It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many of you would like to see Bush as permanent "president"? serious answers please

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
[Interesting that any poll done about if America is happy with the election result, will show that over 50% are not...
But the other side is, how many of those "polled" actually got out and voted? If someone doesn't vote then I could care less about his/her complaints or opinions of the outcome.




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Dubya all the way, El' Presidente!!!

Dictatorship for sure. Hey, everyone in the world can see that the U.S. is falling in on itself economically, and maybe even socially, so why not have him for life? Kind of like whats his face... Castro? PERFECT! Then maybe they can finally start trading again after good ol' G.W. legalizes certain drugs to cash in on the multi-billion dollar industry to get some more pocket cash for gas for his billion dollar bombers and half billion dollar fighter jets (that he won't be able to afford to fly much longer), and maybe some missiles with the left over change.

I hope Bush is the President forever, I think you deserve him


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Torus]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
MARTIAL law. M-A-R-T-I-A-L. Marshall Law was a rejected character for Tekken


Sheesh, if you're gonna go off the deep end, and least know how to spell it


Anyway, to answer the question...no.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Well, we have one voting for dictatorship, do we hear more? I knew eventually we'd find one.
I no more would have wanted to see Clinton in power after his 8 years than I do Bush.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, we have one voting for dictatorship, do we hear more? I knew eventually we'd find one.
I no more would have wanted to see Clinton in power after his 8 years than I do Bush.


Um, in case you didn't notice, he was joking. Lighten up for Chrissake, peeps.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I'd like to know how many of you think this president is so great you would like him to remain....err....president...AND WHY.

While you're at it, i'd like to know if you think this would be a dictatorship or just a great president wanting to finish the job he started.
thanks



Comment: As a Republican of course I would want Bush in office like an FDR as a real American President who courageously defends the common good, and does everything he can to secure our God given rights. You would want him there fair and square of course, with actual votes not manipulated computer memory. You see votes are real, and if it is not real it doesn't pass the test for actual support.

The only way I would consider it is when he does the actual Ronald Reagan thing, and "gets the government off the backs of the people," not meaning just the extreme rich. Since the trend impacts are currently quite the reverse, for example making more things illegal daily, and having the potential to put the government on most people's backs, it will take a change of mind and heart.

I am not even certain then if it would be implemented, because once you sour the milk, it is very hard to make it fresh again, in fact it would take a miracle. You can sell sour milk with enough advertising, call it "Buttermilk," but it better not upset too many stomachs. We need someone with a valid experience of being President, with actually "making a difference," where the popular "acclaim," rest upon more than Madison Avenue fluff. It would have to be something substantive from some very good normative proposals. I do not envision this as yet, but you never know.

No I would not want to change the Constitution to allow more terms, nor change it to allow the current California Governor to run as "dictator."

Thanks, but a very adamant no thanks until further notice. If a Democrat would just do a few Republican things, then I'd consider it but probably say no also.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Lighten up? No need at all
We're having fun here, you heard of sense of humors?


He's from Canada anyway.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Let me rephrase what I posted before.

Bush was elected 'fairly'. The 'magority' of Americans chose this man to be your fearless leader for the next four years. Now, I know you guys have televisions down there, and maybe even news papers and a few magazines. You MUST know that this guy is DESTROYING your country economically. You are running the largest deficit in history. You're basically screwed. Now, you had a chance to maybe fix the problem, (probably not, but you should have tried) and now you've gone and hosed yourselves. That little 500 billion dollar bill for the "Victory" in Iraq was the beginning. How many other crusades is he going to go on?

I figure since the guy got elected again, in this present situation, you should keep him forever just as a constant kick in the A$$ (damn editing) reminder to those whom voted for him, and for those who didn't vote to realize they should have got off their lazy butts and spoke up. Thats why I think he should be your President forever.

And yeah, I'm just a Canadian getting into a subject I shouldn't. I love America, most of Canada is American you know... and Chinese... but I don't like your politics, they take up to much of my Prime time T.V. on your networks.


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Torus]

[edit on 19-11-2004 by Torus]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Lighten up? No need at all
We're having fun here, you heard of sense of humors?


He's from Canada anyway.


Hu...mor?





posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Well, if there's no chance for a libertarian candidate....and the democrats keep putting up the same old slime in a new suit ....why not
besides when our country collapse it will drag down Canada and that might be worth watching.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I'm sure we would go down together. It's already started... have you seen any NHL hockey in your country this season yet? Nien, they've all jumped ship to Europe. We're hooped.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   
dude people need to seriously stop with the bush thing. i mean come on how american are you if youre starting an ''imagine if this person the one you hate is constantly knocking at your door. repeatedly stating that your front yard is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.'' i mean come on people! youre using too much of youre imaginations.

permanent president? jesus! what are you all expecting in our future?
we could sit here and talk about every little single fragment of irritation that you have come to realization through your past. do you only state negative things because its easier than stating the good?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
permanent president? jesus! what are you all expecting in our future?





If these past four years is any kind of indication as to how and where President G W Bush's thoughts are,........... than there isn't much for anyone to expect for a future in the USA.





do you only state negative things because its easier than stating the good?





G O O D ????????????? What has been so good about these past four years
, I'm not even going to "go there"
,............

A two term President is quite enough, specially with the one we have right now,.........



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Two terms are enough, I think and the 22nd Amendment is clear about this:



U.S. Constitution - Amendment 22
Amendment 22 - Presidential term limits
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 the 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.

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.
www.usconstitution.net...


Of course, not all agree:

Here is a political satire piece attributed to President George W. Bush calling for an end to term limits:



"Rethinking White House Term Limits"
An Essay by President George W. Bush


In today's America, there are many fine laws that protect the rights of Americans to preserve their vast fortunes. But sadly, there are also some laws that protect the rights of terrorists to do terror. It is essential that we destroy – or at least bypass – these terrorist-helping laws, and we must do it now.

Topping off the list of these laws which support evil is the eight-year term limit for President. True, the eight-year term limit used to be an effective way to ensure that domestic regime change occurred – but that was before terrorism, when wars were short and change was a good thing.

When the enemy fought as a nation, the Commander-in-Chief had the luxury of being able to invade an evil country, exterminate its people, and be holding tickertape parades before his term was over. Indeed, a Commander-in-Chief could even last eight years or less without compromising national security.

Sadly, those days are behind us. Terrorism is here for the long haul, and we need to fight it on the long-haul timeline.

In 2008, at the end of my term, everything I have built to take out terrorists at home and abroad will be at the mercy of a new Commander-in-Chief. Why should we take that kind of risk? If you were winning a football game in the first quarter, would you put in your second-string quarterback?
I don’t think you would – and I wouldn't either.

2004.georgewbush.org...


Of course, that was someone's idea of a joke.

Here is an article about former President Bill Clinton actually calling for an end to Presidential term limits:





News Release
For Immediate Release
May 29, 2003
Contact: Kurt A. Gardinier
(202) 379-3000 ext. 109

CLINTON CALLS FOR CHANGE
TO 22ND AMENDMENT
Wants to Modify Presidential Term Limits


(Washington, D.C.) —
While speaking at the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum yesterday, former President Bill Clinton announced that Congress should change the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms.

"I think since people are living much longer . . . the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton said.

Stacie Rumenap, executive director for U.S. Term Limits, responded to Clinton's comments: "By term limiting the president of the United States, the 22nd Amendment provides that no matter how much power a given chief executive may gather, there's a definite limit on how long he may wield it. At a maximum, a fresh face and a fresh perspective will be brought to the White House every eight years."

While Clinton said such a change "probably" wouldn't apply to him he didn't rule out the possibility of a future run.

"There may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before. People would like to bring that man or woman back but they would have no way to do so," Clinton said.

www.termlimits.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
We have two stolen elections in a row, with a sizable portion of the country willfully blind to it, another more sizable chunk completely disenfranchaised and the last portion oblivious, yet poorer & sicker none the less.
No to consecutive terms, but if you have a president, like Clinton, who reversed the destructive policies of the previous 12 years prior to his first term, why not take him in 2004 or 2008, should he muster the votes?
People actually knowing what they're getting? Good god, can't have that, can we!?!?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
We have two stolen elections in a row, with a sizable portion of the country willfully blind to it, another more sizable chunk completely disenfranchaised and the last portion oblivious, yet poorer & sicker none the less.
No to consecutive terms, but if you have a president, like Clinton, who reversed the destructive policies of the previous 12 years prior to his first term, why not take him in 2004 or 2008, should he muster the votes?
People actually knowing what they're getting? Good god, can't have that, can we!?!?


Hmmm, proof of a "stolen election"? If the election wears a blue dress, maybe...


I like the spin.

Saying things like "stolen", "oblivious", and "blind" when referring to the fact that democrats lost and continue to cry about it, certainly helps the credibility. I guess you're right. BJ Bill is just a Saint of Leadership (among interns anyway) despite the fact that he lied to the world over and over and over and got caught.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
No spin , unless we're too busy smoking something we know that this admin. has its sights set on more and more....After all, the Iraq mess isnt going to go away soon neither are the "terrorists"- so this question i pose isnt so far fetched. Mr. Bush was "re-elected" because we need a "strong president who can fight terror and protect us" (my fingers managed to type that)...so...i do believe people out there would buy into the fact that burning the Constitution for this would be quite ok.

All we need is one more act of "terrorism" in the U.S. and bing..Police State goes in effect and our rights are gone.
I dare say this is pretty damn close to a dictatorship, eh?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
All we need is one more act of "terrorism" in the U.S. and bing..Police State goes in effect and our rights are gone.
I dare say this is pretty damn close to a dictatorship, eh?


Well we all the new agencies being made under bush and the power been taken out of our intelligence agencies, and key people been appointed to positions, and the 2 patriot act enforce, a new attack will suffice and the police state will be implemented, and people will suck it up because the government will tell them that is in the name of the "good of the people" and that "God" is behind our government 100%



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dare say this is pretty damn close to a dictatorship, eh?


And just think, people died just so have the right to say that.
I really don't think more people killed by an enemy who likes to target civilians will change that.

You think that this is all about 911 or Bush? Al Quaida has been attacking the US for 20+ years. Wonder why Clinton didn't do anything? Maybe if he was paying attention to that rather than his intern, 911 might not have happened in the first place.

The bottom line is we are facing a radical, determined enemy that will break all the rules. Yet when we need to have more airport security to guard against such things...people want to run around screaming about loss of freedom. Damned if you do...



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in here about the two-term limit. Roosevelt was an exception... was it a good one? Historians are still debating it. If Roosevelt hadn't been in power in 1941, it would've been Wallace or Willkie. Or John Nance Garner. They could've led the war to the same kind of conclusion Roosevelt did... BUT - would they have had such a good relationship with Churchill? And with no Roosevelt, there probably would've been no Truman, and - perhaps - no bomb on Hiroshima... the war in Japan, in that case, would've lasted till 1947.

Am I defending the principle of multiple terms? No. I'm saying that Roosevelt was an exception that happened to turn out well. For the rest... neither Republicans, nor Democrats, should get more than eight years.


Originally posted by Mynaeris
Unless the Democrats can find one visible or credible candidate... Hillary couldn't win if she was given a 49 State headstart.


I'm not rooting for Hillary, even if some people are. I'm rooting for a return of Al Gore.

Surprised? Well, for one, Al Gore has changed in four years, come more into his persona. He's an excellent public speaker and policy-maker now. And second, he would be like the ghost of Christmas past to whoever stood to inherit the Bush mantle - the man who could've been President, come back to say, "What have you done to the country that we entrusted in you?"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join