- Joined
- 29 Aug 06
- Moves
- 6848
13 Jul 08
Originally posted by karnachzNot sure, but I think he might be talking about this April Fool's joke.
... It's actually kinda amusing to think about how he tried to change the Constitution so that he could be eligible for a third term
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Please elaborate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/
I guess he didn't get the memo.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by smw6869I suspect that protecting themselves from assassination by the military-industrial complex was one of the reasons that the Clintons set up the Lewinsky scandal.
Four? Are you including Clinton....he was wacked off, but he didn't die!
GRANNY.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by SickboyNo, I'm talking about earlier than that..... not long after Bush started his second term.
Not sure, but I think he might be talking about this April Fool's joke.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/01/gwot_cha/
I guess he didn't get the memo.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by karnachzI never read anything about Bush actually trying to modify the constitution to allow himself a third term. But I used to wonder if he might be legally eligible for a third term anyway, since, as I understood it, the US constitution prohibits anyone being elected president more than twice. Since Bush wasn't actually elected in 2000, he's so far only been elected once.
No, I'm talking about earlier than that..... not long after Bush started his second term.
This worried me until I checked the exact wording of the 22nd amendment and I was relieved to discover that it prevents any President serving more that two and a half terms (the "half" being to take into account those who succeeded to the remainder of another President's term). Just as well...
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Augustus13I think an emperor nowadays will be more subtlely established than in the days of old.
I read a history and am curious to know if anyone else believes that the United States (I am only using them for an example) will have a government that becomes so out of touch, useless, etc. that it will be replaced with an emperor.
This has happened to the Romans and French (if my history is not mistaken) and possibly will happen again. I think hist ...[text shortened]... ror. This is not necessarily bad for the Romans were only saved by one man rule (in my opinion).
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94140
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by smw6869Julius Caesar was not only popular with his army, but also with the head count in Rome (the people that formed the basis of the Roman army after the Marian reforms).
Bring it on. We love to kill Emperors. One a day would be fine. Next!
GRANNY.
How about 60 years of conscription in the US, and then a strong, charismatic general that gives 2nd amendment believers all the gun rights they could dream of, comes along. The military-loving population (as the majority of the citizenry would have served) gets swept off its feet.
Improbable, but if you couple it with economic hardship, as ATY suggested, it becomes more likely. It is certainly not impossible.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2233
See how that works? Don't give references and you can say anything!
Now, why don't you clarify how and when Bush tried to run for a third term?
That's the first link I found. Honestly, there are far worse things that Bush has done than this, so it's hardly a central point of mine in any case. I only mentioned it in passing.
16 Jul 08
Originally posted by HumeAWhat does the 2nd Amendment have to do with the Military?
Julius Caesar was not only popular with his army, but also with the head count in Rome (the people that formed the basis of the Roman army after the Marian reforms).
How about 60 years of conscription in the US, and then a strong, charismatic general that gives 2nd amendment believers all the gun rights they could dream of, comes along. The military-loving ...[text shortened]... ith economic hardship, as ATY suggested, it becomes more likely. It is certainly not impossible.
GRANNY.