BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST, Claymore
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 05:24 PM

There are a couple of thoughts which the liberals might want to consider before they advocate repealing the 22nd ammendment. There are several past presidents which would have easily won a third or perhaps a fourth term past FDR and prior to Clinton.

"I like Ike" Had he run he would have beat the pants off of Kennedy, who barely won against Nixon on the Chicago graveyard vote. Ike could have run till he died. Then Nixon would have been handed the Presidentcy without running. And Ike crushed Truman in every poll of the time.

"Morning in America" He crushed Carter, and Bush the Elder won off his coat-tails despite the Iran Contra affair. Bush would have eventually taken the Presidentcy like Nixon above.

Clinton never had the pluralities of these two and and he would have had to run when he was in his sixties (which by then might matured him enough to keep his pants on)...

Something to think about...

And I really like the idea of Bush running against Clinton. After Monica, Travel Gate, File Gate, and Pardon Gate, and the fact that few if any Democrats outside of the liberal Northeast, still do not speak Clintons name, I think you guys are kidding yourselves...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Jun 03 - 01:02 PM

NicoleC and O'Meara,

A significant reason behind the electoral college was that it was perceived to protect states' rights by adding extra electors to the delegations of small states. So, for example, a state with enough people for 20 congressmen gets 22 electors, or 1.1 per congressional district. But a state with enough people for 1 congressman gets three electors, or three per congressional district, almost three times as many electoral votes per person. In this way, the college was intended to meld the ideas of direct democracy and independent but federated states.

The problem comes in the way the electoral college works in practice, which is NOT spelled out in the constitution. Most states have all their electors vote the same way, so if 51 % of the state votes democrat, 100% of the electors do. This re-introduces the very problem the college was meant to help mitigate: the big states dominate. It's counter-intuitive, too boot: why should electors be assigned in this way? So, some form of proportional representation in the college would go a long way to relieving the problem the college introduces, and it's a state-level issue, not a constitutional one. If the EC voted proportionally, Gore would be President today.

Instant run off voting is another issue entirely. It allows for third party votes to be reassigned to a second choice candidate of the voter's choosing if no candidate achieves a simple majority. This would relieve our other problem, which is that third parties screw up elections. So the more popular general viewpoints (to be convenient we can use "liberal" and "conservative" here) will usually lose, because more candidates holding that general viewpoint will usually share the votes. Nader was a more significant draw than Buchanan in our last election, which affected the outcome. with IRV, most of Buchanan's votes would have been reassigned to Bush, Nader's to Gore, and the other third parties to whoever. In the end we'd have a president that more than 50% of Americans put in the top 2, and that's probably not the president we have today--though the election was close, so who knows.

Incidentally, one of the things that cracks me up when party hacks of either side wax lyrical about how their policies are true to the founding fathers was that our system was designed to operate without political parties. Hamilton was quite clear when helping devise the electoral system that parties would screw it up by introducing impediments to the people expressing their will. But within a decade or so, the elections were dominated by parties!

One of the reasons these laws seldom change, and IRV or proportional representation are rarely implemented in US elections, is that the people in power at any particular time are by definition those who have most recently benefitted from the status quo!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: The O'Meara
Date: 31 May 03 - 08:26 PM

Nicole C:A lot of people are confused about the electoral college. The E.C. system was set up because the founding fathers figured the aversge citizen didn't have the backgound or the knowledge or the time to study up on the candidates and elect a decent, competent president. They knew that direct democracy, where everyone votes on everything, was so clumsy and time-consuming it couldn't work if the voting population was larger than one. (Thats why the U.S. is a republic.)So the idea is we, the general public, elect people to represent us, who are smart and honest and knowledgeable and they elect a president.
    Some people say Thomas Jefferson was an elitist for pushing the electoral college idea, and maybe they're right. But the further we get away from it the more sleaze bags and crooks we elect based on 2 minutes of saxophone playing on MTV or a 10-second sound bite that sounds like a soft drink jingle. (Yes, there have been lots of them, including Nixon and Clinton.)
    Irish sergeant; I don't mean to suggest Clinton was the least competent or sleaziest president the U.S. has ever had. (He couldn't even get that right.)He's just the sleaziest most incompetent president in my lifetime. Nixon was a close second, I'll admit.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 31 May 03 - 03:57 AM

"make polling days a national holiday like it is in most of the civilized world." - er... which countries are they then?

We don't get a day off to vote in the UK, only those people whose buildings are used (schools, colleges) as polling stations get the day off.

Maybe the problem is that, in the States, most of the schools remain open that day, thus giving the problem of no space, no security.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Blackcatter
Date: 31 May 03 - 01:45 AM

Hello,

I was suggesting teachers, but that's not absolute.

The concept is - at least in my county and much of Florida (yeah, I know, not Florida again!) is that we have trouble finding buildings large enough and with enough parking for polling places. Why do I know this? I was in charge of finding polling places and poll workers for Orange County (Orlando) in 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998. I had to find over 250 polling places and hire 1800 poll workers.

Why is it hard to find polling places? 1) not enough public buildings other than schools. 2) schools are over-crowed, don't have "empty" rooms for polling and have nearly full parking lots on Tuesdays. 3) We do use churches, but in the Bible Belt many denominations including the Southern Baptist say no to us holding elections in their churches. 4) If theres an issue such as gambling, more churches say no. 5) Many older churches are not compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and polling places have to be, by law. - This includes entrances, parking, bathrooms, etc. 6) We use fire stations when available, but they are dangerous to use for some-odd reason. 7) Many newly developed areas are huge tracts of houses occasionally interspersed with strip malls and grocery stores - not place to hold elections. 10% of my polling places were not even within the precinct which is definately frowned upon.

Making election day a holiday would work, but that would be 3 - 4 holidays in many states. The primarys, run-offs and general elections. On top of that, Orange County has multiple cities that hold elections throughout each year (not just state & national election years). While many of those could be moved, it would usually require ammending the cities' charter and on top of that there are always special elections for offices left vacant by promotion or death, bond issues, votes for new incorporation, etc (for instance, the City of Orlando just had a special election for mayor because our previous mayor went to Tallahassee to take over the job that Katherine Harris held (remember her?)).

Move elections to Saturdays would work. There are enough schools to use as polling places (we already double up some of our precincts in a couple high schools) The parking lots would be free, the electricity is up to code (computers are finicky about that), they're all ADA compliant, etc.

Why teachers? 1) They could use the extra pay, 2) They're reliable and used to working with people who don't know what their doing (like principals). 3) They understand computers (typically 60% of my poll workers were over the age of 65. They mostly don't understand computers, found it difficult to follow the legal proceedures required to make it a legit election, get tired during a work day that begins at 6am and ends at 7pm or later, and can get confused and or frustrated)

Depressing story: About 20% of our poll workers are poll deputies. They help keep order at the polls and are considered to be part of the Sheriff's Office. As such the Sheriff runs a quick check to see if they have any outstanding warrants. We tell the applicants that they will be checked for warrants and send them to the Sheriff Office to get their badges made. In 1998, I had 37 applicants who had outstnading warrants and were arrested when they went to get their badge. That's ove 10% of the people who wanted to be poll deputies. Yeesh.

And that's about it. Insiders know that the debacle of 2000 in Florida was primarily due to human error. Partly the error of poll workers (in Miami-Dade county, the average age of a poll worker is 73) and partly the error of the voter (who could be helped by better poll workers). Florida is not alone. It just happened that we were very close. If one of the candidates had had a significant lead, you wouldn't have heard one-tenth the noise made about our mistakes.

Gee - did I write all that? Must be the hurricanes from Pat O'Briens talking.

pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:58 PM

There are many here, Art, particularly in City Council and school Board positions. But the Green party is strong enough here to be able to afford running people for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:48 PM

I do see a few in New Mexico, Nicole, but where are the candidates for school board, county auditor, state rep (other than write-in), and so forth...except for a couple in the boondocks?   That's the sort of thing I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:42 PM

Art, 3rd party candidates frequently run for local offices. (And are doing rather well in CA.) However, they rarely have money for any kind of press or publicity, so you rarely hear about them. The Dems and Repubs are usually funded by the party itself.

Here's a list of 2002 Green candidates, and who got elected for what.
http://greens.org/elections/

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:36 PM

well i always figured clinton dyed his hair grey...to make himself seem more mature....which obviously didn't work...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:33 PM

Couldn't agree more, MMario.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:30 PM

Personally, I'd love to see 3rd party candidates running for an office lower than Governor...they need to learn the system, by which I mean how to work with citizens and other local representatives to get the job done, before I'd trust them to run the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: MMario
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:29 PM

What sane man (or woman) would WANT more than 8 years in the bleeding Oval Office - have you watched the way they age while in office? ALL of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 May 03 - 01:26 PM

Too hard to change the day we vote for the Prez (in the Constitution); just make polling days a national holiday like it is in most of the civilized world.

Also too hard to get rid of the electoral college (again, Constitution), but a state by state implementation of instant run-off voting would have almost the same effect, while allowing people to vote for 3rd party candidates without feeling guilty for not playing the odds by voting for a Dem or Repub.

Why pick on teachers to run the polls? Heck, my polling place is a LOT more convenient than the elementary school -- it's the church on the corner. We SHOULD, however, require high school students to volunteer (supervised) to help out the regular workers. Once they know what going to vote looks like on the inside, maybe they won't be so afraid to go when it's their turn to start voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Blackcatter
Date: 30 May 03 - 12:14 PM

Solving this problem would be simple. Open up our democracy so that third party candidates have a resonable chance to be elected to local, state and national offices. Require parties to develop coalitions to chose who the leadershie of the House and Senate are, change the way we elect the president to a simple popular vote, and change voting days to Saturday, have a polling place at every elementary school and use teachers to run the polls.

And just admit that George W. Bush would be one of the first persons to sign up with the Nazi Party in Germany, 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 03 - 12:12 PM

how many good presidents have we had the last thirty years???

i don't think i can count that low...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: annamill
Date: 30 May 03 - 12:03 PM

Waitaminit! We would still get to vote, wouldn't we? If the majority of americans want (though I couldn't imagine why, for heaven's sake) Bush or Clinton back, shouldn't they have the right to do so? How many good (were there any?) presidents were thrown out after their second term? If we happen to,have someone we all liked, I would like to know it was possible to keep him as long as he continued to meet the needs. Or, we could just get rid of him. We could change the elections to two years for safty sake.

Here again, I may not have all the facts for a rational opinion on the matter.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 May 03 - 04:56 AM

Just goes to prove that those who express a desire for office are usually those most unsuited to carry it out.

Just think - we could still have Reagan and Thatcher carving up the world between them....

"He promised to follow her to the end of the earth - She promised to arrange it for him....."

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:02 PM

yeah welll we know that Nixon sure never disgraced the presidency..... *rollseyes*

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 May 03 - 09:58 PM

Bill Clinton was and still is a sleazy character who wanted to be admired as president and have a good time but never figured to seriously do the job. He did more to destroy the dignity of the office than all the rest combined and contributed mightily to the decay of any sort of ethical standards in America. He was a totally political president who made decisions with no consideration other than increasing his personal popularity, particularly among "soccer moms" that he would have been happy to prey upon individually if given the chance.
    I wonder at times how he managed to get elected for two terms, (during which time he accomplished nothing good whatsoever,) then I recall the comment by the columnist H. L. Mencken "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the average American."

Good God. No quarrel with having the right to your opinion but it certainly clarifies why this country is so deeply divided.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 29 May 03 - 07:01 PM

true enough, Bobert...personally I think Spaw would be a better candidate than any of those jokers that are running on the dem side....and the greenies...they don't have a chance....the working class is screwed...

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 03 - 06:52 PM

Yeah, Doug, yer probably right. But if there's anything at all left tom steal from the working class, then bets are off. But taht's unlikely. I'm purdy sure we'll be comnpletely fleeced by then.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 03 - 06:10 PM

I think the 22nd Amendment should stand just as it is. No president is indespensible. Frankly, I think GWB will be perfectly content to retire to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he finishes his term in 2008. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 29 May 03 - 04:29 PM

Roosevelt might be the reason the 22nd amendment was added to the constitution but several have evinced an interest in repealing it not just Clinton. Reagan and Nixon to name two.
   Clinton is a sleaze bag but to be honest, The O'Meara, he certainly was not the worst president in our history. I suggest you read up on Buchannan's administration or that of Ulysses S. Grant who as a soldier was a first rate commander but as a president was quite possibly the worst one in our history. Although he was personally hionest, some of thiose chosern for his cabinet were not. There is a reason Rutherford B. Hayes was referred to as "Rutherfraud". Moving ahead, we get Herbert Hoover, and before him Calvin Coolidge. And of course talking about sleaze bags, who can forget Warren G. Harding or John F. Kennedy. All presidents are political. Just be careful in voting to repeal the 22nd amendment because this administration wants to be a dictatorship. (All government does) Read the USA PAtriot bill and the PAtriot 2 act. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 May 03 - 04:27 PM

Ha ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Gareth
Date: 29 May 03 - 03:17 PM

John Hardley Mmmm ... Kings maybe, Magna Carta possibly, but a large and sharp axe - definitely.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: The O'Meara
Date: 29 May 03 - 02:08 PM

The last great president we had was Teddy Roosevelt. It's all been downhill since then.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: The O'Meara
Date: 29 May 03 - 02:05 PM

Bill Clinton was and still is a sleazy character who wanted to be admired as president and have a good time but never figured to seriously do the job. He did more to destroy the dignity of the office than all the rest combined and contributed mightily to the decay of any sort of ethical standards in America. He was a totally political president who made decisions with no consideration other than increasing his personal popularity, particularly among "soccer moms" that he would have been happy to prey upon individually if given the chance.
    I wonder at times how he managed to get elected for two terms, (during which time he accomplished nothing good whatsoever,) then I recall the comment by the columnist H. L. Mencken "Nobody ever lost money underestimating the average American."
    Mencken also said "An American presidential election is a thundering battle to the death between tweedledum and tweedledee." Richard Nixon also looked into the 22nd amendment business.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 03 - 01:53 PM

This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. He is a globalist the same as the Bushes are (Bush # 1 was ambassador to Communist China and re-organized the CIA to import drugs for the 'war on drugs' so America could begin amassing a labor pool of incarcerated slaves). Clinton is the monkey dancing for the crowd while the pickpockets do their work. Bush is the one who will benefit from this. As in all crimes, you look to see who benefits. And in this one, it's Bush. President for life, folks. Electronic vote counting is now pre-programmed, so GWBush or one of his drunken daughters will be our 'Beloved Leader' until you draw your last breath if this goes through.

And New York state...Chuck Schumer. Yeah, you have some real winners there.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:27 PM

I'm with Nerd and I think there are a lot of others who feel the same...Clinton is definitely capabable of repairing all of the damage shrub has caused and I think he's the only one who stands a chance at a clear shot at wining in 2004. The other Dems stand a chance, just not as clear, unless the public starts paying attention to the admission of lies about WMD's, the plans to now invade Iran, etc.

I don't think Hillary could win if she ran for pres.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:11 PM

>It ran great until some egomaniac who thought the country couldn't do without his stellar "leadership" decided to run and run and run and run.

Except that folks were happy to keep voting for him, which hardly makes Roosevelt evil or unsavory for doing what the law allowed, whether you like him or not.

Until the 22nd Amendment, there was no restriction of any kind. In 1947, the amendment was proposed because, "By reason of the lack of a positive expression upon the subject of the tenure of the office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has risen in the past that no President should have more than two terms in that office, much discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this . . . [proposal] . . . to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this question, and if they shall so elect, they may . . . thereby set at rest this problem."

Custom, as defined by some, not law. No point in villifying Roosevelt.

As for returning Clinton to office... why make that mistake again? I'm sure we can vote in a whole new mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:11 PM

Hmmmmm. There is no such rule in Canada, where prime ministers can be elected any number of times in a row (and have been on some occasions). However, Canada is a very different kettle of fish from the USA. In the USA I think it's a good idea to limit the office to just 2 terms for any one person.

The real problem though, is this: The guys who really run the system are not people you will ever have a chance to vote for, and they are there for life. Clinton and Bush are just their front men. It's a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy and going through the motions every 2 years to keep the people believing they are free.

That is the case in Canada as well. If a man believes consciously that he is free, is he? There's one for the philosophers to debate...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DonMeixner
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:04 PM

Beccy,

Can't say about presidencies but as a State government official Hilary has done a good job. As far as crawling skin goes you never met Alphose D'Amato did you? But the political pool would have to be very shallow indeed before I'd vote for a Carpet Bagging Clinton in this state.

New York state has been blessed with great Republicans and great Democrats over the years. But on a state level they aren't in charge now. I think it has gone beyond a Rep. and Dem. thing and become an Us vs. Them thing with no compromise or bi-partisanism allowed.

Then we get loons like Guest who is ashamed of his own name telling us open discussion is the cause of all politically change and should be avoided. Not only is such a notion stupid in the extreme it is contrary to common sense and maybe even defies the constitutional idea of free speach.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Beccy
Date: 29 May 03 - 11:47 AM

I think the real point here is that Clinton has lost all vestiges of subtlety and has really told us what he wants. He wants the admiration of EVERY person in America and he wants to be President-For-Life. Whoever suggested Clinton as governor of NY and Hillary as prez has the distinct honour of having made my skin crawl. As my 5 year old would say, "Yuck. Yuck. Double Yuck."

Someone suggested that the country ran well prior to the 22nd amendment. Sure it did! It ran great until some egomaniac who thought the country couldn't do without his stellar "leadership" decided to run and run and run and run. Since someone had already broken that unwritten rule, they realized they had to write it. It's one of those moments you can't take back in history.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 May 03 - 11:15 AM

I would actually relish the notion of BILL Clinton running against Bush in 2004 (I know we're talking fantasy here). It would either underline, or give a clearer view of the divide in our country, or it would be the ultimate healer.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Nerd
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:56 AM

Hey, remember, the country worked pretty good without the amendment. We're not talking about revoking the Bill of Rights here. On the other hand, two for life has worked pretty well too and I don't really see a big difference between two consecutive and two for life. Clinton says it probably wouldn't apply to him, but only because it could never go through in time. What he's really thinking is he's the only Dem with a hope in Hades of beating Bush in 2004!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:39 AM

Watch the 'hillbilly' stuff. You really are a card, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:39 AM

Hey, nothin' wrong with a monarchy.....with a good king....

....and a real good magna carta.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 03 - 10:31 AM

But this is just how it starts. Discussing a change at all is inappropriate. They get a grinning hillbilly to kick it off, and then we have a president-for-life. Some of these things are so simple you can see the end in chapter one.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Kim C
Date: 29 May 03 - 09:36 AM

Well, that shows how ignorant I am. I always thought it was two consecutive terms. But I went to look it up, and sure enough, it's two terms in a lifetime. I was probably getting it confused with the Tennessee governorship, which is two consecutive terms. At least I think so. If I go look that up I may find out differently!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 May 03 - 09:03 AM

Good for her...you go, gal!!

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DonMeixner
Date: 29 May 03 - 09:01 AM

I think Bill Clinton is lining up to run for Gov of NY State. And Hilary is aiming at President or a high cabinet post next time around.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 May 03 - 06:38 AM

the 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime," Clinton said.

The former president said such a change probably wouldn't apply to him but would benefit future generations.

So, apart from the persons you have mentioned, would it be good or would it be bad? Imagine the change came and would be worded to be only applicable for future presidents, so you don't have to worry about Clinton and Bush.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 29 May 03 - 05:32 AM

Please, be more careful when naming threads - I though Clinton Hammond was about to run for President..... more than my brain could cope with!

We could do well to have something similar here in the UK - 18+ years of Conservative government (too many of them with Maggie steering) during which our Unions were also castrated, many of our traditional trades and occupations destroyed, public institutions sold off and privatised, our heritage sold down the river and millions of pounds of taxpayers money wasted on useless constructions and fat cat payouts (the Conservative government instigated the Millennium Dome, the Labour party just took it over and screwed us even further) have not done the country any favours.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Hrothgar
Date: 29 May 03 - 04:47 AM

I think Bill really wants to be Governor of Arkansas again. That's where the behavioural standards come from.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: alanabit
Date: 29 May 03 - 03:37 AM

Hey Doug, does that mean the job description just says you have to f*** the economy and f*** the secretary? If it does, where can I apply?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DougR
Date: 29 May 03 - 02:33 AM

Who can blame Clinton? He had a helluva lot of fun, evidently, in the oval office. Why shouldn't he want to be president again?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: M.Ted
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:30 AM

He just means that everyone has a different way of undermining the nation, Guest. Technically speaking, burying Iraqi soldiers alive(or anyone, for that matter) is an outrage, as opposed to an embarassment. Neither one counts as a plus.

As for St. Bill, he seems to have encouraged "W" in this whole Iraq business. If there is one thing people never seem to learn, it is that the person who most influences a new president is the president before him.

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 03 - 12:11 AM

Bush Sr. buried Iraqi soldiers alive in pits, Don. Is that morally righteous?

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: DonMeixner
Date: 28 May 03 - 11:43 PM

It takes a Republican to fiscally bankrupt the nation, it take one Democrat to morally bankrupt the nation.

Don "Still proud enough to sign my own name." Meixner

Subject: RE: BS: Clinton wants to change 22nd Amendment
From: Bobert
Date: 28 May 03 - 11:04 PM

Yeah, that's just what we need. The Republican of all Republicans! Forget it.....

Bobert