So Clinton could be elected VP and, if anything happened to Kerry, become Prez? (I'm groggy... this is a weird subject to become un-groggy with)
The article misrepresents Kerry on almost every point. I've read and listened to what Kerry has to say and this article is way off. Kerry never said that he would abandon the war on terror. Kerry is juts going to do a better job of leading that war on terror, and work better with our allies on that war. That just sounds like smart politics to me, and is in no way appeasement. There is also no example of Kerry pushing appeasement. Discussions with other nations is a proven way to progress. Let's look at the Camp David Accords with Egypt and Israel. That agreement has held for more than 25 years. It's amazing what can be accomplished when we don't have hamfisted clods in charge.
ELAINE: So, you weren't born here? FRANK: No. That's why I can never be president.. It always irked me. That's why, even at an early age, I had no interest in politics. I refuse to vote. (Yelling out) They don't want me, I don't want them!
Name one bigotted stereotype in my post. I dare you. Typical of you liberals. Drop the atomic bomb of racist or bigot when you don't have a leg to stand on in arguing the issues. When have you ever met a died in the wool liberal who wasn't: A- a total feminized girly-man B- a huge fan of 4 buck lattes, Volvos, Greenpeace, Hildabeast and anything European. C- Not a fan of organized religion in anyway, except worshipping Mother Earth, Ralph Nader and women with armpit hair. D- a person who constantly evaluated themselves to lessen their impact on the environment. E- Anti-any war except when it is a useless peacekeeping boondoogle. F- A Bush hater. Someone who believes that GWB is responsible for every evil in the world, runs over puppies and kittens with his truck in Crawford and cusses in front of your mother to boot. G- A numbnuts that believes that they and only they are smart enough to rule the country and the rubes in "flyover country" are a bunch of inbred yokels who exist only to be taxed to paying for the leeches known as the "less fortunate" in the liberal lexicon. Your guy is a loser and only one person, the horrifically stereotyping anti-Southern bigot NYROCKET was able to admit as much, be it grudgingly. Of course he replies with the Diebold conspiracy theory mularkey, just like you liberals admitted your voters were dumber than dirt because they couldn't figure out an easy little butterfly ballot. Bush stole the election, you cry. What sore losers you guys are. I've never seen it where one's name fit who they are, Chump. Go play with your hackey sack and discuss amongst your liberal friends how you supposedly put one of those evil, bible-thumping, moralist (heaven forbid we answer to a higher power) who want to rape and pillage the Earth in the name of capitalism in his place.
I just don't think the Supreme Court would see it that way. Seems to me that the intent was to prevent any one person from serving as President for more than two terms (or potentially 10 years total). The intent was to make them ineligible to be President (and something that would extend to the VP, as well) rather than simply being a procedural election thing.
That's fine and dandy and comes down to intent vs. plain meaning of the language; however you want to come down on that is tenable from either side (to be "elected" and to be "eligible for" something are two different things, it's not like the drafters of the 22nd amdt just haphazardly picked their language, they could have easily picked "eligible" as well had they chosen too, they did not, but I digress); anyway, that's separate and apart from your supposition that interpreting the 22nd amendment that way is inconsistent with Article II and would allow a foreigner to become president.
We don't have any real allies, except for the ones with the courage to follow us into Iraq. France and Germany are obstacles to our intentions to destroy terrorism. There is nothing smart in putting oneself beholden to the UN in this regard. All of the states harboring terrorists are: A. members of the UN B. are being helped by other members seeking to one-up our sovereignty. If we have to go it alone because the world hates us, so be it. Kerry would just allow our need to destroy these folks (which is going to be a process of years and years) be sidetracked in the parlimentary mess of autocrats and hypocrites that is the UN. Washington warned us of entangling alliances and this is a big one. As for Carter and his Camp David Accords, that was perhaps the only noteworth accomplishment of his pathetic presidency. Giving away the Panama Canal, selling out one of our staunch allies in the region (Iran) and letting the Soviets run roughshod over us in world affairs were among his biggest failures. Allowing our embassy to be taken over was another. I'm glad there is a hamfisted clod in charge, because at least we will quit talking and take some action.
Yosemite, we're still anxiously awaiting your screed in the Unemployment thread, http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73908 Why are you backing down?
My supposition was based on the idea that parts of the Constitution don't apply because the Amendment says something else. The intent of the Amendment seems clear. But under these terms, a President could conceivably serve indefinitely. He just has a proxy run as President and he run as VP, only to have the proxy step aside on January 21.
Using your inane sense of "logic" I can now safely say that I have never met a man from Alabama who: A. Didn't have sex with his underage cousin (male or female) B. Didn't think that squirrel meat was "fahn dahnin'" C. Hadn't actually lived out the "squeal like a pig" scene in "Deliverance" D. Had pants that actually covered his asscrack when he bends over. E. Had more than four front teeth F. Didn't drink Old Crow whiskey for breakfast G. Didn't think that George W. Bush was the greatest President in history simply because "he's a G-d fearin' Christian sumbitch." See, bama....anybody can make stupid logical conclusions on this BBS. Anybody.
But the amendment doesn't say anything about foreign born citizens being eligible. It doesn't say anything about eligibility at all; that's prof. gillers' point. Anyway, yes, your elect-and-resign scenario is a remote possibility, but I don't know if you could challenge it on that point until such a thing actually happened; as there would be no case or controversy to decide.
Insert long list of stereotypes. This message sponsored by Ten Thousand Spoons, a Limited Irony Corporation. Hey, settle down, Beavis! I'm FROM the south! Of course my reluctance to live amongst possum ranchers and Home Shopping Network lovers might be reasonably construed as anti-southern. Say, I actually have stashed about somewhere a t-shirt that reads 'Long Live Our Confederate Heritage' that I picked up along the way. Let me see if I can find it and I'll send it along to you. I would say that my admission that Kerry's a near certain loser was made not begrudgingly but morosely. And you know as well as I do that the Diebold machines are easily compromised. You inspired me to check up on my friends at the Unification Church. Once upon a time I lived down the street from one of their larger US churches in DC, I had a friend who worked for the Times and a professor who wrote for Insight, so I've always been mildy amused by their special brand of lunacy. A little poking around yielded this: Cute, huh? Anyway, gotta jump in the Renault and grab a latte before the Greenpeace meeting.
I'm a liberal. Let's see how I stack up... I don't think so. Not me. Don't like any kind of coffee, can't afford a Volvo, cetainly don't like European Fascists any more than I do American ones. I'm a Methodist. I do like the woods and the desert though. I don't like armpit hair. Not constantly. I do when I'm on fires in a National Park or a wilderness area. I also try not to do really stupid stuff like pour used motor oil down the storm drains and I do recycle per my communities abilities. By the way, what exactly is wrong with lessening your impact? Again, not me. Supported Afghanistan and all wars that are in the national interest... in my view, Grenada and Iraq don't qualify. I've seen Bush in his truck and I have a hard time believing he could handle that big of a rig. My guess is he just keeps it in first between the barn and house so he looks good for the cameras. On the other point, he's not responsible for every evil in the world, he's just allowed them to flourish... and he probably would cuss in front of my mother. I live in "flyover country." I know I'm not smart enough nor skilled enough to be President ("rule" sounds so European). I also know that the same applies to W.
What's the point of ignore when everyone quotes posts from the most ignorable neck on the board? The more you guys feed the trolls the more convinced they become that "numbnuts" and "latte-loving" = arguments. You might as well spend your days arguing philosophy with Andrew Dice Clay. 'You're such a dum dum that your mama eats doodoo while she votes for liberal p*****s who can't tell their buttholes from a hole in the ozone.' Discuss. Or ignore. I can't believe this is a difficult choice.
Exactly why I don't use that feature. If I did, I would've only seen that ****ed up idiotic post by our resident inbred in other people's quotes. Let's see, rimrocker's a fire fighter, bamainbred is a journalist. Who's manlier? God, let's just hope he doesn't post a pic of his penis. It appears that's the next step. That does beg the question, do inbreds have penises?
I honestly love the fact that, despite all evidence to the contrary, some people continue to assert that Iraq is part of the war on terror, and that opposing Iraq is opposing the war on terror. Depending on the age of these people, I would like to know if they still hold hard and fast to the Domino Theory.
