Liberals: Would you support making Obama King Of America?

[Quantum Windbag]

All you've done is post people, some on liberal sites, debating the question. There were those arguing for, and those arguing against. I argue against, because this scares me:

As for House Res 5. The representative has introduced that same bill every two years since 1997, for a total of seven times. Yes, he even introduced it when Bush was President.

snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

Check out the Snopes article. It even has Republicans, like Mitch McConnell submitting similar legislation.

Do you have some type of point or are you just being your normal hack self?

Did you read the Snopes article, or are you just offended by my fear of what Reagan might have done in a third term? But there are some good opinions on repealing the 22nd.

Here's an interesting op-ed piece from 2006 on the subject:

No More Second-Term Blues

...

While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.

And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.

...

While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.

Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.

It is interesting that our greatest political scandals happened in second terms. Ike's secret wars, Nixon's plumbers, Reagan's selling and giving arms to terrorists, and Clinton's blowjob. Does term limiting the President make him less accountable? Perhaps, but I still fear an imperial presidency.

Why should I read it? I never said Democrats are the only idiots, I was pointing out that there are people who want Obama to have more than 2 terms. If you want to point out that there were people that would have been happy to let Bush have a few more terms I will gladly admit you are correct.

That makes you the partisan hack, not me.

 

[Article 15]

True. Many conservatives advance the notion that only ‘property owners’ be allowed to vote, as they alone have a ‘stake’ in an election. There’s also the rightist desire to repeal the 17th Amendment. And of course this ‘voter fraud’ nonsense and the right’s efforts to eliminate minority voters and others for whom they have contempt.

Which conservatives advocate that?

I've advocated that for years.

In fact, I started a thread about it not long ago in the Congress forum.

So transitioning from an unenlightened democracy to an informed republic is the liberals hugest fear? LMAO.

Are you seriously claiming that requiring property ownership to vote woud to "transitioning from an unenlightened democracy to an informed republic"?

Yes, I'm claiming that the non-property owners are generally the most ignorant people and that politicians are playing upon their ignorance for votes.

And there you have it, folks. In a thread in which this toolbag is asking liberals if they want Obama to be king, he reveals that if he had things his way he would disenfranchise millions of Americans based on whether they pay rent or a mortgage.

You want a peasantry with no say in their own government and you have the nerve to start a thread like this.

TFF.

 

[Article 15]

Why should I read it? I never said Democrats are the only idiots, I was pointing out that there are people who want Obama to have more than 2 terms.

Because the snopes article proves that the bill wasn't submitted by someone who "wants Obama to have more than 2 terms". It was submitted by someone who wants any and all presidents to serve as many terms as they can get elected for.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you have some type of point or are you just being your normal hack self?

Did you read the Snopes article, or are you just offended by my fear of what Reagan might have done in a third term? But there are some good opinions on repealing the 22nd.

Here's an interesting op-ed piece from 2006 on the subject:

No More Second-Term Blues

...

While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.

And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.

...

While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.

Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.

It is interesting that our greatest political scandals happened in second terms. Ike's secret wars, Nixon's plumbers, Reagan's selling and giving arms to terrorists, and Clinton's blowjob. Does term limiting the President make him less accountable? Perhaps, but I still fear an imperial presidency.

Why should I read it? I never said Democrats are the only idiots, I was pointing out that there are people who want Obama to have more than 2 terms. If you want to point out that there were people that would have been happy to let Bush have a few more terms I will gladly admit you are correct.

That makes you the partisan hack, not me.

No, that makes you a partisan hack. I'm against it, especially in an era of unlimited corporate money. Citizens United has essentially given carte blanche to selling elected officials using corporate Madison Avenue techniques. Our corporations certainly know how to control an image. That makes the danger of an imperial president much easier to pay for.

The reason you should read the Snopes article, is it shows how full of shit the OP is.

snopes.com: Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

But since GreatGasby seems to be one of your reach around buddies, I doubt you will.

I reiterate, I'm against repealing the 22nd, in spite of a strong, logical argument for it, including the argument made in Federalist 72.

Nope dude, you're the hack. You really ought to learn how to think for yourself. It takes effort and research to do that. It's much easier to let FOX tell you what to think.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Why should I read it? I never said Democrats are the only idiots, I was pointing out that there are people who want Obama to have more than 2 terms.

Because the snopes article proves that the bill wasn't submitted by someone who "wants Obama to have more than 2 terms". It was submitted by someone who wants any and all presidents to serve as many terms as they can get elected for.

It also proves that GreatGasby committed a clear lie of omission in the OP. That's another reason why he won't read it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You give GG too much credit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Are you seriously claiming that requiring property ownership to vote woud to "transitioning from an unenlightened democracy to an informed republic"?

Yes, I'm claiming that the non-property owners are generally the most ignorant people and that politicians are playing upon their ignorance for votes.

And there you have it, folks. In a thread in which this toolbag is asking liberals if they want Obama to be king, he reveals that if he had things his way he would disenfranchise millions of Americans based on whether they pay rent or a mortgage.

You want a peasantry with no say in their own government and you have the nerve to start a thread like this.

TFF.

Comprehension son. Acknowledging the merit of a p.o.v. does not equate to endorsing it. Good try at trolling though.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yes, I'm claiming that the non-property owners are generally the most ignorant people and that politicians are playing upon their ignorance for votes.

And there you have it, folks. In a thread in which this toolbag is asking liberals if they want Obama to be king, he reveals that if he had things his way he would disenfranchise millions of Americans based on whether they pay rent or a mortgage.

You want a peasantry with no say in their own government and you have the nerve to start a thread like this.

TFF.

Comprehension son. Acknowledging the merit of a p.o.v. does not equate to advocating a change. Good try at trolling though.

You still utilized a clear lie of omission in your premise.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, I'm claiming that the non-property owners are generally the most ignorant people and that politicians are playing upon their ignorance for votes.

And there you have it, folks. In a thread in which this toolbag is asking liberals if they want Obama to be king, he reveals that if he had things his way he would disenfranchise millions of Americans based on whether they pay rent or a mortgage.

You want a peasantry with no say in their own government and you have the nerve to start a thread like this.

TFF.

Comprehension son. Acknowledging the merit of a p.o.v. does not equate to endorsing it. Good try at trolling though.

Do you endorse it?

 

[editec]

Why bother annointing a king?

The MASTERS have the FED.

The FED is much more powerful than any king.

 

[Sallow]

I asked a simple question. So far I've demonized nobody. But I'm sure I'm the highlight of your day.

No problem. I hope I answered for you.

Conservatives love kings. Liberals deplore them.

Which is why you guys try time and time again to squash the vote.

You simply hate elections.

That explains why none of those liberal Hollywood actor types hang out with Castro, Chavez, or...


Wait a minute.

And?

What's your point here?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And there you have it, folks. In a thread in which this toolbag is asking liberals if they want Obama to be king, he reveals that if he had things his way he would disenfranchise millions of Americans based on whether they pay rent or a mortgage.

You want a peasantry with no say in their own government and you have the nerve to start a thread like this.

TFF.

Comprehension son. Acknowledging the merit of a p.o.v. does not equate to endorsing it. Good try at trolling though.

Do you endorse it?

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

 

[midcan5]

Everyone has sat in a classroom when someone asks the teacher a question that brings a united sigh of WTF?

 

[zeke]

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

This has been the strangest damn thread.

We live in a plutocracy. What do you call the ruler of a plutocracy? Emperor? Czar? Mr President? Hey You? What?

But here we have someone who think liberals want to make Obama king and he wants to restrict voting to property owners.

OK. I have seven. Would I get to vote 7 times? If you had 1500 apartments that you owned would you get 1500 votes. What are the rules to this new game? Does the size of your real estate tax bill have any bearing on whether your vote gets counted? What if you had properties foreclosed. Can you still vote?

Have you really thought this through?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Comprehension son. Acknowledging the merit of a p.o.v. does not equate to endorsing it. Good try at trolling though.

Do you endorse it?

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

I think it is worthy of discussion. Put me on the "anti" side. You certainly didn't frame it as an issue worthy of discussion, but rather used lies of omission to frame it as if there's some tin foil conspiracy to make Obama a "king". Read your own title, and read your own OP. Why not just admit you were hoodwinked by wingnuts, without knowing the facts? That's what I would do. That's what a man would do. That's what any thinking person would do.

Nice attempt at attempting to backpedal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Do you endorse it?

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

I think it is worthy of discussion. Put me on the "anti" side. You certainly didn't frame it as an issue worthy of discussion, but rather used lies of omission to frame it as if there's some tin foil conspiracy to make Obama a "king". Read your own title, and read your own OP. Why not just admit you were hoodwinked by wingnuts, without knowing the facts? That's what I would do. That's what a man would do. That's what any thinking person would do.

Nice attempt at attempting to backpedal.

There's no lies hack. These are two separate concepts/issues. In fact, I hadn't even considered this when I created the thread. I created the thread because I believe that many libs have no real value for the Constitution and many libs worship Obama. The thread was worthy of being started on that basis alone.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

I think it is worthy of discussion. Put me on the "anti" side. You certainly didn't frame it as an issue worthy of discussion, but rather used lies of omission to frame it as if there's some tin foil conspiracy to make Obama a "king". Read your own title, and read your own OP. Why not just admit you were hoodwinked by wingnuts, without knowing the facts? That's what I would do. That's what a man would do. That's what any thinking person would do.

Nice attempt at attempting to backpedal.

There's no lies hack. These are two separate concepts/issues. In fact, I hadn't even considered this when I created the thread. I created the thread because I believe that many libs have no real value for the Constitution and many libs worship Obama. The thread was worthy of being started on that basis alone.

The clear lie of omission is the fact that the NY rep, who proposed the bill, proposed it every single term since 1997, even when Bush was in office. You attempted to frame it as a coronation for Obama, but you ought to know you were just lying when you did it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but here you are freely admitting that you wanted to frame it as something novel, to the Obama camp. In no way did you want this to be an argument about the concept of Presidential term limits. Nope, you tried to frame it as some some sort of coup. You're a liar and an idiot.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I endorse it as worthy of discussion and I possibly would not oppose it if it was presented as a Constitutional amendment. I'd probably be inclined to reject it though. There would most definitely be benefits and potential negative consequences of such a change.

I think it is worthy of discussion. Put me on the "anti" side. You certainly didn't frame it as an issue worthy of discussion, but rather used lies of omission to frame it as if there's some tin foil conspiracy to make Obama a "king". Read your own title, and read your own OP. Why not just admit you were hoodwinked by wingnuts, without knowing the facts? That's what I would do. That's what a man would do. That's what any thinking person would do.

Nice attempt at attempting to backpedal.

There's no lies hack. These are two separate concepts/issues. In fact, I hadn't even considered this when I created the thread. I created the thread because I believe that many libs have no real value for the Constitution and many libs worship Obama. The thread was worthy of being started on that basis alone.

Many?

Pretty vague there, dummy.

How many have "no real value" ( whatever that means ) for the Constitution?
Don't have a number? How about a percentage? A guess?

How many "worship" Obama? Got any numbers for that?

You haven't even singled out a member of this forum and proved that he/she does not value the Constitution.......nor have you demonstrated that anyone......not even a single person here.....worships Obama.

Your entire existence here is but a representation of sadness and gloom brought on by the fact that a guy you dislike is your President. You are compelled to make these empty claims on a near daily basis. It must be exhausting to be you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Have you ever heard of general observations troll? Gee whiz dude. Put on your tamp-on already.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Another word for "general observation":

Bullshit.