Statue honoring Bush seems to imply Bush will be President indefinitely

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Indefinite Presidency


What the hell is going on folks? Read the above article and explain to me why the date is set 2001- blank... Are they expecting him to pass away in office? Or do they suspect his reign will be indefinite?


[edit on 2-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I also found this:


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005
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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
And for who doesn't know, the 22nd is this:


Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


So anyone trying to repeal the 22nd is trying to make it so that people can become president more then 2 terms.


Hey Speaker, could you post a link to where you found the text you quoted?

[edit on 2/10/06 by thematrix]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
NO ... I'm sure that isn't there because he expects to be president forever.


It's SMART not to fill in the last number. People die. People are assassinated. People are impeached. People resign. etc etc

My parents and grandparents had open last dates on their tomb stones. It was to be filled in when they died. They didn't expect to live forever, they were smart and left the numbers open because it was an unknown.

Nothing to see here .. move along.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Because Presidents of the U.S. have died from natural causes or assassinations. Its logical to have something like that 2001- whenever he is out of office.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
NO ... I'm sure that isn't there because he expects to be president forever.


It's SMART not to fill in the last number. People die. People are assassinated. People are impeached. People resign. etc etc

My parents and grandparents had open last dates on their tomb stones. It was to be filled in when they died. They didn't expect to live forever, they were smart and left the numbers open because it was an unknown.

Nothing to see here .. move along.


Ummm, not putting a date on your tombstone is not the same as not putting a date on a bust.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

Hey Speaker, could you post a link to where you found the text you quoted?

[edit on 2/10/06 by thematrix]


Yep. Repeal of 22nd Amendment



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Ummm, not putting a date on your tombstone is not the same as not putting a date on a bust.


Yes it is.

1 line answer? You bet your ass.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Since its the National Guard thats honoring him, does that mean they are backing him up to make sure he stays in the White House beyond 2008?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Since its the National Guard thats honoring him, does that mean they are backing him up to make sure he stays in the White House beyond 2008?


You may have asked that tongue and cheeck but it's actually legitimate question.
Truthfully, I don't know.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
If something happen in the u.s.a. That is considering being of the magnitude of 911 or nuclear the president can instate marshal law and cancel all elections.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

not putting a date on your tombstone is not the same as not putting a date on a bust.


Sure it is. Both have open dates because the end of the time period in question isn't known. It is SMART not to put an ending date ... many, many, things could happen to shorten the expected date on a bust and of course the future tombstone date is not known by anyone except God.

The comparison may not have been the best .. but the idea is the same. The ending date is unknown. There are too many variables. It's smart not to put it prematurely and then have to change it later.

Death .. impeachment .. resignation ... assassination ... incapacitated due to stroke .. being run out of DC with torches and pitchforks ... etc. No ending date on a bust is smart.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
If the 22nd Amendment is Gone,

What would you do to fight this Anti-American Process to stop GWB?

How can you fight it if you will be put in an interment camp or listed on the notorious black list and maybe found missing one night or picked up by the Secret Service because of threats made against him?

Scarry Stuff eah????



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Or could he be the 'last' president' ... ?
that could be a possibility...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bufordny
If the 22nd Amendment is Gone,


Now you are just scaring yourself silly for no reason. The 22nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. I know that in 2008 when Hillary is in I'll probably be just as scared as you are right now about the 22nd Amendment. But seriously .. the citizens of this country wouldn't go for it.

Besides .. Bush couldn't win a third election. And if he tried to stay in with his approval ratings like they are .. he'd have torches and pitchforkes on the southlawn coming right at him.

It won't happen.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I know that in 2008 when Hillary is in


God,let's hope not.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Well Speaker .... I am hoping not. But I have resigned myself to the fact that most likely she will be. I would like to see guiliani .. but I really think 2008 is Hillary's year.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Well...*Get's a running start and runs to kick the hornets nest*

I support such a decision to keep Rummy and Shrub in office. Not just them but maybe Condi as well.



Sure I can think of others who might have been able to fill the position, how ever, were they the right people for the job?

I was GUNG F'N HO for voting for MCCain. Then found out he quit. Because of "pork barrel poli tics", now he is damn near sucking off the same teet.

Please, don't get me wrong, I would still vote for the John MCCain, and even for free take a bullet for him. Despite our differences, I support his stance/s. Along with a stance of our current Government Administration, even though I feel they required replaceing.

Just as they felt the "Cold War Horses" required replaceing. I and many other people, have learned from their example, and I'm confident in the ability for my generation to take up the slack and tighten it to the hilt all the while mopping up and healing what they are overwhelmed with.

Has any one seen Rumsfeld – Man of War, it was on just the other night. Even though he/Rummy has been a "revolving door" candidate of government, he has done a good thing, and that is kick start a future trend in the "defense industry".

Contrary to my previous stance against, these governmental individuals, I am going to agree that they are the right people at this time. Thus being, I will not retract my previous stances, but "adjust" them to be more beneficial to all parties involved.

Let it be known, those who knew, tried.

United We Stand, The Rest Is, Not An Option!

[edit on 2-10-2006 by ADVISOR]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
This subject, again?

Though I would personally rather see a date inscribed, and fixed with a Sharpie Pen if the need be, this is actually pretty common. Does he think he could? I'm sure he thinks he could. Will he? Not without an abrupt change. My idea is that he is still laying the groundwork for even worse things to come in the next presidency. Remeber, these guys like to take these things in small steps, nothing too large until the noose is too tight. Then again, we have two more years.


[edit on 10/2/06 by niteboy82]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Egads! You've uncovered a massive plot! George Bush will discover the secret to immortality/be cloned/is a robot/is an alien/is a zombie and will reign forever!! We're doomed!






new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join