympics. Even if you win your still retarded.

Feel free to say whatever you have to. Porbably have to go out of your way to insult me for me to even post here again. And remember not once have I insulted you in this post but if you decide to do so again then so be it.

[quoted78fa3471c="good2speed"][quoted78fa3471c="dcrainmaker"][quoted78fa3471c="good2speed"][quoted78fa3471c="dcrainmaker"]
Ummm...where are these "reports?" Democratic Underground? The things I cite are documented by actual news organizations (liberal as they may be)--not baseless claims made my partisan fanatics. I honestly don't think I've encountered a less substantive response in my entire life.

However I feel about President Bush is irrelevant (certainly don't "love" him, by the way)--the reason I responded is because your post was ignorance and irrationality peddled as substantiated fact, and I simply can't stand to not challenge such nonsense.[/quoted78fa3471c]

I think you dont have an opinion on this whole subject. you polly have a political interest but are more concerned with arguing. Its definetely in you. I am a coder but did get a minor in Political Science so Im assuming I have good knowledge of politics. If you want to make a political debate then go for it. If you want to bash my post like a 15 year old than go for it. If you want to start a real political debate Im ready[/quoted78fa3471c]

Nope, wrong again. As I stated before, I engaged because your original post was completely absurd, and I felt compelled to call it into question. It's certainly not because I want to argue for the sake of arguing. And, for the record, I don't consider this a debate when all you do is make baseless accusations and then, in response to my arguments, offer posts devoid of any substance whatsoever.

As for your Political Science minor, that's great. I majored in Political Science and have worked in politics for the past two years, but feel free to teach me. Regardless of those facts, one can have all the education/experience in the world and still put forth extremely irrational arguments. I just call em like I see em.[/quoted78fa3471c]

Thats wonderful. You seem really passionate about debating. Too bad I could care less. Baseless accusations will be whatever I say unless I can prove them to you. Guess even if I had evidence Id need to go the extra mile with you since you seem so set in your ways. No need to argue with you. You have your own opinion and stand behind Bush so no point for me to even post here again.

Oh ya I got a minor in it while I got a major in Comp SCI. I know not the right mix but I figured since I took so many damn classes I might as well just get the minor even though I had like 15 credits in POl Sci that wasnt needed for the degree. Internet arguments go no where. Like that site that says arguing on the net is like the special olympics. Even if you win your still retarded.

Feel free to say whatever you have to. Porbably have to go out of your way to insult me for me to even post here again. And remember not once have I insulted you in this post but if you decide to do so again then so be it.[/quoted78fa3471c]

I don't consider it an insult to accurately characterize one's argument as baseless, irrational, and/or unsubstantiated. That's not getting personal--that's simply offering a critical analysis of an argument.

You're the one who's gone so far as to characterize me personally, although you know absolutely nothing about me (e.g. you attempt to paint me as a hopeless Bush loyalist/fanatic when you have no clue as to my political allegiances). I, on the other hand, responded to your arguments, offering substance in the process--I didn't get into who you are/must be as a person.

[quote1dbfa76854="dcrainmaker"]
Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you? [/quote1dbfa76854]

Anytime you put me and cc40 in the same sentence Im insulted. Even more so in the way you put it. You may not see it as an insult but thats fine. Your posts are reatarded, Ive never seen such stupid statements written in histroy, must have been words from an extreme idiot. Offended yet. Oh iM NOT INSULTING YOU JUST INSULTING WHAT YOU SAID.

If you think it was a fair election in 2000 then please go talk to the thousands who complained of the stupid chad shit or the black people who were held back from voting. You probably have a far fetched answer for that or will somehow reply and say that its baseless. Well if it is then please go round these people up and prove to me what their saying isnt true. Im waiting to hear from these people and until I do your retarded.

Hope your not offended

[quotef2269416dc="dcrainmaker"][quotef2269416dc="good2speed"] All of these peoples political careers are over once the next democratic President is elected.[/quotef2269416dc]

That's a bold claim. Do you know what a tautological statement is?[/quotef2269416dc]

Nope but do you know when you need an extra "

If it does happen, welcome to dictatorship ladies and gentlemen.

[quotea8e89c1f47="good2speed"][quotea8e89c1f47="dcrainmaker"]
Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you? [/quotea8e89c1f47]

Anytime you put me and cc40 in the same sentence Im insulted. Even more so in the way you put it. You may not see it as an insult but thats fine. Your posts are reatarded, Ive never seen such stupid statements written in histroy, must have been words from an extreme idiot. Offended yet. Oh iM NOT INSULTING YOU JUST INSULTING WHAT YOU SAID.

If you think it was a fair election in 2000 then please go talk to the thousands who complained of the stupid chad shit or the black people who were held back from voting. You probably have a far fetched answer for that or will somehow reply and say that its baseless. Well if it is then please go round these people up and prove to me what their saying isnt true. Im waiting to hear from these people and until I do your retarded.

Hope your not offended[/quotea8e89c1f47]

LMAO...the guy with the conspiracy theories about the 2000 election is talking about others responding with something "farfetched?" I think I've seen it all.

As for those who claim to have been disenfranchised, those claims have been investigated a million times over with nothing found to support them. And, for the record, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that their claims aren't true; rather, it's on them to prove that they are, something they've yet to successfully do.

With regard to the chad issue, it sucks that the dumbasses in FL can't follow basic voting procedures. If you're one of those people, you probably shouldn't be voting to begin with. Regardless, as I noted earlier, every investigation into the recount has shown that Bush would've won FL even using the MOST LIBERAL standard for counting ballots (the one Gore's legal team lobbied for), so that's a [ia8e89c1f47]completely moot point[/ia8e89c1f47].

I guess all these facts are a little too "farfetched" for you, huh?

[quote5b7b593d47="dcrainmaker"][quote5b7b593d47="good2speed"][quote5b7b593d47="dcrainmaker"]
Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you? [/quote5b7b593d47]

Anytime you put me and cc40 in the same sentence Im insulted. Even more so in the way you put it. You may not see it as an insult but thats fine. Your posts are reatarded, Ive never seen such stupid statements written in histroy, must have been words from an extreme idiot. Offended yet. Oh iM NOT INSULTING YOU JUST INSULTING WHAT YOU SAID.

If you think it was a fair election in 2000 then please go talk to the thousands who complained of the stupid chad shit or the black people who were held back from voting. You probably have a far fetched answer for that or will somehow reply and say that its baseless. Well if it is then please go round these people up and prove to me what their saying isnt true. Im waiting to hear from these people and until I do your retarded.

Hope your not offended[/quote5b7b593d47]

LMAO...the guy with the conspiracy theories about the 2000 election is talking about others responding with something "farfetched?" I think I've seen it all.

As for those who claim to have been disenfranchised, those claims have been investigated a million times over with nothing found to support them. And, for the record, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that their claims aren't true; rather, it's on them to prove that they are, something they've yet to successfully do.

With regard to the chad issue, it sucks that the dumbasses in FL can't follow basic voting procedures. If you're one of those people, you probably shouldn't be voting to begin with. Regardless, as I noted earlier, every investigation into the recount has shown that Bush would've won FL even using the MOST LIBERAL standard for counting ballots (the one Gore's legal team lobbied for), so that's a [i5b7b593d47]completely moot point[/i5b7b593d47].

I guess all these facts are a little too "farfetched" for you, huh?[/quote5b7b593d47]

To be blunt yes. Any issue that deals with African-American disenfranchment is always viewed by white society as AA's being incorrect and exaggerative in their claims.

There was a story about how a whole thriving affluent black neghborhood had their whole village burnt down in Oklahmoa while whites were allowed to have public burings of these people. Somehow the whites were found innocent by the white courts, even thought their was more evidence that stated the contrary. Now it may have been ok since this happened in the early 1900' during a period of time when AA's were not given many rights. Its extremely disturbing however that even today they will not help those that were disenfranchised.

You my friend, I am almost certain, is someone who has no clue about African American disenfranchment and can only speak on the manner in your politically educated way. Kind of like a guy who reads a book and feels he knows everything without actually having lived through it.

Oh yeah I didnt see one fact in your whole statement. Just opinions.

[quote1145bec99d="good2speed"][quote1145bec99d="dcrainmaker"][quote1145bec99d="good2speed"][quote1145bec99d="dcrainmaker"]
Perhaps the most ludicrous post I've ever read on this forum, and that includes everything posted by CC40.

Would you like to elaborate on how Bush "rigged" either election he won?

With regard to the recount in 2000, you do realize that every independent group that conducted an investigation (most notably, the Miami Herald) found that Bush won FL however one looked at it, don't you? [/quote1145bec99d]

Anytime you put me and cc40 in the same sentence Im insulted. Even more so in the way you put it. You may not see it as an insult but thats fine. Your posts are reatarded, Ive never seen such stupid statements written in histroy, must have been words from an extreme idiot. Offended yet. Oh iM NOT INSULTING YOU JUST INSULTING WHAT YOU SAID.

If you think it was a fair election in 2000 then please go talk to the thousands who complained of the stupid chad shit or the black people who were held back from voting. You probably have a far fetched answer for that or will somehow reply and say that its baseless. Well if it is then please go round these people up and prove to me what their saying isnt true. Im waiting to hear from these people and until I do your retarded.

Hope your not offended[/quote1145bec99d]

LMAO...the guy with the conspiracy theories about the 2000 election is talking about others responding with something "farfetched?" I think I've seen it all.

As for those who claim to have been disenfranchised, those claims have been investigated a million times over with nothing found to support them. And, for the record, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that their claims aren't true; rather, it's on them to prove that they are, something they've yet to successfully do.

With regard to the chad issue, it sucks that the dumbasses in FL can't follow basic voting procedures. If you're one of those people, you probably shouldn't be voting to begin with. Regardless, as I noted earlier, every investigation into the recount has shown that Bush would've won FL even using the MOST LIBERAL standard for counting ballots (the one Gore's legal team lobbied for), so that's a [i1145bec99d]completely moot point[/i1145bec99d].

I guess all these facts are a little too "farfetched" for you, huh?[/quote1145bec99d]

To be blunt yes. Any issue that deals with African-American disenfranchment is always viewed by white society as AA's being incorrect and exaggerative in their claims.

There was a story about how a whole thriving affluent black neghborhood had their whole village burnt down in Oklahmoa while whites were allowed to have public burings of these people. Somehow the whites were found innocent by the white courts, even thought their was more evidence that stated the contrary. Now it may have been ok since this happened in the early 1900' during a period of time when AA's were not given many rights. Its extremely disturbing however that even today they will not help those that were disenfranchised.

You my friend, I am almost certain, is someone who has no clue about African American disenfranchment and can only speak on the manner in your politically educated way. Kind of like a guy who reads a book and feels he knows everything without actually having lived through it.

Oh yeah I didnt see one fact in your whole statement. Just opinions.[/quote1145bec99d]

This gets more amazing as we go. "Didn't see one fact?" Did you read what I posted? How about my referencing various investigations and their findings? Those are facts, my friend.

With regard to your story about the community in Oklahoma, all I can say is this objection, your honor--relevance. Can you say "completely outside of the scope of what we were discussing?"

Don't you think that if there were anything to the claims in FL of black disenfranchisement that would liberals such as yourself would be touting the hell out of it? Again, those claims were investigated thoroughly and were found to be unsubstantiated. And we're not talking about 1950's Mississippi here, so save me the "it was true, but nobody cared" card.

And there you go again making a personal judgment about me when you don't know a damn thing about me except that I apparently have little tolerance for ignorance. I'd certainly be willing to bet that I've intimately far more blacks in my 24 years than have you. For that matter, I've spent countless hours putting my money where my mouth is with regard to ills that have plagued black society in America--I haven't just talked it, I've given my time and energy to helping address them. So you need to check yourself.

And I just can't get over the fact that several posts ago you claimed that you were done here, making some statement about how arguing on the internet was like the special olympics (granted, it made no sense in this context...seemed more like you've just been waiting to use that one at some point and tried to make it fit where it didn't). I guess you've changed your tune.

[quoted28ff511ef="dcrainmaker"]
And I just can't get over the fact that several posts ago you claimed that you were done here... I guess you've changed your tune.[/quoted28ff511ef]

I was going to end it but since you want to keep it going I will do the same. Im not going to stop my argument. Best bet is to have mod lock this topic cause it can go on forever.

[quotef595054a09="good2speed"][quotef595054a09="dcrainmaker"][quotef595054a09="good2speed"] All of these peoples political careers are over once the next democratic President is elected.[/quotef595054a09]

That's a bold claim. Do you know what a tautological statement is?[/quotef595054a09]

Nope but do you know when you need an extra "[/quotef595054a09]

OMG. roll I thought the mods and admins ruled on grammar bashing?

[quotede2acaf4ab="dcrainmaker"][quotede2acaf4ab="Ethan"]Yeah, there's no way that 3/4 of the states would ratify it(unless some terrorist attack occured), but it's still quite scary to think that it was even suggested. This could end up being just like Star Wars or Hitler's Germany if the right components were combined. All democracies will eventually fail when the people lose faith in them and decide that a supreme leader is required to protect them from unseen threat. The first step in something like that is to remove the term limitations.[/quotede2acaf4ab]

while I don't feel strongly about term limits one way or the other, I certainly don't find their potential absence threatening. we're not talking about a monarchy here; for someone to stay in power beyond two terms, the people would have to continue electing him--is that not a fundamental principle of democracy?

But, no, this bill isn't going anywhere (just as it didn't in the 107th Congress).

My main beef is with the absolutely absurd suggestion that it's an attempted power grab by Bush or the Republican party--the damn bill was introduced by a Democrat.[/quotede2acaf4ab]

I want to put my 2 cents in, and if this has been already said, my fault. But this isn't a deomcracy, since when have us people elected the president into office? NEVER! its all electoral, the 2000 election gore won the popular but that doesnt mean shit, he didnt win the electoral. I think no one should vote for a president because our votes mean SHIT, so this isnt a fucking democracy, I am under the rule of them rich fuckers who choose who they want as president, if they need to REPEAL any AMENDMENT is the one WHERE they get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and INSTILL a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM just in every other REAL DEMOCRACY.

agreed )

[quotee09505a625="bsi4063"]I want to put my 2 cents in, and if this has been already said, my fault. But this isn't a deomcracy, since when have us people elected the president into office? NEVER! its all electoral, the 2000 election gore won the popular but that doesnt mean shit, he didnt win the electoral. I think no one should vote for a president because our votes mean SHIT, so this isnt a fucking democracy, I am under the rule of them rich fuckers who choose who they want as president, if they need to REPEAL any AMENDMENT is the one WHERE they get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and INSTILL a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM just in every other REAL DEMOCRACY.[/quotee09505a625]

If we do that than we empower the people with too much. Think about it poeple like dcrainmaker are too dumb too make decisions for themselves and need some one superior and more inteliigent to make the decision for them.

Note This whole statement is sarcastic, dont read into it too much. wink

[quote79470f58d9="good2speed"][quote79470f58d9="bsi4063"]I want to put my 2 cents in, and if this has been already said, my fault. But this isn't a deomcracy, since when have us people elected the president into office? NEVER! its all electoral, the 2000 election gore won the popular but that doesnt mean shit, he didnt win the electoral. I think no one should vote for a president because our votes mean SHIT, so this isnt a fucking democracy, I am under the rule of them rich fuckers who choose who they want as president, if they need to REPEAL any AMENDMENT is the one WHERE they get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and INSTILL a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM just in every other REAL DEMOCRACY.[/quote79470f58d9]

If we do that than we empower the people with too much. Think about it poeple like dcrainmaker are too dumb too make decisions for themselves and need some one superior and more inteliigent to make the decision for them.

Note This whole statement is sarcastic, dont read into it too much. wink[/quote79470f58d9]

I was afraid until I read your last sentence. It's just a shame that what you said is the reason the system is the way it is.

[quotec067d228c9="bsi4063"][quotec067d228c9="dcrainmaker"][quotec067d228c9="Ethan"]Yeah, there's no way that 3/4 of the states would ratify it(unless some terrorist attack occured), but it's still quite scary to think that it was even suggested. This could end up being just like Star Wars or Hitler's Germany if the right components were combined. All democracies will eventually fail when the people lose faith in them and decide that a supreme leader is required to protect them from unseen threat. The first step in something like that is to remove the term limitations.[/quotec067d228c9]

while I don't feel strongly about term limits one way or the other, I certainly don't find their potential absence threatening. we're not talking about a monarchy here; for someone to stay in power beyond two terms, the people would have to continue electing him--is that not a fundamental principle of democracy?

But, no, this bill isn't going anywhere (just as it didn't in the 107th Congress).

My main beef is with the absolutely absurd suggestion that it's an attempted power grab by Bush or the Republican party--the damn bill was introduced by a Democrat.[/quotec067d228c9]

I want to put my 2 cents in, and if this has been already said, my fault. But this isn't a deomcracy, since when have us people elected the president into office? NEVER! its all electoral, the 2000 election gore won the popular but that doesnt mean shit, he didnt win the electoral. I think no one should vote for a president because our votes mean SHIT, so this isnt a fucking democracy, I am under the rule of them rich fuckers who choose who they want as president, if they need to REPEAL any AMENDMENT is the one WHERE they get rid of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE and INSTILL a POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM just in every other REAL DEMOCRACY.[/quotec067d228c9]

You're right with regard to the electoral college in the sense that it's not purely democratic in nature, but that doesn't mean our system of government isn't a democracy (there are degrees). That being said, I certainly understand someone objecting that the electoral college system.

Political discussions/threads/flame wars are so stupid.

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!

NO ONE IS EVER GOING TO SEE YOUR POINT OF VIEW, AND YOU WILL NEVER SEE ANYONE ELSES' POINT OF VIEW. GIVE UP NOW WHILE YOU'RE BEHIND.

not necessarily true.......people can see other peoples points of view, understand where they're coming from, understand what theyre saying, but that doesnt mean they have to agree with them.....theres nothing wrong with discussing politics, personally id rather discuss politics than fuckin showbiz news.

i agree that you will more than likely never change someone points of view or their ways of thinking, but that doesnt mean you shouldnt/cant duscuss them in the 1st place.

I prefer to discuss religion. That way I can completely and utterly destroy the other person's view of the world. twisted

Don't forget the quote, "Of course it would be easier if this were a dictatorship. Just so long as I'm the dictator."

yeah very good point Jake.....im surprised that Bush has actually said some of the stuff he has, in front of people or while people are present.....i knew he was kinda dumb but c'mon!

[quote294c6344c3="theysayjump"]yeah very good point Jake.....im surprised that Bush has actually said some of the stuff he has, in front of people or while people are present.....i knew he was kinda dumb but c'mon![/quote294c6344c3]

Being Canadian and not exposed to American politics as much before I moved here, I am actually floored to see that such a simpleton has become president of the most powerful country in the world.

He is the greatest diplomat ever. P

The rest of the world was openly sympathetic to the US after 9/11. Then came Iraq....and the whole world is pissed now. What a diplomatic triumph that was eh?

the rest of the world is still sympathetic about what happened on 9/11, but then most of the world know that it was partly down to American foreign policy in the 80's and 90's.

being from the UK, i voted for Tony Blair to be elected in 97', cos 18 years of a Conservative government was too much for even the Conservatives probably.

Now my view on him has changed, and i wouldnt vote for him again, but seeing Tony Blair and George Bush together, you can tell that Blair at least has some intelligence about him.

If they are doing a news conference together or something, it just seems like Blair is there talking about the situation in Iraq or something (at least making sense), and Bush is just there for a laugh before he goes and has his milk and cookies.