DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:41 am**

Welcome to the Socialist States of America

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., earlier this month introduced the bill, H. J. Res. 5, which, according to the bill's language, proposes \"an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.\"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=86324

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:15 am**

I heard some mutterings about this but didn't pay much credence. Now that is entered as fact, all I can say is my Barack \"Chavez\" Obama naming is now more apt than ever. Let the love fest begin.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:38 am**

You know, I'm not too worried.

If this did pass, he'd still have to get re-elected every 4 years. People will eventually fall out of love with him, and will want something new. I figure the further the pendulum swings one way, the further it will swing back.... If all of the changes he's trying to introduce fail, I'd see them getting blown away, in short order by the super-conservative that would replace him. If he tried to get rid of the re-election part of it, I can't see all of the good old boys down south putting up with it, and he'd quickly have a civil war at his hands.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:35 am**

snoopy wrote:You know, I'm not too worried.

If this did pass, he'd still have to get re-elected every 4 years. People will eventually fall out of love with him, and will want something new. I figure the further the pendulum swings one way, the further it will swing back.... If all of the changes he's trying to introduce fail, I'd see them getting blown away, in short order by the super-conservative that would replace him. If he tried to get rid of the re-election part of it, I can't see all of the good old boys down south putting up with it, and he'd quickly have a civil war at his hands.

You assume too much fairness.
All he needs is the door open and he can fix any election he wants. He's the most powerful man in the world.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:36 am**

Castro

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:00 pm**

Behemoth wrote:Castro

x2

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:39 pm**

Behemoth wrote:Castro

x3

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:12 pm**

WorldNetDaily, heh.

This bill will either get quickly shot down, or more likely, ignored... as it should.

Think about it, if there was really some larger conspiracy to make Obama's position permanent, would it show up in this form?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:32 pm**

As much of an excellent job I think Obama is doing so far (his first two months or so), anyone who votes for this needs to be repealed themselves. We have the term limit for a specific reason.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:18 pm**

I think it's a bit early to say \"excellent job\". Give it a couple of years. The whole \"first 100 days\" thing was a Roosevelt thing. .. and that wound up causing more problems than it solved in the long run.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:27 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:As much of an excellent job I think Obama is doing so far (his first two months or so),

O_o

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:29 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:As much of an excellent job I think Obama is doing so far (his first two months or so), anyone who votes for this needs to be repealed themselves. We have the term limit for a specific reason.

Dow Jones down another 300 points today. Yup, he's doing really a good job.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:07 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:As much of an excellent job I think Obama is doing so far (his first two months or so), anyone who votes for this needs to be repealed themselves. We have the term limit for a specific reason.

What has he done that rates as excellent?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:48 pm**

Do you realise that since the Democrats have regained control of both the House and Senate that the Market had dropped 50% from a high of 14000 in 2007 to where it closed today.
and since Obama took office the Dow has dropped from 8077 to where it close today at 6763 thats an additional 17% drop since Jan 19

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:47 pm**

CUDA wrote:Do you realise that since the Democrats have regained control of both the House and Senate that the Market had dropped 50% from a high of 14000 in 2007 to where it closed today.
and since Obama took office the Dow has dropped from 8077 to where it close today at 6763 thats an additional 17% drop since Jan 19

I did...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business ... change.asp

Bee

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:55 pm**

But Bee you were the one that blamed Bush for all this saying he has done nothing to prevent it and was even the cause of it over the last 8 years. and as I proved in a different thread it was not Bush alone that cause this crisis, but since the left would like to blame Bush for all the world problems. I would like to know when the Democrats will snad up be accountable for their failure and even their part <cough> Barney Frank - Chris Dodd <cough> in this whole mess. but as we know asking a Democrat to be accountable is like asking AIG to be fiscally responsible. it will never happen

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:03 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
I did...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business ... change.asp

Bee

LMAO! Just what did you intend with that linkage?

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:23 pm**

It shows that the right side will believe anything that paints dems in a bad light.

BTW: i have a bridge to sell you guys. republican owned and free of socialists.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:28 pm**

Anyone who knows the requirements to amend the Constitution knows that this is a nonissue.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:51 pm**

Bettina is right though. I think Obama's policies are going to cause nightmares down the road that our grandchildren may not even be able to pay for. BUT, he's not responsible for the current state of the economy. The current mess was set up by many different people and forces before Obama ever took office. Obama didn't cause it, He's just going to make it much much worse down the timeline.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:56 pm**

As you are right, it's time we as citizens of this fine country, vote out ALL incumbents. Whether you are republican, or Democrat, it's TIME to send a message. We \"the people\" WILL NOT stand for anymore. We as a \"voting block\" have the means in hand.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:13 pm**

If the economy is good in four years, Obama will be unbeatable.

If the economy is still suffering, anyone will be able to beat him.

I predict it will just be somewhat better

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:23 am**

Ferno wrote:It shows that the left side will believe anything that paints Reps in a bad light.

BTW: i have a bridge to sell you guys. Democrat owned socialist maintained and paid for by the middle class.

Fixed

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:47 am**

Gooberman wrote:If the economy is good in four years, Obama will be unbeatable.

If the economy is still suffering, anyone will be able to beat him.

I predict it will just be somewhat better

As long as Obama and the members can of congress think that they can throw counterfeit money and fake credit at the problem, then I'll say that the economy will be worse off in four years. I hope I'm wrong and I hope someone knocks some sense into the bumbling fools in DC (that's a bipartisan insult there), but I just don't see it happening. It's like asking a heroin addict to quit cold-turkey.

Even if the economy does pull through, there's no way that Obama can live up to A) the hype, and B) the promises. I think that the illusion of historical hype and an elegant tongue will be gone come the next election. However, he's not all that different from Bush, and we'll keep getting status quo candidates from the establishment until they actually let someone with different opinions in the debates.

Anyway, it's late... Jeff said it: the bill won't happen because of what it takes to ammend the constitution.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:23 am**

Ferno wrote:I have a bridge to sell you guys. republican owned and free of socialists.

CUDA wrote:I have a bridge to sell you guys. Democrat owned socialist maintained and paid for by the middle class.

LOL, I think you guys just made the point about the partisan game quite well.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:46 am**

Foil just beat me to exactly what I was going to say

rofl

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:13 am**

well if he's going to come out with a dumbass post like that I thought that I could comeout with an equally dumbass post to point out just how dumbass his post was

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:37 am**

Republican-owned bridge: Only those who can afford it can cross it. Materials quality is skimped on to make more profit for the company and save money. Maintenance is cut because it begins to hurt the bottom line as things age and the company wants to continue to please Wall Street with good quarterly profits. It eventually falls down, killing scores of people. Nobody can sue the company because of tort reform lobbied by the company and passed by Congress.

Democratic-owned bridge: Built by levying taxes and maintained by tolls or more taxes. Corruption results in the use of inferior materials. Eventually, people gripe about the high taxes or tolls, so they are cut in response. Maintenance gets put on the back burner and forgotten and the bridge STILL falls down and kills scores of people. Nobody can sue the government either.

So which mess is better for society?

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:59 am**

Libertarian Bridge: Nobody pays the taxes and only those who need to cross the bridge try and build it. It falls down every other year or so, but at least the government's out of their business.

Green Party Bridge: Materials used for the bridge hurt the environment and thus were never collected. People must cross the torrent via swimming and only the strong survive. Eventually enough bodies pile up to walk on.

★■◆●ing hippies.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:17 am**

ROFL now this is what I call a Topic

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:41 pm**

SilverFJ wrote:Libertarian Bridge: Nobody pays the taxes and only those who need to cross the bridge try and build it.

Ha! Sadly, true.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:25 pm**

Foil wrote:
Ferno wrote:I have a bridge to sell you guys. republican owned and free of socialists.

CUDA wrote:I have a bridge to sell you guys. Democrat owned socialist maintained and paid for by the middle class.
LOL, I think you guys just made the point about the partisan game quite well.

I tend to do that foil.

cuda: booooo.. come up with your own jokes. quit ridin my coattails.

FJ: you're starting to sound like thunderbunny now and that's a bad thing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:21 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Republican-owned bridge: Only those who can afford it can cross it. Materials quality is skimped on to make more profit for the company and save money. Maintenance is cut because it begins to hurt the bottom line as things age and the company wants to continue to please Wall Street with good quarterly profits. It eventually falls down, killing scores of people. Nobody can sue the company because of tort reform lobbied by the company and passed by Congress.

Democratic-owned bridge: Built by levying taxes and maintained by tolls or more taxes. Corruption results in the use of inferior materials. Eventually, people gripe about the high taxes or tolls, so they are cut in response. Maintenance gets put on the back burner and forgotten and the bridge STILL falls down and kills scores of people. Nobody can sue the government either.

So which mess is better for society?

The "Conservative bridge". People get tired of waiting for the government to provide a solution to the collapsed bridge and entrepreneurial types take it upon themselves to come up with innovative solutions. One person says screw the bridge concept and comes up with a transport glider system. Makes a business of it - works for some clients but not others. One group makes a pulley transport system that ferries cargo across the river. Makes a business of it - works for some clients, but not for others. Another group buys the collapsed bridge system and creates a private enterprise version bridge by repairing it and adding new technology. Makes a business of it - works for some clients, but not for others. The marketplace shakes out the economic winner and loser solutions, and the winners prosper and the losers go back to the drawing board.

The system succeeds well until the government engineers a takeover of the private enterprises - then the entire process repeats itself.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:56 am**

I am not sure I understand american politics. Didn't a republican front the bill? How is this blamed on Obama, then?

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:59 am**

Partisan Bridge

Same damn crappy bridge the \"other guys\" get, built by the company owned by the crony who kicks back the most cash to your Party's leadership. You cross it making excuses for its flaws with the belief it's a better bridge because your vote helped make it happen.
Your parties leadership however doesn't use the bridge they use helicopters and private planes.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:04 am**

Pandora wrote:I am not sure I understand american politics. Didn't a republican front the bill? How is this blamed on Obama, then?

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.

The D means democrat, the Rep means representative, as in a member of the house of representatives. Often the media will leave out the D if the guy has done something wrong so they can report 'Rep. so-and-so tortured kittens...' because people often make the same mistake you did thinking the "Rep." stands for republican.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:25 am**

thanks, Will, this clears it up.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:23 am**

What happened with thunderbunny?

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:51 am**

Terroists

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:01 pm**

I was reading GOD FORBID for you leftists Fox news this morning and came across this article. here's a snippet on Obama and the current 2009 budget.

Lefty Hater FOX News wrote:Obama’s record on government and the economy is actually worse. He and his surrogates keep maintaining that his budget won’t hurt the pockets of 95 percent of Americans who will get a tax cut.

They lie. The lead editorial in the Feb. 27 Wall Street Journal showed by just how much. Using 2006 tax records, The Wall Street Journal showed how a tax hike won’t begin to pay the 2010 budget of the $4 trillion. Even if the government were to confiscate (aka steal) every penny made by those who earn $250,000 and above, it would only meet one-third of the goal.

To pay for that whole $4 trillion budget, the government would have to pilfer “every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000.” That would just barely meet the goal, but those are 2006 numbers when the economy was good. In 2010, we’d need to go even lower.

A tax cut for 95 percent? Not hardly. The government will give money with one hand and take it back and loads more with the other –- lying to us the whole time.

DescentBB

Hail King Obama: President for life

Hail King Obama: President for life

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: