NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=96&contentid=2303

The site with the blurb on the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

The Thomas link to the bill.

Dictatorship in the works? Personally, I can't see Bush winning another term with his current approval rating.

EDIT

Probably old news but fun nonetheless. :)

Finally, something worth taking up arms against.

How easy is it exactly to push something like this through?
I know that some presidents had more than 2 terms in office (I don't know their names, though), so I was wondering.

Seeing that George W. and his friends already managed to take away some constitutional rights, just how easy would it be to completely overthrow the American constitution?

I'm asking because I know that it is one of the oldest constitutions, so I assume it doesn't have some of the "safety-breaks" that modern constitutions, like for example the German one, would have.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=96&contentid=2303

The site with the blurb on the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:

The Thomas link to the bill.

Dictatorship in the works? Personally, I can't see Bush winning another term with his current approval rating.

EDIT

Probably old news but fun nonetheless. :)

This isn't going to happen. They probably tried the samething when Clinton was in office.

How easy is it exactly to push something like this through?

Not very easy and doubtful it'll pass.

I know that some presidents had more than 2 terms in office (I don't know their names, though), so I was wondering.

FDR was the only president to serve more than two terms. The 22 Amendment passed after his death to prevent it from happening again.

Seeing that George W. and his friends already managed to take away some constitutional rights, just how easy would it be to completely overthrow the American constitution?

Excuse me but what constitutional rights have been taken away? None that I can find.

I'm asking because I know that it is one of the oldest constitutions, so I assume it doesn't have some of the "safety-breaks" that modern constitutions, like for example the German one, would have.

Oh it has safety breaks. Its called the US Senate and Congress not to mention the State legislatures. It is very difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

The 22nd amend doesn't have anything to do with elections though. Saying it would make Bush president for life only works if you think that the democrats will never have anyone better.

This is the silliest topic I've seen on NS in at least 5 minutes...

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=96&contentid=2303

The site with the blurb on the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:



Just out of interest, how long has the 2 term limit been in place? I have a vague notion that an early President actually served 4 terms.

We could do with a two term limit here in the UK as well, then we would be rid of Bliar by now.

Oh it has safety breaks. Its called the US Senate and Congress not to mention the State legislatures. It is very difficult to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Unless you have one party totally dominating political discourse. People could vote their dictatorship in.

Just out of interest, how long has the 2 term limit been in place? I have a vague notion that an early President actually served 4 terms.

3 Actually but was elected to 4 terms but died shortly after his 4th inaugeration. That was when the 22nd Amendment was passed though it wasn't right away.

We could do with a two term limit here in the UK as well, then we would be rid of Bliar by now.

LOL!

Unless you have one party totally dominating political discourse. People could vote their dictatorship in.

Still has to be approved by the state houses and that is also extremely difficult to do considering the number of states needed to ratify.

Just out of interest, how long has the 2 term limit been in place? I have a vague notion that an early President actually served 4 terms.

We could do with a two term limit here in the UK as well, then we would be rid of Bliar by now.

Since 1951.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxxii.html

The two term limit was created in the late 1940s after FDR died during the early stages of his 4th term. He has been the only President to do so. The reason why the amendment was passed because the Republican-controlled Congress feared a Democrat takeover. Very possible considering the entire South still voted for Democrats. Well in the 1980s as Reagan got into office, gathering huge support, and the Republican party began to grow larger, many felt it was a mistake to have the 22nd Amendment. To some radical Republicans, it prevented their God, or #2 to God, from being President forever. Thankfully, the 22nd was around or we would have ended up like Nazi Germany (not to insult anyone) in 1933. President Von Hindenburg was an old and dieing man who gave his powers to a youthful and charismatic person, Hitler. Now imagine 50yrs later. With Reagen having his brain problems, who would he have handed his power to? Sure that isn't Constitutional, but everyone "loves" Reagen.

The two term limit was created in the late 1940s after FDR died during the early stages of his 4th term. He has been the only President to do so. The reason why the amendment was passed because the Republican-controlled Congress feared a Democrat takeover. Very possible considering the entire South still voted for Democrats. Well in the 1980s as Reagan got into office, gathering huge support, and the Republican party began to grow larger, many felt it was a mistake to have the 22nd Amendment. To some radical Republicans, it prevented their God, or #2 to God, from being President forever. Thankfully, the 22nd was around or we would have ended up like Nazi Germany (not to insult anyone) in 1933. President Von Hindenburg was an old and dieing man who gave his powers to a youthful and charismatic person, Hitler. Now imagine 50yrs later. With Reagen having his brain problems, who would he have handed his power to? Sure that isn't Constitutional, but everyone "loves" Reagen.

1951.

Hey, something you guys can use the Second Ammendment for. :) I'm fairly sure this was the reason it was put in originally, wasn't it? I.e. to stop an oppressive government taking control like my country did at the time (I'm British.)

Having said that, President Bush would still have to face elections every 5 years, so it aint exactly a Dictatorship...

Hey, something you guys can use the Second Ammendment for. :) I'm fairly sure this was the reason it was put in originally, wasn't it? I.e. to stop an oppressive government taking control like my country did at the time (I'm British.)

Listen to the Democrats sometime and you'll see that they think the individual shouldn't have guns.

Having said that, President Bush would still have to face elections every 5 years, so it aint exactly a Dictatorship...

Four Years actually.

Hey, something you guys can use the Second Ammendment for. :) I'm fairly sure this was the reason it was put in originally, wasn't it? I.e. to stop an oppressive government taking control like my country did at the time (I'm British.)

Having said that, President Bush would still have to face elections every 5 years, so it aint exactly a Dictatorship...

If he stays in office after 20 January 2009, sure. Not a moment before then. :)

(PS: it's every 4 years here in the States)

If he stays in office after 20 January 2009, sure. Not a moment before then. :)

(PS: it's every 4 years here in the States)

Ahh, sorry - thought it was 5. :)

Dictatorship in the works? Personally, I can't see Bush winning another term with his current approval rating.


Same rumors during the Clinton Administration.

If Bush withdraws from Iraq and declares victory, and the place halfway holds together, he would get a surge of popularity - long enough to win an election.

I think that's the plan for helping the next Republican run for President.

Also, the President can, under legislation related to FEMA, can declare a state of national emergency, and suspend the Constitution for the duration of the emergency.

Not sure if that would survive a court challenge, but if the first step dissolves the Supreme Court, and the military supports him, then it would happen.

BTW, support for Bush among military personnel is still high. Despite the Army missing recruitment goals, the Marines, Navy, and Air Force have met or surpassed their recruitment goals. Additionally, the telling indicator of support for Bush's war policy in the military is the rate of re-enlistment.

Rates of re-enlistment are higher than usual - even in the Reserves and National Guard. They are having no trouble at all meeting the re-enlistment goals.

I distinctly remember Clinton being extremely unpopular with people in the military. On his first visit to a military unit (the USS Eisenhower), people were permitted to disrespect him at a distance - with no penalty. Two Marines on the ship put mops on their heads and introduced themselves as "gays in the military" and pranced around in plain sight.

This set the tone for the remaining eight years. It didn't help matters that Clinton, on Hillary's demand, ordered that visiting military officers not be permitted to wear their uniforms in the White House, as they were "intimidating".

During Clinton's visits to troops overseas, great care was taken to make sure that troops were completely disarmed in his presence.

Bush, and his Vice President, and his cabinet members, don't seem to have a problem eating lunch in a dining hall filled with soldiers carrying machineguns.

Hmmmmm...Not seeing the connection between repealing the 22nd amendment and dictatorship.

Same rumors during the Clinton Administration.


Rumours are one thing. Actual written legislation is just a bit more fucking obvious..


During Clinton's visits to troops overseas, great care was taken to make sure that troops were completely disarmed in his presence.

Bush, and his Vice President, and his cabinet members, don't seem to have a problem eating lunch in a dining hall filled with soldiers carrying machineguns.

Oh yes..... they needed to disarm the US troops when Clinton was around....

http://www.defense.gov/news/Jun1999/9906236a.jpg

Yep, no guns in THAT picture. :rolleyes:


But you're right - this discomfort on his face when doing things like eating with soldiers sure is noticeable.....
http://cgi.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/jan96/01-13/clinton_birthday.jpg

http://www.jsonline.com/news/image/0506clintbig.jpg

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/pubpaps/photos/phol99v1.jpg


OK Fine, GW wins the Miss Popularity Contest with the troops. Big fat hairy deal. But you are extending your statements to points of deliberate absurdity that even I won't go to..... and that's saying a lot

Oh yes..... they needed to disarm the US troops when Clinton was around....

http://www.defense.gov/news/Jun1999/9906236a.jpg

Yep, no guns in THAT picture. :rolleyes:


They don't have their ammunition. I've seen the orders on paper.

OK Fine, GW wins the Miss Popularity Contest with the troops. Big fat hairy deal. But you are extending your statements to points of deliberate absurdity that even I won't go to..... and that's saying a lot

I guess that's why the military consistently votes 70 percent Republican or more.

I guess that's why during the 2000 election, Gore wanted to suppress military absentee votes at all costs.

I could go into the outright discussions of mutiny and sedition that I heard from most officers - Army, Air Force, and Marines (didn't get the chance to hear naval officers) - on their feelings about following orders from Clinton.

Clinton could never have declared the national emergency using the FEMA rules. The military would have removed him from power.

And since Bush *is* popular with the military, I bet he very well could declare a national emergency. Especially if there's another major terrorist attack before the next election.

If he kept the military busy rounding up Muslims and leftists (you'll notice that the FBI has eco-groups and animal rights groups at the top of the list these days), I don't even think the majority of the public would get upset.

Also, the President can, under legislation related to FEMA, can declare a state of national emergency, and suspend the Constitution for the duration of the emergency.

Not sure if that would survive a court challenge, but if the first step dissolves the Supreme Court, and the military supports him, then it would happen.


Yea its gonna happen exactly like it did in Star Wars episode 3 where the Chancellor turned the Democratic Republic into the Galactic Empire. He took emergency powers because of the Clone Wars and the slow responsiveness of the Senate. So he eased his way into power by taking it bit by bit. Plus he stayed way after his term had expired so it may turn out that Star Wars will tell us the future of our political government.! :eek:

Yea its gonna happen exactly like it did in Star Wars episode 3 where the Chancellor turned the Democratic Republic into the Galactic Empire. He took emergency powers because of the Clone Wars and the slow responsiveness of the Senate. So he eased his way into power by taking it bit by bit. Plus he stayed way after his term had expired so it may turn out that Star Wars will tell us the future of our political government.! :eek:

As a Reserve Drill Instructor, does that mean I'll get to train Storm Troopers?



Cool.

As a Reserve Drill Instructor, does that mean I'll get to train Storm Troopers?

Cool.

Hopefully you get that neat armor, a blaster, and one of those neat speeder bikes...

I'll settle for the ability to choke people by thinking about it, and a nice light saber.

It never ceases to amaze just how easily the left is manipulated. Cheers to whatever leftist icon thought to use HJ 24 IH as a "republican conspiracy". You knew no libs would bother looking at who actually sponsored the bill.

But since I'm not a lib let's take a look now.
"Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"

Steny Hoyer: DEMOCRAT
Howard Berman: DEMOCRAT
James Sensenbrenner: RINO
Martin Sabo: DEMOCRAT
Frank Pallone: DEMOCRAT

The pathetic thing to me, is the idea of a large, wealthy nation with no threats on its borders and no real need to be involved in the scene of world politics whatsoever, has such a huge military. Honestly, the only thing that makes me half-way understand it is the obvious, a political move by the conservatives... Quite honestly, no well-trained, non-drafted military organisation will consistantly vote liberal. This could be due to the constant presence of officers and their unquestionable authority leading to an acceptance of "the natural order of things" so often used by those in charge as an excuse for their own power. Or perhaps because any decent liberal-minded government in a situation of economic bliss and the complete lack of outside threats would revert to a cheaper-to-maintain, "people's army", such as the American Army was in pre-WWII years. Honestly, it is quite stupid indeed that we have such large noses that we must back up our nosyness with a bigass gun. What the hell do we need to get involved in, militarily? Nothing. We were just fine being a content, isolationist economic giant before, why not now? Simply enough, I would suppose our classically conservative business leaders, who in all honestly can shift the nation to their whim in a heartbeat, want to forcedly expand their influence into new markets. Look at all the business Corporate America gets off of brave American soldiers dying. While the middle class working man/woman is out "defending freedom"/defending the economic interests of their superiors, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And by the rules and standards of American greed, this is perfectly acceptable, because those that have, shall have more, and those have have not, shall still have not. Neither party knows whats it's talking about, but the Rebublican view of things would lead to an elitist government of some sort, perhaps a monarchy or a corporate-aligned dictatorship harkening back to the days of Hitler's regime in Germany. Bush is embodying his party's dreams in a fashion no one thought to be possible. Also, in response to this....

Corneliu's words:
Excuse me but what constitutional rights have been taken away? None that I can find.

The whole point is that you don't see your rights dissappearing. That leads to discontent. Only the most shoddy of governments do such stupid things. America has always had the best of propaganda. Perhaps you should read 1984?

And one last thing... I'm a strong Democrat, but as strongly as I agree with social welfare, education, and environmental protection, I just as strongly disagree with my party's idiotic lack of support for the 2nd amendment. If no one can arm themselves, the middle class ought to just hand over the country to the wealthy slugs right now.

It never ceases to amaze just how easily the left is manipulated. Cheers to whatever leftist icon thought to use HJ 24 IH as a "republican conspiracy". You knew no libs would bother looking at who actually sponsored the bill.

But since I'm not a lib let's take a look now.
"Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"

Steny Hoyer: DEMOCRAT
Howard Berman: DEMOCRAT
James Sensenbrenner: RINO
Martin Sabo: DEMOCRAT
Frank Pallone: DEMOCRAT


I am sorry but the static.

did you have something to say?

I am sorry but the static.

did you have something to say?

I think he's saying that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is being run by Democrats on the hill who introduce legislation to undermine America and then claim that it's Republican legislation.

This is the silliest topic I've seen on NS in at least 5 minutes...

That's why I was itching to post it.

I wouldn't say "no way" but I surely would say "not very likely".

I think he's saying that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is being run by Democrats on the hill who introduce legislation to undermine America and then claim that it's Republican legislation.

Thank you! When it's late my conspiracy analyst abilities are rather weak! ;)

As a general comment to the whole the original post:

Meh!

This type of legislation has appeared before. I think they even talked about it in Ronnies time.

I am not worried as they know full well that if they got it repealed then Bill would run again! :D

I think he's saying that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is being run by Democrats on the hill who introduce legislation to undermine America and then claim that it's Republican legislation.

I think the conspiracy theories are becoming circular. :D

I think the conspiracy theories are becoming circular. :D

Have you noticed the similarity between Republicans who feared the black helicopters during the Clinton administration, and the Democrats who fear the vast right wing conspiracy now that Bush is in office?

I am not worried as they know full well that if they got it repealed then Bill would run again! :D

He wants to run the world from NYC! :D

I think the conspiracy theories are becoming circular. :D

There's a lot of money to be made in selling tin foil hats.

Have you noticed the similarity between Republicans who feared the black helicopters during the Clinton administration, and the Democrats who fear the vast right wing conspiracy now that Bush is in office?

Funny thing is I never heard of the black helicopter thing.

Got link? I need to be entertained.

Funny thing is I never heard of the black helicopter thing.

Got link? I need to be entertained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopter_conspiracy_theory

During Clinton's visits to troops overseas, great care was taken to make sure that troops were completely disarmed in his presence.
Whenever Bush visits anywhere in the world, a frankly unbelievable level of security is required.

Whenever Bush visits anywhere in the world, a frankly unbelievable level of security is required.

When he's around US soldiers, that doesn't seem to apply. No one is told to give up their ammunition, and many soldiers walk around him with explosives and grenades.

Why they roust local Europeans in their own neighborhood when Bush visits seems stupid to me. If people don't like you, don't go there.

Whenever Bush visits anywhere in the world, a frankly unbelievable level of security is required.

Because they were afraid of someone putting a bullet through his head because the military didn't like. I seriously think this was the closest we have ever come to a full military coup.

Whenever Bush visits anywhere in the world, a frankly unbelievable level of security is required.

Bill Clinton was a very good friend of former Canadian PM Jean Chretien. Bill was heard to be quite jealous of Chretien's freedom of movement during Chretien's time in office. Chretien and his wife would go unmonitored to movie theatres in Ottawa some evenings for entertainment, and Clinton was astonished by this. Apparently the Secret Service wouldn't permit such a thing where he was concerned (I guess the Prez has his own screening room, but that's just not the same, IMO).

How easy is it exactly to push something like this through?
I know that some presidents had more than 2 terms in office (I don't know their names, though), so I was wondering.

Seeing that George W. and his friends already managed to take away some constitutional rights, just how easy would it be to completely overthrow the American constitution?

I'm asking because I know that it is one of the oldest constitutions, so I assume it doesn't have some of the "safety-breaks" that modern constitutions, like for example the German one, would have.
Well those presidents served when this wasn't an amendment yet, just a presidential standard

I could go into the outright discussions of mutiny and sedition that I heard from most officers - Army, Air Force, and Marines (didn't get the chance to hear naval officers) - on their feelings about following orders from Clinton.
I can't believe that's you're boasting about this. It doesn't say much for your army when they want to commit treason just because they Republican they voted for didn't win the election.

I can't believe that's you're boasting about this. It doesn't say much for your army when they want to commit treason just because they Republican they voted for didn't win the election.

It wasn't that Swimmingpool. It was what he did to the military that pissed them off. My father complained constantly about him. The stuff he said......

*shudders*

It was the closest to a coup as we could've gotten.

George senior is already priming up Jeb Bush, his other son to run for office next term. I don't think they have milked the world of enough money so they want to keep it going. There's gonna be more Bush in the White house than The Bunny Ranch before you know it because there are people dumb enough to think it is 'neat' that another family member could be voted in.

George senior is already priming up Jeb Bush, his other son to run for office next term. I don't think they have milked the world of enough money so they want to keep it going. There's gonna be more Bush in the White house than The Bunny Ranch before you know it because there are people dumb enough to think it is 'neat' that another family member could be voted in.

If Jeb ran (and I don't think he's going to) I would vote against him in the primaries on that alone. If he passed that, I would either vote for the Dem (depending on who it is) or just leave the presidential one blank.

It wasn't that Swimmingpool. It was what he did to the military that pissed them off. My father complained constantly about him. The stuff he said......

*shudders*

It was the closest to a coup as we could've gotten.

Putting aside the fact that nothing a president "does to" the military could possibly justify treason, ...what exactly DID he do?

Whenever Bush visits anywhere in the world, a frankly unbelievable level of security is required.

Like the 2004 reinauguration. His limousine had more armor than most HUMVEES in Iraq did at that time, and surrounded by more agents than Keanu Reeves.

Putting aside the fact that nothing a president "does to" the military could possibly justify treason, ...what exactly DID he do?

Pulled us out of Somalia after our soldiers got killed for starters.
Don't ask don't tell policy for a 2nd.
Cutting defenses for a third.

Your going to have to ask someone who was or in the military during his administration. I know some of it because my dad told me but there is alot more that I do not know.

Pulled us out of Somalia after our soldiers got killed for starters.


Yes and you left off the fact he was a poll driven President. So guess what a majority of people wanted?


Don't ask don't tell policy for a 2nd.


Ok that is treason how?


Cutting defenses for a third.

In a state of war; you might have an argument. In his case; economics....


Your going to have to ask someone who was or in the military during his administration. I know some of it because my dad told me but there is alot more that I do not know.

You already read Thunderlands comments. He was in Gulf War 1 and left during Clinton. He had supporters in the military.

Yes and you left off the fact he was a poll driven President. So guess what a majority of people wanted?

What about the friends of those soldiers killed? The military wanted to take them down. They could've done it too. The Somalis were about to fall over on themselves to give us what we wanted because of it becuase they feared a US Reprisal. To bad it didn't come.

Ok that is treason how?

Most soldiers were against this. You don't want to piss off the service that is charged with defending your country! It ain't healthy. As for this being treasonous, it isn't but I was just listing some examples.

In a state of war; you might have an argument. In his case; economics....

And yet people say we are stretched to thin. :rolleyes: Its because of Clinton's military policy that we became stretched to thin. Heck, the base my dad is stationed at was nearly axed in the mid-90s because of his downsizing and now Rummyboy wants to shuffle assets to defend our country and my dad's base is once again on the chopping block. Little that rummy knows that if you concentrate your forces in one spot, it makes for a bigger target.

You already read Thunderlands comments. He was in Gulf War 1 and left during Clinton. He had supporters in the military.

He had very few.

Pulled us out of Somalia after our soldiers got killed for starters.
Don't ask don't tell policy for a 2nd.
Cutting defenses for a third.

Your going to have to ask someone who was or in the military during his administration. I know some of it because my dad told me but there is alot more that I do not know.

Well I agree with the Somalia thing. However, the don't ask don't tell thing was silly. Gays are in the military no matter what. They want to get in to serve their country they can lie about liking girls. They should be able to get in fine unless they have an uncontrollable urge to blow the recruiter. Gays have been a part of the military since ever and would do anything they could to defend their country according to the values in which they were raised. The only thing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" did was discriminate against homosexuals.

Not like that's the only prejudice the military had. Bringing women into the military academies didn't go over well either.

As for cutting defenses: the Cold War ended. It was the right thing to do. I suppose some in the war business would love to see an endless supply of funding if for nothing more than providing themselves with more self-worth but reality it that money had better uses in the absense of a major foe.

Besides it isn't like there haven't been cutbacks under Bush Jr.'s administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/16/base.closings.ap/

Well seeing as more and more Americans start hating Bush every day, even if his ****ed up plan succeeds, he probly won't be elected back in anyway.

Pulled us out of Somalia after our soldiers got killed for starters.


Really? The pullout after the loss of a few soldiers engendered enough hatred to result in treasonable thoughts?

Shit, the Soldiers must REALLY despise whoever it was that fled Beruit after a far more serious loss...... who was that again? Reagan?


Don't ask don't tell policy for a 2nd.


So, the whole military is homophobic? Or is it that they all want out of the closet and this wouldn't let them?



Cutting defenses for a third.


Well then Rummy and GW should be on their hit-list too with some of the programs that they've cancelled.....



Incidentally, how much fun would this "coup" of your have been with a third of the military voting Democrat? Or do you think that unit cohesion would have superceded treason in those men? Indeed, the notion that you think that the Military would even consider such an action seems indicitive that the US citizens should call to disband it's armed forces for their own safety if the military thinks that it has the right to overrule the elected civilian leadership by force.

Besides it isn't like there haven't been cutbacks under Bush Jr.'s administration:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/16/base.closings.ap/

I already made a mention of the base closings earlier Upitatanium. Please don't remind me since my dad's base is on the damn list.

*hugs monkeyballs*

Thus the liberal argument... Small military spending makes for small military, which makes for the near-complete absence of the possiblity of a military coup. Also, you may want to speak to your father about boot camp, beings as it is not a soldier's place to question the orders of his superiors. The military is not a democracy. (Another core arguement of radicals, a non-democratic body defending its polar opposite doesn't make much sense)

In any case, a standing army should always be maintained, but when you have two oceans and two friendly countries on your borders, it seems somewhat stupid to have the most powerful militaristic body on earth simply because the military Brass can't get over the Cold War.

BTW, Semper Fi (Uncle in the Marines)

*hugs monkeyballs*

Thus the liberal argument... Small military spending makes for small military, which makes for the near-complete absence of the possiblity of a military coup. Also, you may want to speak to your father about boot camp, beings as it is not a soldier's place to question the orders of his superiors.

My mother went through boot and my father graduated from the AFA. If a General said take D.C. then by your logic, the soldiers will take D.C. since they can't question orders. If a soldier felt that an order was Illegal, he has full right to question it.

The military is not a democracy. (Another core arguement of radicals, a non-democratic body defending its polar opposite doesn't make much sense)

Nah really? I hadn't notice (notice the sarcasm)

In any case, a standing army should always be maintained, but when you have two oceans and two friendly countries on your borders, it seems somewhat stupid to have the most powerful militaristic body on earth simply because the military Brass can't get over the Cold War.

BTW, Semper Fi (Uncle in the Marines)

I had an Uncle in the Marines. I have a cousin in the navy and had another one in the Army. I have all four branches covered :D

So, a soldier has the right to question an illegal order? That's good I suppose... but, question. Is pulling out of a largly pointless war (Somalia) illegal? How about defense cuts after the only reason we were so built up in the first place (the Soviet Union) fell to shambles? They don't seem illegal, but they seem kinda smart...

It was the Reps who put it through after FDR died right?

I dont know why apart from the fact they are more Preservist and have a stronger dislike of 'Royalty'.

I think it should be repealed it is undemocratic and dumb.

How easy is it exactly to push something like this through?
I know that some presidents had more than 2 terms in office (I don't know their names, though), so I was wondering.

Doesn't really matter how many terms a president can serve, just so long as their session adds up to 10 years. So, if they were Vice President and the President died 2 years into his term, the Vice President could be President for the remaining 2 years and then go on for up to 2 terms. Thanks to FDR, this is how it will go in the United States.

Yea its gonna happen exactly like it did in Star Wars episode 3 where the Chancellor turned the Democratic Republic into the Galactic Empire. He took emergency powers because of the Clone Wars and the slow responsiveness of the Senate. So he eased his way into power by taking it bit by bit. Plus he stayed way after his term had expired so it may turn out that Star Wars will tell us the future of our political government.!


"And this is how Democracy dies, by great applause!" Padmae Episode 3.(or similar to that)

But yeah, while Lucas wrote that years ago before he showed New Hope as Star Wars people think it fits well today.


Unless you have one party totally dominating political discourse. People could vote their dictatorship in.

Not exactly a Dictatorship, but than again America isn't a Democracy we are a Representative Republic. We don't vote for the President, we vote for the guy who Might votes who he likes. He might vote for the President we chose, but he doesn't have to.

I'm against allowing more than 2 terms personally. No matter the reason.

I wish we had a two term limit on our Primeministers up here in Canada. Any American opposed to this still hypothetical change to their Constitution need merely refer to their northern neighbours as to why its a very bad idea. I doubt it'll happen.

I wish we had a two term limit on our Primeministers up here in Canada. Any American opposed to this still hypothetical change to their Constitution need merely refer to their northern neighbours as to why its a very bad idea. I doubt it'll happen.

It just wouldn't happen, especially after America witnessed Adolf Hitler's rule over Germany. They placed down the limit to prevent presidents from becoming too powerful and popular, so they could never act as a dictator or king would.

Bush for life?????? OH MY GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Americans don't think that they are liked now, could you imagine what would happen if Emperor Bush kept his throne for life? Haven't the Americans lost too many of their constitutional rights already since Bush was elected??
Sorry, but I really hope there's no way that would or could ever happen!!!!

I think you guys are forgetting something.

This bill is in Committee. Many bills die there and never make it to the Floor for debate.

I seriously doubt that this bill will ever make it out of Committee. If it does, then is the time to worry. Not now.

I think you guys are forgetting something.

This bill is in Committee. Many bills die there and never make it to the Floor for debate.

I seriously doubt that this bill will ever make it out of Committee. If it does, then is the time to worry. Not now.

<3

I think you guys are forgetting something.

This bill is in Committee. Many bills die there and never make it to the Floor for debate.

I seriously doubt that this bill will ever make it out of Committee. If it does, then is the time to worry. Not now.

NOOOOO~ Someone ruined my fun!

Seriously, if you people are serious about the military producing a coup, that gives me all the more reason to distrust the military.

The CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT is in charge. NOT THE MILITARY. Even if the US President declares a state of emergency, the only military person ever to be in charge, even theoretically, is the Secretary of Defense, the CIVILIAN head of the US military.

And he's down the rung a bit.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a large, hugetastic standing army that the US has, especially if its fostering a mindset wholly different from the rest of the Republic, different to the point where military officers are talking coup.

<3
Thank you for your support! It's nice to know that someone besides me understands how our Legislative Branch works!

For the rest of you: go get the DVD SchoolHouse Rock and listen to "I'm Just a Bill" for homework. :)

NOOOOO~ Someone ruined my fun!

Seriously, if you people are serious about the military producing a coup, that gives me all the more reason to distrust the military.

The CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT is in charge. NOT THE MILITARY. Even if the US President declares a state of emergency, the only military person ever to be in charge, even theoretically, is the Secretary of Defense, the CIVILIAN head of the US military.

And he's down the rung a bit.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a large, hugetastic standing army that the US has, especially if its fostering a mindset wholly different from the rest of the Republic, different to the point where military officers are talking coup.

I would like to say that Congress has the most military power, though the president's wartime powers also increase drastically during a state of war (which is officially declared by Congress; although, the president can send out troops without Congressional approval for what I believe to be a span of 60 days).

Thank you for your support! It's nice to know that someone besides me understands how our Legislative Branch works!

For the rest of you: go get the DVD SchoolHouse Rock and listen to "I'm Just a Bill" for homework. :)

LOL. SchoolHouse Rock!! Hahaha. :D

LOL. SchoolHouse Rock!! Hahaha. :D
Hey, I grew up on that; I remember when ABC would air it inbetween cartoon shows on Saturday mornings. Even to this day, I can quote "Three is a Magic Number" to multiply by 3.... and it's how I learned how our Government works. They did a good job with it....

I would like to say that Congress has the most military power, though the president's wartime powers also increase drastically during a state of war (which is officially declared by Congress; although, the president can send out troops without Congressional approval for what I believe to be a span of 60 days).

You are correct, I think, although it might just be a span of 30 days. I wouldn't know where to look it up offhand.

But in a Decleration of Emergency, the Constiution can be suspended. Scary.

You are correct, I think, although it might just be a span of 30 days. I wouldn't know where to look it up offhand.

But in a Decleration of Emergency, the Constiution can be suspended. Scary.
And things would have to be pretty scary for that to happen in Bush's Administration. While Life here is somewhat bad now, it hasn't gotten to "scary" yet... and I hope it never does in his Administration.

In any case, a standing army should always be maintained, but when you have two oceans and two friendly countries on your borders, it seems somewhat stupid to have the most powerful militaristic body on earth simply because the military Brass can't get over the Cold War.

The reason that the US needs such a large standing army is because we have interests scattered all over the world. If we decreased the size of our military, our industries in other countries would soon be nationalized by the local corrupt governments and the UN would become even less effective without the backing of our armed services.

"And this is how Democracy dies, by great applause!" Padmae Episode 3.(or similar to that)

But yeah, while Lucas wrote that years ago before he showed New Hope as Star Wars people think it fits well today.

<snip>


While it's off topic, just for the record:

Given how *BAD* Episodes 1&2 were, and how *BAD* all the Padme/Anikan dialogue is in Ep3... I seriously doubt Lucas ever had anything written before shooting above a vague outline.

Remember how weired out everyone was when it was revealed that Leia is Luke's *sister* in Jedi? How about Qui Gon not becoming a ghost in Ep1? It still leaves unresolved why Luke could see Obi Wan with *no* training in Empire... etc. ;)

While I agree that this bill has little chance of ever being approved by the requisite Congressional majorities and then sent to the states for ratification, Sensenbrenner better be careful he doesn't get what he's asking for. He could wind up with a president for life all right--President Bill Clinton. That man is the most masterful politician of the last fifty years, and if you don't think he couldn't come back and wipe the floor with anyone the Republicans could put up against him, you're fooling yourself.

Finally, something worth taking up arms against.
We all know that no-one is going to have the guts.

We all know that no-one is going to have the guts.

Long before guts, you need the inclination.

Let's poll the Democrats and see what percentage of them already have guns (at least one centerfire rifle, preferably an assault rifle), and at least 1000 rounds of ammunition in their house at present (figure the government would close the Wal Mart).

Then poll the Republicans and do the same count.

Long before guts, you need the inclination.

Let's poll the Democrats and see what percentage of them already have guns (at least one centerfire rifle, preferably an assault rifle), and at least 1000 rounds of ammunition in their house at present (figure the government would close the Wal Mart).

Then poll the Republicans and do the same count.

3-1 The republicans have more guns and ammo than the democrats.

3-1 The republicans have more guns and ammo than the democrats.

:D

Whenever I hear someone say some ridiculous comment about the US being even more divided than it was right before the Civil War I think, “Well, good thing I’m on the side with all the guns.”

3-1 The republicans have more guns and ammo than the democrats.

How dull it must be to always blindly vote for the same party! :(

(My Presidential voting record is GOP 2, DEM 2, Ind 1).

3-1 The republicans have more guns and ammo than the democrats.
Ignoring for a moment that it looks like you pulled that number straight out of your ass, I'm going to go off topic for a second here and let you know that I bumped the Schiavo autopsy thread just for you, Corneliu. I think you owe some people an apology. You are a person of your word, aren't you Corneliu?

How dull it must be to always blindly vote for the same party! :(

(My Presidential voting record is GOP 2, DEM 2, Ind 1).

For the record, I've only voted in ONE Presidential Election. I didn't meet the deadline to register for the election of 2000

Ignoring for a moment that it looks like you pulled that number straight out of your ass, I'm going to go off topic for a second here and let you know that I bumped the Schiavo autopsy thread just for you, Corneliu. I think you owe some people an apology. You are a person of your word, aren't you Corneliu?

Why so I do. I'll get to it. I have more pressing matters on my hands.

Also, that number was 3-1 meaning the odds were 3-1 that Republicans own more guns and ammo than the democrats.

Ignoring for a moment that it looks like you pulled that number straight out of your ass


From the Christian Science Monitor:
"The shift in tone can be traced to the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the pervasive belief that the issue cost Al Gore the presidency. Exit polls from 2000 showed that among gun owners, George W. Bush beat Mr. Gore by 61 to 39 percent. More significant, while 59 percent of union households went for Mr. Gore overall, those homes were just as likely to choose Bush if they contained guns."

From the Christian Science Monitor:
"The shift in tone can be traced to the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the pervasive belief that the issue cost Al Gore the presidency. Exit polls from 2000 showed that among gun owners, George W. Bush beat Mr. Gore by 61 to 39 percent. More significant, while 59 percent of union households went for Mr. Gore overall, those homes were just as likely to choose Bush if they contained guns."

Personally, I'd like to see a meat-eater vs vegan population breakout. :D

And for a Democratic pollsters view on gun owners and their effect on Democratic chances:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&contentid=252103

Main point: If you're a Democratic candidate, and you're either silent on the right of individuals to own guns, or come out in favor of any gun control issue, and can't re-define gun control as "gun safety", you're going to be hammered.

Gun owners, when they perceive their individual right to be under attack, become one-issue voters.

From the Christian Science Monitor:
"The shift in tone can be traced to the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the pervasive belief that the issue cost Al Gore the presidency. Exit polls from 2000 showed that among gun owners, George W. Bush beat Mr. Gore by 61 to 39 percent. More significant, while 59 percent of union households went for Mr. Gore overall, those homes were just as likely to choose Bush if they contained guns."
Even so, that's three to two, not three to one, and the poll doesn't break it down as to voters overall--it only deals with that subset of voters who own guns.

Even so, that's three to two, not three to one.

I wasn't that far off :D

Even so, that's three to two, not three to one, and the poll doesn't break it down as to voters overall--it only deals with that subset of voters who own guns.

If you go to most gun ranges, and you poll people there informally, you might find one Democrat per day. Out of the hundreds of people who go there.

A lot of Democrats who are gun owners will suddenly become one-issue voters if the Democratic candidate can't shed the image of being anti-gun.

Kerry, for one, failed to shed that image. Most gun magazines and websites characterized his fake duck hunt as a lame attempt to avoid being seen as anti-gun.

How easy is it exactly to push something like this through?
I know that some presidents had more than 2 terms in office (I don't know their names, though), so I was wondering.

Seeing that George W. and his friends already managed to take away some constitutional rights, just how easy would it be to completely overthrow the American constitution?

I'm asking because I know that it is one of the oldest constitutions, so I assume it doesn't have some of the "safety-breaks" that modern constitutions, like for example the German one, would have.IIRC, the only President to serve more than two terms in office was FDR. He died during the early stages of his fourth term.

Frankly, if the 22nd Amendment were to be repealed, you could see Bill Clinton running against Bush. I think Clinton could wipe the floor with Dubya.

IIRC, the only President to serve more than two terms in office was FDR. He died during the early stages of his fourth term.

Frankly, if the 22nd Amendment were to be repealed, you could see Bill Clinton running against Bush. I think Clinton could wipe the floor with Dubya.

I think someone else would run against Billy boy if that ever happened.

I think someone else would run against Billy boy if that ever happened.

Let's remember "Billy boy" was impeached.

Let's remember "Billy boy" was impeached.
But not convicted and removed from office.

So he can run if they lift the 22nd.

So he can run if they lift the 22nd.

I personally think it would be great if Clinton ran again. I think my sights are set on Barack Obama, though (despite that he's a bit new).

I personally think it would be great if Clinton ran again. I think my sights are set on Barack Obama, though (despite that he's a bit new).

Yes, nothing like a 1st year Senator as a candidate to run the nation. :rolleyes:

IIRC, the only President to serve more than two terms in office was FDR. He died during the early stages of his fourth term.

Frankly, if the 22nd Amendment were to be repealed, you could see Bill Clinton running against Bush. I think Clinton could wipe the floor with Dubya.

That's a tough one... I mean, they're both strong Republican candidates...

(Yes, I'm being snide. But Clinton was arguably the best Prez the GOP had since Reagan!)

Finally, something worth taking up arms against.
Dido.

That's a tough one... I mean, they're both strong Republican candidates...

(Yes, I'm being snide. But Clinton was arguably the best Prez the GOP had since Reagan!)

Yea right! I guess that is why he was impeached? :rolleyes:

Yes, nothing like a 1st year Senator as a candidate to run the nation. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm not saying that I expect him to jump into the presidential candidate seat by 2008, or perhaps even by 2012, but it's clear that he's a political figure that could become very popular, and needs to be watched by those hardcore Republicans. ;D

Hey, I'm not saying that I expect him to jump into the presidential candidate seat by 2008, or perhaps even by 2012, but it's clear that he's a political figure that could become very popular, and needs to be watched by those hardcore Republicans. ;D

Even I am watching him. If I think he'll do a good job as the President, I'll vote for him. I still have years to watch him though.

Yea right! I guess that is why he was impeached? :rolleyes:

Exactly... he was the best President the GOP had since Reagan.
(Think about it... I'm being tongue-in-cheek)

Exactly... he was the best President the GOP had since Reagan.
(Think about it... I'm being tongue-in-cheek)

I'm not seeing a connection between Reagan and Clinton! Perhaps you better elaborate.

Hey, I'm not saying that I expect him to jump into the presidential candidate seat by 2008, or perhaps even by 2012, but it's clear that he's a political figure that could become very popular, and needs to be watched by those hardcore Republicans. ;D

I'm just saying that he's not been exposed to very much yet. People had high hopes for Perot, Jerry Brown and Nader when they were young, too.

And Obama is young... like 44 or something.

I'm not seeing a connection between Reagan and Clinton! Perhaps you better elaborate.

Reagan was (hands down) the best 8 years the GOP had in the 20th century. They basically came out the the wilderness and regained parity in the Senate after 30+years...

Clinton was the GOP's punching bag for 8 years. No matter what happened, Bill always gave the GOP something to crow over. Whitewater, the women, Somalia, the Palestinian Conflict...
Then, he reformed welfare in a way the GOP could only dream of and brought in a gun contol bill which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

At the end of the day, the US wouldn't have elected Bush (or not, if you're from the "torch holding" camp) in 2000 if Dole had won in 1996. Clinton's 8 years basically set up the current political climate.

Reagan was (hands down) the best 8 years the GOP had in the 20th century. They basically came out the the wilderness and regained parity in the Senate after 30+years...

Clinton was the GOP's punching bag for 8 years. No matter what happened, Bill always gave the GOP something to crow over. Whitewater, the women, Somalia, the Palestinian Conflict...
Then, he reformed welfare in a way the GOP could only dream of and brought in a gun contol bill which wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

At the end of the day, the US wouldn't have elected Bush (or not, if you're from the "torch holding" camp) in 2000 if Dole had won in 1996. Clinton's 8 years basically set up the current political climate.

Now I understand. Thanks.

The 22nd amend doesn't have anything to do with elections though. Saying it would make Bush president for life only works if you think that the democrats will never have anyone better.

Or if DieBold machines are used to count the votes.

Dido.

I agree. I'd take up arms against Dido first too. Damn bubble gum pop ballads dressed up as some sort of neo-soul music.

Oh, wait... Did you mean "ditto."

While it's off topic, just for the record:

Given how *BAD* Episodes 1&2 were, and how *BAD* all the Padme/Anikan dialogue is in Ep3... I seriously doubt Lucas ever had anything written before shooting above a vague outline.

Remember how weired out everyone was when it was revealed that Leia is Luke's *sister* in Jedi? How about Qui Gon not becoming a ghost in Ep1? It still leaves unresolved why Luke could see Obi Wan with *no* training in Empire... etc. ;)
What's really funny is OB1's statement during the lava fight. He natters on about only the Sith dealing in absolutes yet in Return of the Jedi he equivocates about his lies to Luke about the identity of his father as being true, from a certain point of view.

What's really funny is OB1's statement during the lava fight. He natters on about only the Sith dealing in absolutes yet in Return of the Jedi he equivocates about his lies to Luke about the identity of his father as being true, from a certain point of view.

Another great example!

Seriously, I don't think Lucas has them completely written when he starts pre-production... remember the "Revenge of the Jedi" trailer? :)

[/thread hijack off]

Or if DieBold machines are used to count the votes.

If the DieBold machines (and the other machines that are supposedly also controlled by Republicans) were really used in a conspiracy to elect Republicans, then how did any Democrats get elected at all?

If the DieBold machines (and the other machines that are supposedly also controlled by Republicans) were really used in a conspiracy to elect Republicans, then how did any Democrats get elected at all?

Another point: the DEMs also back the punch-ballot system, which was so very clear and conscise in Florida back in '00.

(I hate conspiracy theories...)

Another point: the DEMs also back the punch-ballot system, which was so very clear and conscise in Florida back in '00.

(I hate conspiracy theories...)

I love the part where they complained about the butterfly ballot as being a Republican conspiracy to befuddle Democratic voters.

Until it came out that the butterfly ballot was designed by a committee of Democrats, and approved for use by a Democrat.

Must be a lot of Republican agents within the Democratic Party.

I love the part where they complained about the butterfly ballot as being a Republican conspiracy to befuddle Democratic voters.

Until it came out that the butterfly ballot was designed by a committee of Democrats, and approved for use by a Democrat.

Must be a lot of Republican agents within the Democratic Party.

Now this is a conspiracy theory that I can get behind :D

I love how they tried to blame the Republicans for it. What is even funnier is that they put a sample ballot in the paper describing it so that it wouldn't cause confusion. That is what I find funny about the infamous Butterfly Ballot.