The 22nd?

[gopmanbush08]

Who invented the 22nd ammendment? That has to be the stupidest violation of our freedom since the 18th ammendment. Why in the world should we limit the number of terms a president can serve, especially if he's doing a great job. I think it should be up to the people to decide how many terms a president serves, not some useless ammendment. The 2008 elections are coming up soon and we could be losing George Bush right in the middle of the war. Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid. I say repeal the 22nd ammedment. Keep a real man in the office for 2008. He's held this country together for 8 years, I think he can handle another 4, hands down.

[mastergurosp]

If we didnt have a set number of terms for a president then he could become almost like a dictoator. Becuase elections CAN be fixed so he could be president for a unlimited number of time. It would be hard but it could be done. Also I actually think George is doing the right thing by starting a war I would do the exact same thing if I was in his shoes.

[xxx666juggalo666xxx]

At 8/4/07 08:33 AM, mastergurosp wrote: If we didnt have a set number of terms for a president then he could become almost like a dictoator. Becuase elections CAN be fixed so he could be president for a unlimited number of time. It would be hard but it could be done. Also I actually think George is doing the right thing by starting a war I would do the exact same thing if I was in his shoes.

y dont u shut the fuk up and just realize when we have a great leader

he has been chosen by god and if we mess with gods divine plan then we are doomed to HELL for all eternity

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: Who invented the 22nd ammendment? That has to be the stupidest violation of our freedom since the 18th ammendment. Why in the world should we limit the number of terms a president can serve, especially if he's doing a great job. I think it should be up to the people to decide how many terms a president serves, not some useless ammendment.

I have a sheet on my bed right now. It's a nice sheet. Cool and comfortable. Yet, I find I sleep better when I change it often.

The 2008 elections are coming up soon and we could be losing George Bush right in the middle of the war. Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid.

I agree, a peaceful turnover of power from one person to another, elected by the citizens of the country, even in times of crisis, we can't have that. That's what the terrorists want!

We have to cower in our houses, afraid to make any changes to the status quo because of a war and the threat of terrorism, otherwise, the terrorists win.

I say repeal the 22nd ammedment. Keep a real man in the office for 2008.

But the 22nd amendment doesn't apply to vice presidents. Oh, you mean Bush.

He's held this country together for 8 years

Yep. 70% of Americans are in lock step in their disapproval of them. That's bipartisan consensus that few others can even dream about.

I think he can handle another 4, hands down.

Hey, you can still vote for him. The 22nd Amendment doesn't make it illegal to cast a ballot for Bush.

[cellardoor6]

There's some serious Alt action going down today apparently.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/4/07 08:36 AM, xxx666juggalo666xxx wrote:

y dont u shut the fuk up and just realize when we have a great leader

he has been chosen by god and if we mess with gods divine plan then we are doomed to HELL for all eternity

lame joke, way overdone and you totally fail.

[tony4moroney]

At 8/4/07 09:06 AM, xxx666juggalo666xxx wrote:

this aint a joke

U THINK THIS IS A GAME

youre a retard.

see, this is why abortion is legalized. so failures like your mom dont carry mistakes to term.

and yes im drinking atm, at 10 in the morning or whatever the fuck it is.. oh.. 10.. man i really should do something today...

[SmilezRoyale]

The 2 terms thing is so that people can jingle back and forth with the political balance in different US parties. [Usually 2 by name, but have changed considerably since they're founding]

[K-RadPie]

Son, politicians are like underwear. They must be changed often to stay clean.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid.

Yeah, because it's not like we did that during Vietnam, World War One, or any other hosts of conflicts.

Theres absolutely no reason to delay an election do to the war. Besides, we're likely to have troops in Iraq until the 2050's or later; hell, we still have troops in South Korea. Do you propose making him president for life?

[200monkeys]

How many presidents did we have during the Cold War? How many Rulers did the Soviet Union have? Who came out on top?

Switching presidents during conflicts is a GOOD thing in my opinion. Gives a new look to the same situation, and can be dealt with differently. Since Bush has spent 4 years in a war he planned to be done quickly, then I'd be glad for a new view on it.

[LordJaric]

At 8/4/07 10:48 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

we still have troops in South Korea.

That is only because of the threat of china and North Korea invading South Korea still exist.

[LightandDark]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: Who invented the 22nd ammendment? That has to be the stupidest violation of our freedom since the 18th ammendment. Why in the world should we limit the number of terms a president can serve, especially if he's doing a great job. I think it should be up to the people to decide how many terms a president serves, not some useless ammendment. The 2008 elections are coming up soon and we could be losing George Bush right in the middle of the war. Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid. I say repeal the 22nd ammedment. Keep a real man in the office for 2008. He's held this country together for 8 years, I think he can handle another 4, hands down.

Harry Truman invented the 22nd ammendment. he didn't want someone elected too many times.

and plus how had he held your country down?

Gordon Brown and how long it took him to deal with the floods in Britan: a few days

Bush with Katrina: a couple of weeks.

he's got a 28% approval rating, when you see numbers like that, it means that he hasn't been doing a very good job. and since when was changing presidents during a war stupid, Harry Truman was elected during WW2 and it ended quicker right?

And the elections can always be rigged, so better to vote him out before we can't decide at all right?

[wearerating]

Washington is the one who set the example by only serving 2 terms. In respect to him the ammendment was made by his precedent.

True, changing leaders is foolish, but who's to say the newly elected president wont be a good one?

[wearerating]

At 8/4/07 10:27 AM, K-RadPie wrote: Son, politicians are like underwear. They must be changed often to stay clean.

Couldn't have it any better myself.

Great Quote

[LordJaric]

I think i once heard that congress did not like the fact that FDR was elected 4 times, they thought that granted to much power to one man.

[Sergeant-Skullz]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: Who invented the 22nd ammendment? That has to be the stupidest violation of our freedom since the 18th ammendment. Why in the world should we limit the number of terms a president can serve, especially if he's doing a great job. I think it should be up to the people to decide how many terms a president serves, not some useless ammendment. The 2008 elections are coming up soon and we could be losing George Bush right in the middle of the war. Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid. I say repeal the 22nd ammedment. Keep a real man in the office for 2008. He's held this country together for 8 years, I think he can handle another 4, hands down.

This limits the possibility of a tormentor or dictator.
Many people would get power hungry after all that time in office.
And i agree Bush is doing a pretty good job

[damionford]

it is ddumb but it keeps people like FDR from happening which FDR was rediculous

[Empanado]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: I think it should be up to the people to decide how many terms a president serves, not some useless ammendment.

Hugo Chávez agrees wholeheartedly.

At 8/4/07 03:41 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/4/07 10:48 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

we still have troops in South Korea.
That is only because of the threat of china and North Korea invading South Korea still exist.

I know, right? Good thing that the terrorist factions and the Iranians will move away as soon as Bush leaves office, then.

[LordJaric]

At 8/5/07 12:34 AM, damionford wrote: FDR was rediculous

What are you talking about, he pulled us out of the Great Depression and lead us through most of WW2.

[Dr-Worm]

At 8/4/07 08:25 AM, gopmanbush08 wrote: The 2008 elections are coming up soon and we could be losing George Bush right in the middle of the war.

God forbid we have a new President who actually realizes that we can't win and ends this clusterfuck.

Whether you agree with this war or not, changing leaders in the middle of a conflict is just plain stupid.

Really? What about both World Wars? I'm fairly certain we won those.

I say repeal the 22nd ammedment. Keep a real man in the office for 2008.

Because only the manliest of men get the honor of sucking Dick Cheney's balls.

He's held this country together for 8 years, I think he can handle another 4, hands down.

This country has been held together these past 8 years is in spite of Bush, not because of him. Merely holding the country together is not what anyone should expect from a President. They should bring us forward, something that Bush has utterly failed to do.

The 22nd Amendment exists so that different people of different parties and opinions can get into the White House. A lack of any balance between the left and right in this country would kill us.

[Memorize]

At 8/5/07 01:23 AM, LordJaric wrote:

What are you talking about, he pulled us out of the Great Depression and lead us through most of WW2.

Eh... no.

WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression.

He just decided he would actually do something about the unemployment, but the war made up the huge bulk of it.

[JoS]

You changed Presidents during WW2, and that turned out okay.

If you repeal the 22nd Bill Clinton would probally run again, and I dont think GW could beat slick Willy.

[Dr-Worm]

At 8/5/07 01:38 AM, Memorize wrote: WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression.

Shockingly, you're right. But FDR certainly helped move the country along until then, much more than Hoover did.

[UWDarDar17]

At 8/5/07 01:42 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: Shockingly, you're right. But FDR certainly helped move the country along until then, much more than Hoover did.

Yes, I agree. Hoover...sucked?

[Everlasting-Elements]

At 8/4/07 10:27 AM, K-RadPie wrote: Son, politicians are like underwear. They must be changed often to stay clean.

See, two terms are EXACTLY like underwear. You wear them once, then when the term is over, turn them inside out, and wear them bitches again. =)

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/4/07 03:41 PM, LordJaric wrote:

That is only because of the threat of china and North Korea invading South Korea still exist.

But the threat or Iran or Pakistan continuing to allow terrorists through their borders will Magically disappear?

Hell, we still have troops in GERMANY, and theres really very little chance that we're doing that to help out Poland =/

The point is, when you go to war, your troops stay for a LONG ass time afterwards, if we delay Democracy until every last soldier leaves, we're establishing a king.

[Ravariel]

As house and senate incumbents have shown nearly a 90-98% chance of being reelected, limiting terms is unfortunately neccessary. Recently presidential incumbents have had a more difficult time (see: LBJ, Ford, Carter, Bush#1), but the fact of the matter is that without term limits, a popular president who didn't make any massive mistakes would be nearly impossible to defeat on mere name recognition alone. And the difficulty in defeating them would only rise over time. Basically, think if Clinton or Reagan were to run again... do you think there's anyone on either side who could beat them in a general election?

And like K-Rad said so eloquently, without regular changing they get stale and stiff. New eyes and perspective on the problems of the world is almost never a bad thing as long as there's a good deal of intelligence behind them.