Reply
Sat 6 Nov, 2004 09:55 am
and how do you think they'll go about it in order to make it look like it wasn't bush and roves idea?
When pigs fly. I don't think that anyone with a brain in his head would attempt that. I think that there would be a huge backlash!
but Phoenix, in the 21st. Century 51% is a mandate.....anything can happen and be accepted if marketed correctly......in a state that birthed Britanny Spears and Justin Timberlake you should know that better than anyone.....
I thought it was originally Reagan's idea...
... Of course, this link is news from 2003, but clearly something republicans (especially) attempt to change...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000176.html
I keep thinking about Roosevelt's excuse of WW2, to buck tradition; how it would be imprudent to change leaders at such a time...
An expert manipulator could probably make a good argument for such to be the prudent course again...
all it would take is one well place threat, actual atack, or close call and the american public would eat **** sandwiches if bush told them to. That's a proven gimme.
Wow. I can't understand why democrats would introduce that legislation at this time. Just goes to show they are all creeps.
FreeDuck wrote:Wow. I can't understand why democrats would introduce that legislation at this time. Just goes to show they are all creeps.
It's supposed to insure a more effective 2nd term for presidents... but it does seem to be a double edged sword, doesn't it?
Personally, I thinnk that eight years in the White House is quite enough, thank you.
If anything, I would support making the presidency a single six year term. You get your shot and it's over. This would, to a degree place the office above mundane politics. Getting reelected would not be a consideration in the decision making process.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Personally, I thinnk that eight years in the White House is quite enough, thank you.
phoenix no offense meant, truly, but based on your posts these last couple of years you are the perfect representatioin of the voter who would allow bush a third term if frightened by the terrorist problem......
so you're saying you declined to vote for someone you weren't sure about over someone you
were sure was a world class piece of ****. <sigh> and why? because you thought he might keep you safe......
I would not take anything I read in the New York Post seriously. This is a Ruppert Murdock rag and is just one notch above the National Inquirer.
I agree with Acquiunk about the single six-year term. I don't see why Americans often feel they need a perfect democracy, no matter what it impedes or cripples.
If such an amendment did pass, it would only be classy for the current president to only support the change for future candidates. Otherwise it would seem underhanded. Of course, class has never been requisite to presidency.
Of course, in playing their cards for additional terms they are more likely to comply to majority will.
I think they will look to change the first amendment initially particularly the portion that pertains to separation of church and state. Not that it seems to have been a deterrent to this point.
Let's just say that I didn't think that Kerry had it in him to run the country at this time. There was more to it than just the terrorism, although that WAS a priority. I am more in agreement with Bush's economic policies as well.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace