My party is going to be the next big party of the future.

Soon enough, everyone will get tired of both sides messing up and the Independent party will be the party to beat.

You heard it here first.

I do NOT support it, and will not support it.

Nuff said.

The 22nd Amendment isn't broke, why are we trying to fix it?

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
Actually,

FDR attempted to Pack the Supreme Court with Justices when he didnt get his way from their Rulings during the New Deal(Which by the way was truley a Fascist idea)

FDR did make US Citizens who owned gold into criminals under Executive Order 6102

FDR engaged in secret talks with the french to violate the Numerous US Neutrality Acts as early as 1938

Used the USS Greer to Attack a German U-Boat before Pearl Harbor until same U-Boat finally Torpedoed USS Greer. This was September 4th, 1941. He told Churchill he intended to be more provocative to as Churchill relates in his memoirs "everything was to be done to provoke an incident."

FDR did suppress US reports by his Special Emissary George Earle about the Soviets Murder of Polish Officers at Katyn, going so far as to Exile Earle to Samoa for the duration after realizing it wouldnt do to admit we were allied with Someone who could cold bloodedly execute 22,436 fellow Allies.


FDR did send 120,000 Americans to Concentration Camps due to their race, not due to their Actions, aka Executive Order 9066

FDR did Strike Break, Arrested Union Leaders(Before and During WWII).

FDR did make a deal with Organized crime, aka Operation Underworld. Deals with Frank Costello, Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky

FDR did Initiate Wiretapping without Warrants(even having Eleanor Tapped).


So, yeah, I consider him a Tyrant what do you call a Man who sends 120,00 Fellow citizens to Concentration Camps because of their race?

A Hero?

Your revisionist views of history are noted. Congress pushed for the imprsionment of the Japanese, he carried out their will. Wrong as it was, it was also approved by the Supreme Court.

There is nothing unconstitutional about changing the number of members of the Supreme Court. Oddly enough, despite the fact that YOU call him a tyrant, it didn't happen. How could that be? Tyrants always get their way.

The Germans were operating OUTSIDE of their own exclusion zones. Previous to our attacking their subs, they sank US ships, even attacking a battleship.

As CIC he engagged in negotiations over a lot of matters. Of course, it was Congress that altered the neutrality laws, and whatever his negotiations consisted of they violated nothing.

The truth about Katyn was not as clear then, as it is now. For example, all of the Polish officers shot at Kaytn were shot with German bullets. That this turned out to be a ruse, was not as certain then as now. Considering that Russian participation in the war saved US millions of lives, so what? My father might have very well been one of those millions of lives.

When all is said and done, your comparisons merely show that you're simply being a real loser, so blind with hate, that you attack one of our greated leaders, and cheapen every American by doing so.

What do your charges of "tyrant" amount to? Who was murdered? Which Political Parties were supressed? Which newspapers and radio stations were shut down? Aside from the arrests of the Japanese (Completely supported by the Republican Party, which voted for it) who else was rounded up and put into camps?

Which part of the Constitution was violated?

Yours is a nasty and stupid post. Next your going to tell us that the only reason that Hitler attacked us was because of the Rainbow Plans.

Dave

While framing the powers of the Executive the convention explored more than one person holding power of the Administration at the same time. The discussion was to have a strong legislature keeping in mind the single dictator they face while under a Monarch in England. Final decision came late accompanied by addressing "The President of the United States" as "Your Excellency", thank goodness, this got lost in committee. Some wanted a king for life, while most having risked life and fortune favor a Congress with Advice and Consent, later adapted.

I think it was Hamilton that didn't want to restrict the President, advocating his powers should be based on his abilities and not limited.

"The prevailing sentiment of the Philadelphia Convention favored the indefinite eligibility of the President. It was Jefferson who raised the objection that indefinite eligibility would in fact be for life and 'degenerate' into an inheritance. Prior to 1940, the idea that no President should hold office for more than two terms was generally thought to be a fixed tradition, although some quibbles had been raised as to the meaning of the word “term.” The voters’ departure from the tradition in electing President Franklin D. Roosevelt to third and fourth terms led to the proposal by Congress on March 24, 1947, of an amendment to the Constitution to embody the tradition in the Constitutional Document. The proposal became a part of the Constitution on February 27, 1951, in consequence of its adoption by the necessary thirty–sixth State, which was Minnesota"


Finally, the admendment opening the eligibility would not be for a sitting President. His tenure has already been decided by his election and cannot be change. If so remember all others would be electable. Jimmy Carter, George Bush (1&2) and Mr. and % Mrs. Clinton. Think on that a while.

quote:

Originally posted by strobelvets:

The only way an "unproven President" could be extended beyond two terms is if WE THE PEOPLE extend him/her.

Why are some here so afraid of what the electorate will do? Sounds like you don't trust them and think that we need to be controlled by the 22A. Somewhat paternalistic POV, IMO.[/QUOT

Personally I think...many have seen the POWER of one party "ADVOCATES GONE MAD" subtitled "ONE TICKET UNNOPPOSED"...it happens in this world...

Hitler and Mussolini seem proof enough...

If a President adds value for eight years...honor him...and allow other Parties to speak...

I doubt the awesome power of an aligned Congress and Presidency was foreseen by the Founding Fathers...while the MSM bombarded the main opposition with questions of its ultimate survival...

For this leads only to...one party rule...

If We the People repeal the 22nd...let us also authorize the crown and Sceptre of the New King of America...and realize that tenure and commensurate power...corrupt...

No offense, but Washington never warned the country about serving more than two terms. He was a sick man, and went home to die.

Grant and one other President, wanted to run for a third term. The Federalist Papers take it for granted that SOME would run for more than two terms. I don't have a problem with repealing the 22nd amendment, and I oppose ALL term limit laws.

Dave

While I believe that there are some good men that would serve us well beyond the limits of their term ... I likewise believe there are self-centered men that would not ... and that if given the opportunity to further entrench themselves, would do so to our disadvantage. The two senators from MA come to mind ... as well as others.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
Was it a good Idea to introduce the 22nd Ammendment? Whats wrong with the idea of a President whos doing the job well, is loved and respected by the people, being elected for more than two terms? After all he is being elected by the majority so why shouldnt the majority have a choice in who runs the nation after 8 years, as the original constitution called for? Wouldnt that make the opposing party work harder? Agree or disagree?

*http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_obama_third_term/2009/07/01/230937.html?s=al&promo_code=8294-1*

It had been "tradition", that a President serve no more than two terms, FDR broke that, that is why it was made into law...
I could see it being increased, MAYBE, to three terms but absolutely NO MORE THAN THREE...
IMHO...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:

Finally, the admendment opening the eligibility would not be for a sitting President. His tenure has already been decided by his election and cannot be change. If so remember all others would be electable. Jimmy Carter, George Bush (1&2) and Mr. and % Mrs. Clinton. Think on that a while.

Your post is an argument FOR repeal of the Amendment.

Bush I, was a one term President who couldn't GET elected to a second term, let alone a Third. Same for Carter.

Bush II would NOT have been reelected, if he had gone for a third term. (BTW, I forgot all about the Presidency of Mrs. Clinton. Thanks for reminding me. )

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:
While I believe that there are some good men that would serve us well beyond the limits of their term ... I likewise believe there are self-centered men that would not ... and that if given the opportunity to further entrench themselves, would do so to our disadvantage. The two senators from MA come to mind ... as well as others.

Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

Why people are so afraid of Democracy has yet to be fully explained to me. Why I should be deprived of the right to vote for whomever I please has yet to be explained to me.

Nothing in EITHER the Constitution or the Federalist Papers explain these views.

Dave

Why would any President want it changed anyway?

Look at what a U.S. President makes in office and how much more they make once they leave.

$$$$$$$$$

Don

Definitely should be I'd love seeing Georg Bush run again ... lol ... But seriously, why not??? If we have a President that is doing a good job and the people like him enough to reelect the guy/gal, then the people have spoken.

quote:

Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

What do I have to do with Louisiana? You are, with all due respect, talking out your rectal orifice ...

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
Definitely should be I'd love seeing Georg Bush run again ... lol

Another shot at Bush, out of you, Jack???? Hmmmm, never saw that coming.

Don

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

What do I have to do with Louisiana? You are, with all do respect, talking out your rectal orifice ...

gross ...

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

What do I have to do with Louisiana? You are, with all due respect, talking out your rectal orifice ...

gross ...

Looking in the mirror again, are you Jack ... or sucking on your hemorrhoids? Thought you would have learned better by now ... but some are stuck on Leeky ...

{Psst .... Dave .... I'm Alabama, not Louisiana .... a bit like me associating you with New Jersey ....

Besides which, if they serve in the federal legislature ... and on committees that influence or create federal policy, whether I can vote for the scum or not is not relevant ... they are fair game for my commentary and critiques}

This message has been edited. Last edited by: I_M_Qwerty,

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So you prefer an Oligarchy controlled by the rich to people getting to vote for their reprentatives.

No I prefer that the legally elected State Officials appoint Senators that will represent the will and good of their home States in Washington.

It's part of the checks and balances that prevent large States from ruling over the small ones and the prevents the urban centers from ruling over the rural areas.

The Founding Fathers were pretty smart about those things.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

What do I have to do with Louisiana? You are, with all due respect, talking out your rectal orifice ...

gross ...

Looking in the mirror again, are you Jack ... or sucking on your hemorrhoids? Thought you would have learned better by now ... but some are stuck on Leeky ...

{Psst .... Dave .... I'm Alabama, not Louisiana .... a bit like me associating you with New Jersey ....

Besides which, if they serve in the federal legislature ... and on committees that influence or create federal policy, whether I can vote for the scum or not is not relevant ... they are fair game for my commentary and critiques}

More personal attacks qwerty? Or just more of your sophmoric gross and disrespectful comments of a fellow mil.com member. You just can't seem to help yourself in that regard, can you. Pitiful.

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
Definitely should be I'd love seeing Georg Bush run again ... lol ... But seriously, why not??? If we have a President that is doing a good job and the people like him enough to reelect the guy/gal, then the people have spoken.

Being an incumbent does give a person a huge advantage but I don't believe in term limits as usually defined. I would support a restriction on the number of consecutive terms and I would like to see the length of the term for the House changed so that they are not in continous campaign mode. The people could be in other political offices.

My suggestions if a change was actually being considered are:
* One 8 year term or two 4 year terms for President with ability to run again after being out of office as Pres. for 1 term
* 2 or 3 consecutive terms for senate with ability to run again after being out of office for 1 term.
* 2 or 3 consecutive 4 year terms for house with ability to run again after being out of office for 1 term.

quote:

Originally posted by shuman14:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

So you prefer an Oligarchy controlled by the rich to people getting to vote for their reprentatives.

No I prefer that the legally elected State Officials appoint Senators that will represent the will and good of their home States in Washington.

It's part of the checks and balances that prevent large States from ruling over the small ones and the prevents the urban centers from ruling over the rural areas.

The Founding Fathers were pretty smart about those things.

Try looking at the PROBLEMS that method caused in the over 100 years that it was used then tell me which you think is worse. Personally I think the problems caused by the original method were MUCH worse than those caused by direct election.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:


Your remarks would be accurate if Kennedy was the Senator from your State of Louisiana. Kennedy reflects the voters of someone elses state...

Why people are so afraid of Democracy has yet to be fully explained to me. Why I should be deprived of the right to vote for whomever I please has yet to be explained to me.

Nothing in EITHER the Constitution or the Federalist Papers explain these views.

Dave

Because we really don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Federal Republic with democratic leanings.

True democracies never work because nothing gets done.

Electing a leader of any type means you give up some of your democratic liberties for the good of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers understood that too much democracy, like under the Articles of Confederation, makes for a weak nation where nothing gets done yet they feared a strong central government which always becomes stronger over time to the detriment of the people.

That's why we have the checks and balances that we do.

The House is based on population and direct elections, large States get more seats but every State gets at least one.

The Senate is equal for all States and the reason that Senators use to be appointed is so that they Senators would be answerable to their States and the States themselves would have direct representation in the Federal Government.

The Electoral College is a check on the President to ensure that he hears the voices of all the people not just the large States or today, only the masses in the hugh urban centers.

Term limits are another check that ensure that a single elected official doesn't accumulate to much personal power and rule forever.

many Dictators big and small were elected at first by the will of the people, once they got their taste of power, they wouldn't let go and it then became all about them, not the Nation, not the States and not the people.

The Founding Fathers feared this above all else and that's why we have these systems in place.

If you want true democracy, go to the City State of Athens, it worked in the short run but as history has shown it's not sustainable.

All of our presidents have been Dictators, because we allow them to be for the good of the Nation. The system is set up to ensure that they can't be Dictators for life, also for the good of the Nation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shuman14,