Obama maximum 2 terms...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OFFascist

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
985
0
0
Obama scares me not so much the man himself, but all of the cultists that seem enthralled by him, making him out to be some sort of Messiah and this thread is an example of that.

I support the rights of individuals. I do not favor mob rule.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
I like the 2-term amendment and want to see it stay. It had been a custom rather than the law prior to FDR, when George Washington voluntarily stepped down after serving 2 terms. This gesture has often been considered the final step towards our country's democracy, considering that Washington had enough power that he almost could have declared himself king.
FDR only chose to run for a 3rd term because of the pressures of the war in Europe. As I recall, it was Churchill who talked him into it, and that because the Republicans at the time were sticking to their isolationist position. The decision for a 4th run was more or less out of his hands, FDR's health was so bad by then.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Yeah, because the Democrats are so damned good at winning re-election. Get back to me when you figure out how many presidents that were democrats got re-elected since Roosevelt? Not counting Clinton. The only reason Clinton did was because of the Republicans holding Congress. There never would have been a balanced budget with Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass. People get tired of being gored and then we get at least two terms of Republicans as a result. People have short memories and usually vote their wallet.

It is unlikely Obama can even get elected anyway.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass.


and republicans love having unjust wars and fleecing the middle class. you sir, are a moron. The issues are deeper then both these statements even if both have some truth.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Yeah, because the Democrats are so damned good at winning re-election. Get back to me when you figure out how many presidents that were democrats got re-elected since Roosevelt? Not counting Clinton. The only reason Clinton did was because of the Republicans holding Congress. There never would have been a balanced budget with Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass. People get tired of being gored and then we get at least two terms of Republicans as a result. People have short memories and usually vote their wallet.

It is unlikely Obama can even get elected anyway.

Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:

How will taxes fall when gov't spending will go up?

If Obama wins, he'll appoint Deval Patrick onto his staff, who will implement universal health care for all(like he's done in MA). Expect your taxes to go way up.

 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:

How will taxes fall when gov't spending will go up?

If Obama wins, he'll appoint Deval Patrick onto his staff, who will implement universal health care for all(like he's done in MA). Expect your taxes to go way up.

Except he has already stated where he will get the money from. Questions which I and others have answered numerous times on this forum and are answered at his website. Jesus, do most voters get all there information from 5 minute FW:fW:FW;FW;FW:FWObamamuslimterrorist will raise your traxes!!"? The information to questions or statements people have can be confirmed or denied with literally 5 minutes of searching but people are too lazy to bother. (Well, my email would never lie to me!)
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
How will taxes fall when gov't spending will go up?

If Obama wins, he'll appoint Deval Patrick onto his staff, who will implement universal health care for all(like he's done in MA). Expect your taxes to go way up.

Well when we aren't spending trillions in Iraq the government can actual do things at home that have a direct positive impact in most peoples lives. Unless you are a war profiteer thats in the top 5% then you are really screwed but I don't care about you.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:

How will taxes fall when gov't spending will go up?

If Obama wins, he'll appoint Deval Patrick onto his staff, who will implement universal health care for all(like he's done in MA). Expect your taxes to go way up.

Except he has already stated where he will get the money from. Questions which I and others have answered numerous times on this forum and are answered at his website. Jesus, do most voters get all there information from 5 minute FW:fW:FW;FW;FW:FWObamamuslimterrorist will raise your traxes!!"? The information to questions or statements people have can be confirmed or denied with literally 5 minutes of searching but people are too lazy to bother. (Well, my email would never lie to me!)

And you do know that those are just assumptions. Put down the Kool-Aid and come back to reality.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
And you do know that those are just assumptions. Put down the Kool-Aid and come back to reality.

What is reality? War? Corporate greed? tax breaks for the ultra rich? religious doctrine injected into public life? Policies that go against scientific reason? No thank you. I will take a little hope please with the chance of a better reality in the future.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: RichardE
Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:

How will taxes fall when gov't spending will go up?

If Obama wins, he'll appoint Deval Patrick onto his staff, who will implement universal health care for all(like he's done in MA). Expect your taxes to go way up.

Except he has already stated where he will get the money from. Questions which I and others have answered numerous times on this forum and are answered at his website. Jesus, do most voters get all there information from 5 minute FW:fW:FW;FW;FW:FWObamamuslimterrorist will raise your traxes!!"? The information to questions or statements people have can be confirmed or denied with literally 5 minutes of searching but people are too lazy to bother. (Well, my email would never lie to me!)

And you do know that those are just assumptions. Put down the Kool-Aid and come back to reality.

Kool-aid? Yeah, ok mr "Look, I'm smart, I can use a derogatory answer ahahah" Seriously, both sides do it. People are ignorant as hell about McCain, people are ignorant as hell as Obama, they will vote with whoever puts more dollars into there wallet. McCain could come out and go "I won't raise taxes! /smile smile smile" even though he won't change spending, Obama can come out and go "I need to raise taxes to repair the fucked up damage the last admin did the previous 8 years before bread costs you 5$ a loaf" and people will be up in arms. I mean ignorance is commonplace already, but its prevalence among the voting population is astounding. So how about you put down your talking points and come up with an original thought or line? It's amazing how a majority of countries in the world have a long term plan whereas the US works on nothing but the Q1-Q4 and wonders why we didn't see these things come before they hit us "oh my, food prices are going up whyyy, oh must be those rich farming bastards!"
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Yeah, because the Democrats are so damned good at winning re-election. Get back to me when you figure out how many presidents that were democrats got re-elected since Roosevelt? Not counting Clinton. The only reason Clinton did was because of the Republicans holding Congress. There never would have been a balanced budget with Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass. People get tired of being gored and then we get at least two terms of Republicans as a result. People have short memories and usually vote their wallet.

It is unlikely Obama can even get elected anyway.

Did Bush cut spending? Then he raised taxes, even as he claimed to cut them (and joke's on you... you believed him). Which is why Americans are looking at their wallets this year, seeing Bush's hidden tax increases aka inflation, and going to vote with their wallets.

BTW, some people might have short memories, but I am aware that you made this exact same post just yesterday in another thread. Text
Don't cross-post, okay?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,618
54,569
136
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Yeah, because the Democrats are so damned good at winning re-election. Get back to me when you figure out how many presidents that were democrats got re-elected since Roosevelt? Not counting Clinton. The only reason Clinton did was because of the Republicans holding Congress. There never would have been a balanced budget with Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass. People get tired of being gored and then we get at least two terms of Republicans as a result. People have short memories and usually vote their wallet.

It is unlikely Obama can even get elected anyway.

Do you care to explain why Democrats have held the Congress for the vast majority of the last 100 years? Maybe it's because issues the Republicans are strong in play well to chief executives, and issues that Democrats are strong in play towards local representation.

Either that or HURR HURR DEMON-RATS LUV TAXES. I guess it doesn't matter.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,191
41
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
jesus, he hasn't served a day and you already want him in the oval office for 12 years?

GWB is probably the best argument for term limits there is.

Right!

Term limits for Shrub about 7 days:thumbsup:
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Oh, hurray, the benevolent dictator argument. You're a smart one.

By the way, FDR is tied with Bush for being the most destructive and immoral president in the last 100 years. Complete disregard for the constitution, perpetuated an already unnecessary depression by trying to get the government to run the economy, confiscated Americans' gold, absolved banks of having to pay back depositors after going insolvent, arguably allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen, and started the "New Deal" programs which are essentially a bunch of unsustainable ponzi schemes which not only make no sense but are well on their way to bankrupting this country.

Yes, I will be pissing on this man's grave before I die.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Oh, hurray, the benevolent dictator argument. You're a smart one.

By the way, FDR is tied with Bush for being the most destructive and immoral president in the last 100 years. Complete disregard for the constitution, perpetuated an already unnecessary depression by trying to get the government to run the economy, confiscated Americans' gold, absolved banks of having to pay back depositors after going insolvent, arguably allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen, and started the "New Deal" programs which are essentially a bunch of unsustainable ponzi schemes which not only make no sense but are well on their way to bankrupting this country.

Yes, I will be pissing on this man's grave before I die.

The new deal programs are arguably what enabled this country to achieve the level of productivity and modernity that pushed it to be a super power..
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Oh, hurray, the benevolent dictator argument. You're a smart one.

By the way, FDR is tied with Bush for being the most destructive and immoral president in the last 100 years. Complete disregard for the constitution, perpetuated an already unnecessary depression by trying to get the government to run the economy, confiscated Americans' gold, absolved banks of having to pay back depositors after going insolvent, arguably allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen, and started the "New Deal" programs which are essentially a bunch of unsustainable ponzi schemes which not only make no sense but are well on their way to bankrupting this country.

Yes, I will be pissing on this man's grave before I die.

The new deal programs are arguably what enabled this country to achieve the level of productivity and modernity that pushed it to be a super power..

Attributing post-war economic growth and prosperity to a man who for eight years helped bring this country and its economy to its knees is nothing short of ridiculous. If it weren't for the war bringing his government-run economy under a singular manageable goal overriding the diverse demands of millions of people, the last two terms of his presidency would have been exactly like the first - complete misery. America's sustained growth before and after those periods are simply a result of greater economic freedom relative to the rest of the world at the time, private property rights, and a system of courts for recourse. It's true, ponzi schemes like SS always appear to be working at first, that's the whole point. Now comes the harsh reality for the people further and further down the chain: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for what 4 terms... he made so many changes..

In my opinion presidents should run more than 2 terms, and no limit. Because what happens if people want a great president to run 3rd term and they can't choose?

I am against that presidents can run only 2 terms..

Oh, hurray, the benevolent dictator argument. You're a smart one.

By the way, FDR is tied with Bush for being the most destructive and immoral president in the last 100 years. Complete disregard for the constitution, perpetuated an already unnecessary depression by trying to get the government to run the economy, confiscated Americans' gold, absolved banks of having to pay back depositors after going insolvent, arguably allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor to happen, and started the "New Deal" programs which are essentially a bunch of unsustainable ponzi schemes which not only make no sense but are well on their way to bankrupting this country.

Yes, I will be pissing on this man's grave before I die.

The new deal programs are arguably what enabled this country to achieve the level of productivity and modernity that pushed it to be a super power..

Attributing post-war economic growth and prosperity to a man who for eight years helped bring this country and its economy to its knees is nothing short of ridiculous. If it weren't for the war bringing his government-run economy under a singular manageable goal overriding the diverse demands of millions of people, the last two terms of his presidency would have been exactly like the first - complete misery. America's sustained growth before and after those periods are simply a result of greater economic freedom relative to the rest of the world at the time, private property rights, and a system of courts for recourse. It's true, ponzi schemes like SS always appear to be working at first, that's the whole point. Now comes the harsh reality for the people further and further down the chain: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

New deal programs worked until the remove of the manufacturing sector in America en masse. The problem was not the programs, but the officials with no balls willing to change the programs as the US's economy changed.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
The issue is that, lets say Obama gets elected and after Obama another freak republican gets elected and does same damage as GWB?

Yes because all Republicans are bad presidents. Well fuck, why don't we just elect the minority democrat every 4 years to appease everyone's guilty conscience.
 

finite automaton

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2008
1,226
0
0
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
The issue is that, lets say Obama gets elected and after Obama another freak republican gets elected and does same damage as GWB?

Yes because all Republicans are bad presidents. Well fuck, why don't we just elect the minority democrat every 4 years to appease everyone's guilty conscience.

Guilty by association.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: jpeyton
If he picks a strong VP, we'll have 16 years of Democratic rule in the White House, guaranteed. Certify it.

Yeah, because the Democrats are so damned good at winning re-election. Get back to me when you figure out how many presidents that were democrats got re-elected since Roosevelt? Not counting Clinton. The only reason Clinton did was because of the Republicans holding Congress. There never would have been a balanced budget with Democrats controlling the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

Democrats are in love with raising taxes. That is what they do, and it always comes back to bite them in the ass. People get tired of being gored and then we get at least two terms of Republicans as a result. People have short memories and usually vote their wallet.

It is unlikely Obama can even get elected anyway.

Are you in the top 5% of earners? If not you will see your taxes fall under Obama...

but since you must be an informed voter you already knew that and are probably in the top 5% which than I understand your bitterness :roll:

:roll: Because if there's one thing we can believe in, it's a politician's promises made on the campaign trail!

And you ridicule Ronstang about being "informed"! Any promises Obama's made are going to go the way of Bill Clinton's '92 middle class tax cut promise - into the scrap heap of lies.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: loki8481
jesus, he hasn't served a day and you already want him in the oval office for 12 years?

GWB is probably the best argument for term limits there is.

:thumbsup: I'm a big Obama supporter but until he actually wins and we see his performance in office this is putting the cart waaaaaaay before the horse.