22nd amendment to be repealed?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,02:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes but that doesn't explain why they didn't do this before they lost the majority.<span id='postcolor'>

duh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, it's our job.

The Republicans aren't the only ones filabustering things for moronic reasons, just so you know.

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that whichever political party does not hold the majority of seats in congress or the house is going to do everything it can to get it's way, including fighting dirty.<span id='postcolor'>well, filibustering a grossly questionable bill, i don't mind, but filibustering with absurdity no. Think of Senator Thurman. he filibustered(a record) 25 hours to stop equal act bill(?) during his youger yrs. in last 10 years, Republicans seem to be the more idiotic filibuster ones. just look at Jesse Helmes record before he met Bono(from U2, not Sonny Bono)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the republicans have the power now. We have the presidency, and the majority in the senate and the house. Now the democrats don't, so they're trying to make it easier for them to do what they want, and they're wiping their feet on the constitution while they're at it.<span id='postcolor'>

reason? Republicans have broader financial support to get whatever they want passed more often, not to mention all the idiotic thing they did during Clinton era such as shooting down Hillary's proposal for Health care(only to be reiterated by Bush Jr. in 2002 State of the Union address).

so now that Republicans are in power, it's ok for them to do wahtever they want?

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 13 2003,03:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,19:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,11:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden we don't elect our PM directly. We have a representative democracy which means that we elect the members of parliament and then the majority party forms a cabinet. It has to be approved by the parliament. Usually the party leader of the majority party becomes the PM.

So we have no limit on terms served.  It's not common however for PMs to serve more than two terms in a row. Until a couple of years ago we had elections every three years, but it's four years now.

Our chief of state, king Carl Gustaf XVI is of course not elected, but he has no political role <span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a parliamentary democracy, Denoir?

And I seem to recall that the British system works so that a Parlimentarian (do the English call them Commoners and Lords or what?) representing Liverpool, for example, doesn't have to be from Liverpool. That the person's party picks and chooses what region he will represent. Thus, someone living in London can be put on the ballot for Nottingham because that's where the party wants him to run.

Am I wrong? I seem to remember this being the case from my comparative international politics class. Is it the same in Sweden, or are people representing Gottenborg (sp?) actaully required to have residency there?<span id='postcolor'>

It is indeed a parliamentary system.  The reason the U.S. is a hybrid, and not a representative democracy is because of the electoral college.<span id='postcolor'>

Canada's system is reversed to that... we elect our Prime Minister, then he selects his caucus from members of his party.

And that vote of confidence deal is crap. Did the Gun Registry vote pass? I sure as hell hope not. I bet that will be one of the first things to get the axe when we finally get a new Government.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">duh. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, filibustering a grossly questionable bill, i don't mind, but filibustering with absurdity no. Think of Senator Thurman. he filibustered(a record) 25 hours to stop equal act bill(?) during his youger yrs. in last 10 years, Republicans seem to be the more idiotic filibuster ones. just look at Jesse Helmes record before he met Bono(from U2, not Sonny Bono)<span id='postcolor'>

We could go through all the resolutions that have been filibustered throughout US history, or we could just throw mud at each other.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">reason? Republicans have broader financial support to get whatever they want passed more often, not to mention all the idiotic thing they did during Clinton era such as shooting down Hillary's proposal for Health care(only to be reiterated by Bush Jr. in 2002 State of the Union address).<span id='postcolor'>

Speaking of idiotic things during the Clinton era, who cut military and intelligence spending?  Who let bin laden go when he was offered to us?  Who commited a felony?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so now that Republicans are in power, it's ok for them to do wahtever they want?<span id='postcolor'>

It's OK for them to change things as they see fit according to the democratic process.  The people voted Republicans in power, shouldn't we change things to fit our policies?

[PFC Mongoose 0]

Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,06:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Speaking of idiotic things during the Clinton era, who cut military and intelligence spending?  Who let bin laden go when he was offered to us?  Who commited a felony?<span id='postcolor'>

and when Clinton "lobbed" cruise missiles, who called it an unnecessary action and criticzied it? Republicans!

and when Bill went for "Operation Desert Fox" who criticized it? Republicans!

back then Republicans were the ones who opposed just about everything Clinton did, just becuase it was Clinton.

yes, mil spending cut and Bush Jr. revived everything back in only a year and half wow.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's OK for them to change things as they see fit according to the democratic process. The people voted Republicans in power, shouldn't we change things to fit our policies?<span id='postcolor'>

and as soon as Clinton's administration try that Republicans went nuts and made ruckus. The ppl voted Republicans in power, just like they voted Clinton and Carter in. so they should have been able to change things as they wished. but those darn republicans couldn't let that happen and had to disrupt the process. now the table is turned and democrats are causing ruckus, and that's wrong?

i'm beginning to sense that only reason you are posting here right now is to validate your position, not to discuss about 22nd amendment.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 13 2003,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?<span id='postcolor'>

none. the impeachment hearing lead to nowhere. all 4 accounts were dropped.

CNN article

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,07:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 13 2003,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?<span id='postcolor'>

none. the impeachment hearing lead to nowhere. all 4 accounts were dropped.

CNN article<span id='postcolor'>

He committed perjury, that is he lied under oath before a grand jury during the Paula Jones case. He wasn't convicted though, but it's on fucking tape man; the guy looked right into the camera's and gave the proverbial middle finger to the American people. No matter how much good Clinton did as president, I'll remember that one lie more than all the rest.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?<span id='postcolor'>

Lying to a grand jury, having sex with a subordinate. At least one of those is a felony.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and when Clinton "lobbed" cruise missiles, who called it an unnecessary action and criticzied it? Republicans! <span id='postcolor'>

And who lobbed cruise missiles to distract us from the Lewinski scandal? Democrats! lol, we could go on like this forever.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, mil spending cut and Bush Jr. revived everything back in only a year and half wow.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean "woo!" right?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and as soon as Clinton's administration try that Republicans went nuts and made ruckus. The ppl voted Republicans in power, just like they voted Clinton and Carter in. so they should have been able to change things as they wished. but those darn republicans couldn't let that happen and had to disrupt the process. now the table is turned and democrats are causing ruckus, and that's wrong? <span id='postcolor'>

Only when they're changing the constitution to do so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm beginning to sense that only reason you are posting here right now is to validate your position, not to discuss about 22nd amendment.<span id='postcolor'>

And you're not?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,07:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Out of curiousity, what felony did Clinton commit?<span id='postcolor'>

Lying to a grand jury, having sex with a subordinate.  At least one of those is a felony.<span id='postcolor'>

lying, yes. but was Paula's attorney asking a relevant question? i don't think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and when Clinton "lobbed" cruise missiles, who called it an unnecessary action and criticzied it? Republicans! <span id='postcolor'>

And who lobbed cruise missiles to distract us from the Lewinski scandal? Democrats! lol, we could go on like this forever.<span id='postcolor'>

yes, and at some point you need to admit that Republicans should have supported Clinton and get rid of UBL and Saddam long before Bush Jr had to do this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, mil spending cut and Bush Jr. revived everything back in only a year and half wow.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean "woo!" right?<span id='postcolor'>

sarcasm anyone? most Republicans said by funding military, Bush administration saved it. but if causing dammage is so bad, how can a quick 1-1/2 yr recovery work? see the point? military might not have more funding, byt they were able to do their job in Afghanistan. notice that butdget for military under Bush administration would not have gone into effect until latter half of 2001.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and as soon as Clinton's administration try that Republicans went nuts and made ruckus. The ppl voted Republicans in power, just like they voted Clinton and Carter in. so they should have been able to change things as they wished. but those darn republicans couldn't let that happen and had to disrupt the process. now the table is turned and democrats are causing ruckus, and that's wrong? <span id='postcolor'>

Only when they're changing the constitution to do so.<span id='postcolor'>

i was talking about filibustering. but changing constitution is not Republican way. Republican way is to screw it to the point where they can get it interpreted their way.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm beginning to sense that only reason you are posting here right now is to validate your position, not to discuss about 22nd amendment.<span id='postcolor'>

And you're not?<span id='postcolor'>

i'm merely replying to your post since you are the one who started drifting this thread this way.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 13 2003,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the guy looked right into the camera's and gave the proverbial middle finger to the American people. No matter how much good Clinton did as president, I'll remember that one lie more than all the rest.<span id='postcolor'>

not even "I did not have sexual relationships with that woman, Ms Lewisky" in front of all the news cameras?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lying, yes. but was Paula's attorney asking a relevant question? i don't think so.<span id='postcolor'>

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

How is that not relevant?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and at some point you need to admit that Republicans should have supported Clinton and get rid of UBL and Saddam long before Bush Jr had to do this. <span id='postcolor'>

But Clinton's the one who didn't want to nab Bin Laden. So by default, we did!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sarcasm anyone? most Republicans said by funding military, Bush administration saved it. but if causing dammage is so bad, how can a quick 1-1/2 yr recovery work? see the point? military might not have more funding, byt they were able to do their job in Afghanistan. notice that butdget for military under Bush administration would not have gone into effect until latter half of 2001.<span id='postcolor'>

The depleted military and intelligence agencies are the reason why 09/11 slipped under our radar. And it's not like we couldn't of taken care of Afghanistan with a little air power and a hand ful of special forces (basically what's in there now). But look at what we've done in Iraq. Even though the Iraqi military isn't exactly a giant army, it's still a logistical triumph.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i was talking about filibustering. but changing constitution is not Republican way. Republican way is to screw it to the point where they can get it interpreted their way. <span id='postcolor'>

As long as we agree on one thing.

I think that's a fundamental difference between the two parties: interpretation of the constitution.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm merely replying to your post since you are the one who started drifting this thread this way. <span id='postcolor'>

But I... then you... and I... *head explodes*

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,07:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lying, yes. but was Paula's attorney asking a relevant question? i don't think so.<span id='postcolor'>

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

How is that not relevant?<span id='postcolor'>

"that woman" was Monica Lewinsky, not Paula Jones. Paula's attorneys were trying to show that Clinton is a habitual sexaholic, and say that Paula was one of his victims. but being a sexaholic and being a victim is two different thing. they could have shown that Clinton is sexaholic, but that doesn't prove he harassed Paula.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes, and at some point you need to admit that Republicans should have supported Clinton and get rid of UBL and Saddam long before Bush Jr had to do this. <span id='postcolor'>

But Clinton's the one who didn't want to nab Bin Laden. So by default, we did! . <span id='postcolor'>

more like no other didn't want to. sending troops to Kosovo itself was pain in the ass since Republicans nitpicked just about everything. let alone going to little known country in middle asia. I bet you didn't know who UBL was before 9-11. I admit that i only started to check on him after Kenyan US Embassy attack. and Republicans were only interested in making clinton's day bad. "lobbing" missiles got him shit load of criticism already. if he sent troops, guess what. If Republicans shut up and listen to Clintons words and followed him, who knows?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The depleted military and intelligence agencies are the reason why 09/11 slipped under our radar. And it's not like we couldn't of taken care of Afghanistan with a little air power and a hand ful of special forces (basically what's in there now). But look at what we've done in Iraq. Even though the Iraqi military isn't exactly a giant army, it's still a logistical triumph.<span id='postcolor'>

more like lack of self-improvement deficiency. FBI and CIA started to mess themselves up and was unable to get away from habitual cold war mentality and get along with new form of threat. Intelligence community knew UBL was at the compund where tomhawks struck(only a few hours late), so how's that for evidence of intelligence? another reason current intelligence has more achievement is that a lot more resources are focusing on UBL and Iraq.

and back then getting airspace to even send the Spec Forces was impossible. Pakistan was under US's anger, Soviet states did not want US in their space. so only option was to use missiles.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As long as we agree on one thing.

I think that's a fundamental difference between the two parties: interpretation of the constitution.<span id='postcolor'>

yup

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i'm merely replying to your post since you are the one who started drifting this thread this way. <span id='postcolor'>

But I... then you... and I... *head explodes*<span id='postcolor'>

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Canada's system is reversed to that... we elect our Prime Minister, then he selects his caucus from members of his party.<span id='postcolor'>

Eh? We elect MP's and whichever party has the most seats becomes the ruling party, and it's leader, the PM. The PM then appoints senate members for life to cushy jobs that they don't have to show up to and also appoints Supreme Court justices.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And that vote of confidence deal is crap.  Did the Gun Registry vote pass?  I sure as hell hope not.  I bet that will be one of the first things to get the axe when we finally get a new Government. <span id='postcolor'>

Of course it did. Jean is very sensitive when it comes to admitting that he was wrong. Dumping a faulty gun registry would show that he was wrong, same deal with the Navy helicopters; they won't be replaced until he is out of office. Go figure.

I too wish that we had term limitations in Canada. It would have shortened the terms of idiots like Trudeau and Chretien.

Tyler

[110 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,07:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 11 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also heard that some other democrats are trying to reduce the number of votes they need to pass something in the senate.  why is it that the democrats seem to not like democracy?<span id='postcolor'>

well, it's still the vote by ppl, so it is democracy. "demo" comes from Greek meaning "mass" or "people" and "cracy" meaning "rule of". so democracy is where ppl rule not a dictator. this doesn't say how it will be implemented as long as people can hold politician's fate.<span id='postcolor'>

The USA is not a democracy - it is a republic. A truly democratic system would mean that each and every eligible voter would create and enact the laws of the land. This is not what happens in America. The people vote for representatives to create and enact laws for them.

In straight-up political theory, there are two types of representatives.

1 - the representative who acts exactly in accordance with the majority opinion of his/her constituency.

2 - the representative who acts according to his or her own beliefs, doing this based on the logic that he or she was elected based on his or her own moral values and wisdom, even if it does not always coincide with the views, beliefs and morals of the body politic.

As you may know, the 2nd type of representative is what the vast, vast, vast majority of American politicians are at every level, from local to national.

And as for Democrats and Republicans, the names are quite misleading. Democrats don't necessarily favor democracy and Republicans don't necessarily favor a republic - they're just patriotic names for political organizations. "Democracy" and "Republic" are very treasured words to Americans, even if they don't know what they mean. They are just very old buzz words. You could call them the Pink and Purple parties and they would be no different.<span id='postcolor'>

RIGHT ON!!

Why do people concentrate on the Popular vote, but ignore the existance of the Electoral vote????

[Guest]

Ok...since I'm not from the US......a question.

Why was the amendment made in the first place? It seems in terms of US history that it's only a recent developement anyway. Most other democracies/republics (don't even think of flaming about that) don't have term limits and the people of those countries are just as well (or poorly) represented by their governments as Americans.

So what's the point? To stop dynasties? Well....let the people decide.....all 34 people in the USA who actually vote In some ways it is better to have the possibility of more terms.......what if (and I know it's unlikely) there was a President that people genuinly liked, and was doing good things for the country? Kick him out after 8 years? Seems to me to sending the message that US Presidents will always be unloved after 8 years, and aren't good enough to keep going, or far-sighted enough to have plans that involve a longer time frame.

The cheque for $0.02 is in the mail.

[Akira 0]

I shall weigh in my two cents

The US intelligence community was decimated under the Carter administration originally. Three Rupublican, and a Democrat later, they still aren't up to their Carter-era strength. Reagan of course started rebuilding, but his main focus was on actual arms build-up and his "600 Ship" navy.

Bush Sr. originally started the military cutbacks once the Cold War was won, including base closures. During this time it was thought that the world was a better place, and enemies did not exist. People (ie voters) started to wonder what the big military was for, if there was no enemies why did we need it? So reduction began. And when thousands of jobs started being lost for every base closed, only then did people start screaming again "We need the military!" Some bases have turned into profitable commercial enterprises. Some are still taking up space. In any case the military could forsee somewhat that future conflicts would not be fought as they expected. There would not be any mass Soviet tank divisions coming at them. They needed to restructure anyway.

Clinton continued the military "restructuring" and base closing. UBL of course was really heard from at this time, and the American public probably learned his name for the first time. It stuck in my mind, from the bombings and I watched him hopscotch across Africa and the Middle East. Of course I couldn't watch from American media...because they didn't care. Turkey ended up getting hold of him and offered him (with nice ribbon and everything) to Clinton. Clinton declined under pretense of "diplomatic reasons." What those were I don't know. But there is one reason why European's liked Clinton, besides being somewhat liberal. Clinton had more like a European-style of leadership, than what one could call "American." He was very diplomatic, very international, and very personable. He usually thought of issues in terms of a "whole community" rather than "us" and "them," sometimes to our benefit, and sometimes to the detriment of America.

Unfortunately, it is in the Party system to raise hell and cause a ruckus anytime someone of the opposite party tries to do anything, usually under the guise of ideology.

As for why the 22nd was brought about:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">22nd Amendment

Since the presidency of George Washington, only one thing could be said to be totally consistent - that no President had the job for more than two full terms. Washington had been asked to run for a third term in 1796, but he made it quite clear that he had no intention of doing so; that an orderly transition of power was needed to set the Constitution in stone. And so it was for almost 150 years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came time for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great gains in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with trouble in the Pacific, too. A change away from Roosevelt, who had lead the nation through the Great Depression, did not seem wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented third term, and won. It was not a landslide victory, however, and it is debatable that FDR would have had a third term had it not been for the war. When 1944 rolled around, changing leaders in the middle of World War II, which the United States was now fully engaged in, also seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a fourth term.

His life was nearly over, however, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR's death less than 100 days after his inauguration. Though FDR's leadership was seen by many as a key reason that the U.S. came out of WWII victorious, the Congress was determined, once the war ended, to ensure that Washington's self-imposed two-term limit become the law of the land. Specifically excepting Truman from its provisions, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a second term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951. Truman could have run for a third term, but bowed out early before campaigning began.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's an interesting amendment. It prohibits anyone from holding the office of President of the United States more than twice. It was adopted after FDR's multiple elections. FDR was so popular, that he won office four times, even though, during his final term, he was partially paralyzed, and in a wheelchair frequently.

Congress thought it was necessary to keep any one person from holding that much power for too long a period of time.

This is a good amendment, and keeps the reins of power firmly in the hands of the citizens.

It is also a good example of how a term limit amendment could be phrased that would limit the number of terms of office for Senators and Representatives.<span id='postcolor'>

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 13 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US intelligence community was decimated under the Carter administration originally. Three Rupublican, and a Democrat later, they still aren't up to their Carter-era strength.<span id='postcolor'>

This, of course, happened because the CIA was too big and inefficient. Remember Iran? In 1978 they were our allies and we had more CIA agents in that country than anywhere else. Yet they still were taken suprise by the Ayatollah's revolution. Thousands of agents in country and an entire revolution suprised them so overwhelmingly that our very own embassy was overrun. That's why Carter axed the CIA - because they weren't doing their job.

If I remember correctly, he did enormously boost funding into the NSA, though. It was at this point, and directly attributed to the Iranian Revolution, that the US became more interested in technical forms of espionage than in having people on the ground.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,13:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"that woman" was Monica Lewinsky, not Paula Jones. Paula's attorneys were trying to show that Clinton is a habitual sexaholic, and say that Paula was one of his victims. but being a sexaholic and being a victim is two different thing. they could have shown that Clinton is sexaholic, but that doesn't prove he harassed Paula.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe we're talking about different things. I'm talking about his trial before a grand jury.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Republicans shut up and listen to Clintons words and followed him, who knows? <span id='postcolor'>

And if the democrats did the same?

Ok, to be fair 09-11 wasn't that much Clinton's fault. It didn't really slip under our radar, we just didn't engage the target (we = FBI).

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 13 2003,131)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"that woman" was Monica Lewinsky, not Paula Jones. Paula's attorneys were trying to show that Clinton is a habitual sexaholic, and say that Paula was one of his victims. but being a sexaholic and being a victim is two different thing. they could have shown that Clinton is sexaholic, but that doesn't prove he harassed Paula.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe we're talking about different things.  I'm talking about his trial before a grand jury.<span id='postcolor'>

you can't goto a trial before seeing grand jury. perhaps you are talking about Paula Jones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Republicans shut up and listen to Clintons words and followed him, who knows? <span id='postcolor'>

And if the democrats did the same?

Ok, to be fair 09-11 wasn't that much Clinton's fault. It didn't really slip under our radar, we just didn't engage the target (we = FBI).<span id='postcolor'>

well, considering that if Republicans failed to listen despite a good warning, what gives them credibility to say they have better understanding? i.e. so should we trust them when they demonstrated their lack of knowledge?

unfortunately, Republicans are eager to call 9-11 a fault resulting from Clinton.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 14 2003,02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you can't goto a trial before seeing grand jury. perhaps you are talking about Paula Jones.<span id='postcolor'>

My boss says that he's committed two felonys, having sex with a subordinate and lying before a jury. Grand jury, jury, don't think it matters.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, considering that if Republicans failed to listen despite a good warning, what gives them credibility to say they have better understanding? i.e. so should we trust them when they demonstrated their lack of knowledge?<span id='postcolor'>

Since when was it the republican's responsibility to defend the country from terrorism? The FBI is the one that ignored the warnings.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">unfortunately, Republicans are eager to call 9-11 a fault resulting from Clinton.<span id='postcolor'>

They're tying his cutting the defense budget to a lack of intelligence leading to 09/11. Which is true and false. Yes the lowered state of intelligence lead to us letting our guard down and not being able to prevent 09/11. But it was also due to our open borders, lax airline security, low amount of attention paid to the threat of terrorism. Our freedoms were also abused to get the terrorists into the country. It wasn't all any one person's fault, but the democrats could of done things to prevent it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yes! A thread about American political theory, and I've limited myself to just 2 posts! Well, 3 now, but you know...

[Guest]

Now when we are discussing US politics, there's one thing that I havn't mentioned in previous discussions. It's a major flaw of the system:

How the hell can the juridical system be politicized? The US supreme court judges are representatives of political parties. Apart from USA only banana republics and dictatorships have that. The interpretation of the law is supposed to be free from political bias.

Last presidential elections gave a very good example of the dangers of such a system.

[FSPilot 0]

I don't think the judicial system is supposed to be so political. It just so happens that some judges are hoping for a political seat and do things to fit that need instead of enforcing the laws correctly like they're supposed to.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 13 2003,23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now when we are discussing US politics, there's one thing that I havn't mentioned in previous discussions. It's a major flaw of the system:

How the hell can the juridical system be politicized? The US supreme court judges are representatives of political parties. Apart from USA only banana republics and dictatorships have that. The interpretation of the law is supposed to be free from political bias.

Last presidential elections gave a very good example of the dangers of such a system.<span id='postcolor'>

The way i see it, the politicization of the judicial system is a direct result of the rise of judicial activism. Because suddenly the spirit of the law has become more as important as the spirit of the law, it is only natural that politicians will want the judiciary on their side. And because the appointment process runs directly through Congress, it is only natural that the politicians will attempt to exert what influence they have to get a judiciary that favors their politics.

[Guest]

We have very strict regulations for that. Any political activity or expressed political bias and you can forget a seat on the supreme court. Also while the candidates are approved by the parliament, they are selected through the judicial system's own beaurocratic system, not by the cabinet nor the parliament. It's imperative that the judges don't have political bias since it would be considered ruining the whole judicial system. The point of having fixed laws is for them to be absolutes, not something open to political interpretation.