Will Bush Revoke/Re-Write The 22nd Amendment, To Hold A 3rd Term In Office?, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:59 AM by SRTkid86
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


i mean no offence by this.

but use your reason. how do you suppose a president with a sub 20% approval rating is going to manage to force himself into office for a 3rd term? we haven't lost all of our rights (yet.) and we are still a democratic country.

you have to remember the president doesn't make the laws, he just signs off on them, AFTER they go to vote.

in other words, there is no way in hell that he would be able to modify the constitution like that. it would never happen. not without the approval of congress, and that isn't SUPPOSED to happen without the approval of their constituents (the american people)

you see, a lot of you Bush haters would like to think that he is some evil demon that has absolute power to do whatever he wants.... he prolly wants to get out of office more than anthing. this man has been in a costant Shizz storm since the beginning of his time in office. he has dealt with the entire country blaming EVERY LITTLE THING, that goes even slightly wrong on him. I think it's pathetic really, that man didn't do anything that the people who are REALLY in power didn't want him to.

i think 20 years from now, his true legacy will be written in history books, that is saving an entire country half way across the world from a crazed dictator, and helping them rebuild and set up to run their own country, the way they want it ran.

whatever reason we go into this war, and however long we are there.... doesn't matter to me, we are there, we went there to do something, and we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to do what we went their to do.


reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 01:19 PM by yaasun
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


its funny how im reading my thoughts exactly come from someone else. a couple years back when i was realizing the true extent of the 9/11 hoax, the war into afganistan that changed to iraq, it started to down on me that if this president and his party can get away with that much #, then pulling off a 3rd term in office will be a breeze. he has everything in place ready for it.
1. hes put america into a bloody mess, not just in one country but in a whole region,
2. this bloody mess is in his parties plan for a future in that region that extend for a long time coming.
3. how can his party hand the ropes over to someone else now that there in this far deep. bush has done so much and can still progress his # moves so far more, because hes the idiot of america and cant be expected to actually make a right move. once in office for his 3rd term he can keep acting the stupid role and dig the whole deeper.
5. time and history as we know it has been building up for this stretch of time from 1999-2012 and maybe more.
6. 1999 was the first big hoax where we though we were all gone and pur power grids shot and internet #ed up.
it didnt happen. 13 years later is 2012, and this time, it may happen or they may choose to make it happen.

most will blow this 2012 crap off as a hoax. because they will remember the 1999 and how if at anytime switching from 1999 to 2000 years must be a logical time for # to hit the fan. but it didnt. we were scammed. so when 2012 comes around and people are forced to either belive or not what is coming, they will choose not to partly based on there previous hoax experience of 1999

[edit on 16-8-2008 by yaasun]



reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 01:29 PM by yaasun
reply to post by yaasun


so the 2008 is the yea for re election of bush via amendment 22, and 4 years later is days away from dec 21 2012. big picture


reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 02:12 PM by seagull
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

It seems unlikely. As it would take the support of Congress, and the people who, contrary to popular belief, aren't quite the "sheep" that some think. To legally overturn the 22nd amendment requires the approval of 2/3 of the states, or is it a simple majority? That takes forever, witness the ERA amendment...

So that leaves illegally...he can't do it by himself. Who's going to help him? Me? Not likely. You? Obviously not, since you started this conversation . If he wants to start the third American revolution, that'd be the way to do it...

Honestly, I think you're worried about nothing. I'd be more concerned with the elections up coming, and who we're putting into office.




As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 03:04 PM by SpartanKingLeonidas
Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


It seems unlikely. As it would take the support of Congress, and the people who, contrary to popular belief, aren't quite the "sheep" that some think. To legally overturn the 22nd amendment requires the approval of 2/3 of the states, or is it a simple majority? That takes forever, witness the ERA amendment...

So that leaves illegally...he can't do it by himself. Who's going to help him? Me? Not likely. You? Obviously not, since you started this conversation . If he wants to start the third American revolution, that'd be the way to do it...

Honestly, I think you're worried about nothing. I'd be more concerned with the elections up coming, and who we're putting into office.




Well, the point of the original post as well as the rest of this, is that he's not done anything the American people wanted so far as evidenced by his 20% approval rating.

We're tied up in the Iraq War, we have the impending Iran War we've been sitting close to having boil over, now we're mixed up in assisting Georgia against Russia.

We technically still have the War on Drugs ongoing.

We have the War on Terror ongoing.

We technically still have the Korean War ongoing, we've been at a state of truce since 1953 with them, which is still a state of war, since there was no Peace Treaty.

A President's war-time powers, especially having been put into office via the Supreme Court, changes a lot of rules, as well as the way things are done.

All it would truly take would be a major incident right before the election, to enable him via law, to declare a state of Martial Law right now, and the election would be null and void.

Under National Emergency, it used to be that F.E.M.A. kicked in, and the F.E.M.A. Administration took over, making it more powerful than the President, if the correct set of parameters were fullfilled, but since the inception of Homeland Security, all of those laws have shifted around since F.E.M.A. now reports directly under D.H.S.

Think about it for just a moment, as much controversy as September 11th has been on ATS alone, where so many people are divided about whether it was an "Inside Job" or terrorists were truly to blame, the fact that our entire Government was in essence made inept due to 19 men on 4 planes with box-cutters, how absurd that sounds that a trillion dollar defense budget was unable to stop those men from changing our world so much, and this might be a little on the possible side.

Again, I'm not saying I want it to happen, in the least. It's the last thing I want.

But, also, usually by now we would have the election process a lot closer with who had been selected as to who was representing which Political Party.

That it has been under such scrutiny, and we're only three months away, isn't that a bit odd?

All I'm saying, is the the proverbial "what if" here, in that Bush and Cheney have been extremely closed-mouthed, like the cat that caught the canary.

"If we keep quiet long enough, no one will catch on."

Believe me, I never wanted to be more wrong about something in all of my life.


reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 03:54 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Text

My understand is that Bush can continue being President if there is a National Emergeny while he is still President. His would have to declare the National Emergency in order for there to be an election.

If anyone knows more about this, please post it.



reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 12:17 AM by Sir Solomon
reply to post by Symbiote


I'm sorry if my comment was misleading. I agree that having some extra supplies in case the weather hits you with something and you have to survive for a week or so. That is just common sense for any part of the nation. Here in the Midwest its especially true during the winter, when just about anything can hit.

What I meant by that was that a week or two of supplies is just standard, but I'm not going to go out and get an even larger buffer in my food/water supplies because Bush may do something crazy...er...(dangit...can't think of another way to up that...).


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 05:53 AM by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Q Level


I believe your reading comprehension is off, as I believe you quoted exactly what I said, the law was put into place, after F.D.R. was in office.

Carefully reading what someone posts, doesn't take away from your perspective.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 06:07 AM by Q Level
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Q Level


I believe your reading comprehension is off, as I believe you quoted exactly what I said, the law was put into place, after F.D.R. was in office.

Carefully reading what someone posts, doesn't take away from your perspective.


As I read it, it seemed clear to me that you were referring to his third and fourth terms as being due to WWII.

The fourth term I could agree with, but not at all in regards to the third.

Actually, the law was put into place upon FDR's death, almost immediatly.

Feel free to be condescending, I've noticed that from you quite a bit so far.

As far as being some sort of Blackwater expert, hmm. Don't think so. Maybe a distant observer, but little else. Thanks for the smile, though.



reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 06:18 AM by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Q Level


What I stated was not condescending in the least.

I was stating you misinterpreted what I said in the original post, since your tone was condescending, I was merely replying to that.

As far as Blackwater Expert, that's not up to debate, and it's from ATS Administration, not something I took upon myself. I highly suggest if you're going to begin picking apart someone, you do it elsewhere as it's not going to be tolerated here.

You haven't been on ATS long, so I suggest you read the Terms and Conditions, unless you're a former member come back a different way.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 07:21 AM by Q Level
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by Q Level


What I stated was not condescending in the least.

I was stating you misinterpreted what I said in the original post, since your tone was condescending, I was merely replying to that.

As far as Blackwater Expert, that's not up to debate, and it's from ATS Administration, not something I took upon myself. I highly suggest if you're going to begin picking apart someone, you do it elsewhere as it's not going to be tolerated here.

You haven't been on ATS long, so I suggest you read the Terms and Conditions, unless you're a former member come back a different way.


Your original post was somewhat misleading. Perhaps we can just agree to disagree on that?

Debate you on Blackwater? Hardly. You can just be the expert.

However, you should know that there is always someone around somewhere who knows certain things from a much closer perspective and it doesn't matter what the subject is.

Much about BW is publicly known, and that's for a reason, while so little will never be compromised. I'm sure you are aware of this.

FWIW, I've been a lurker for a long, long time and even since joining I rarely post, but you brought me out of that for a brief time. Particularly the BW "expert" label. I'm not often in a position to read/post to the internet, though I'd love to have more time there. UFOs are what initially brought me to ATS.

I will say this, BW is one of the most misunderstood groups in operation today. Not your enemy at all. Nor the enemy of the American public. Sure, we have enemies, but BW isn't one of them.

During a crisis, you'd do better to stand with BW than FEMA, I know I will if it comes to that.

FEMA is populated with souless power craving morons. 99% of them would never be considered for BW in any position.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^