JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ephraim Ben Noach on November 15, 2012, 07:03:11 pm
-
I have not read all of this, but it does seem interesting.
http://pro.stansberryresearch.com/1210THIRDLIA/LPSINBZH/
-
I wish I could pause the video. It would be a lot easier to watch that way. Anyway I think that the person is right that Obama could set up a scenario where he could alter the constitution to get more than 2 terms if the conditions are right. More than half of the American voting public don't care about the Constitution anymore anyway or they wouldn't have voted for someone not qualified to be president in the first place.
-
I wish I could pause the video. It would be a lot easier to watch that way. Anyway I think that the person is right that Obama could set up a scenario where he could alter the constitution to get more than 2 terms if the conditions are right. More than half of the American voting public don't care about the Constitution anymore anyway or they wouldn't have voted for someone not qualified to be president in the first place.
It lets me pause it. Just click on it.
-
I wish I could pause the video. It would be a lot easier to watch that way. Anyway I think that the person is right that Obama could set up a scenario where he could alter the constitution to get more than 2 terms if the conditions are right. More than half of the American voting public don't care about the Constitution anymore anyway or they wouldn't have voted for someone not qualified to be president in the first place.
You realize that the 2 term limit is not in the Constitution (but rather the ammendments)... Did you know that FDR served three terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr#Third_term.2C_1941.E2.80.931945
The 22nd ammendment to the Constitution added the two term limit for the president.
The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States. The Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Of course I would be against Obama getting a third term...
-
FDR served 4 terms... well just barely... since he died shortly after being inaugurated in 1945....
-
Muman, the amendments are part of the Constitution. That's why they're amendments to the constitution. A lot of really important Constitutional protections are in the amendments including the bill of rights.
-
Muman, the amendments are part of the Constitution. That's why they're amendments to the constitution. A lot of really important Constitutional protections are in the amendments including the bill of rights.
Yes, and an Ammendment can change the constitution. As I said above, we have had presidents who have served 4 (I stand corrected) terms. Thus it is not against the will of the founding fathers to have a president who serves more than 2 terms. All it would take is another ammendment, or annulling the current ammendment.
If there is the desire to go around the Constitution then there will be hell to pay...
-
Yes, and an Ammendment can change the constitution. As I said above, we have had presidents who have served 4 (I stand corrected) terms. Thus it is not against the will of the founding fathers to have a president who serves more than 2 terms. All it would take is another ammendment, or annulling the current ammendment.
If there is the desire to go around the Constitution then there will be hell to pay...
I think that there were some amendments added that shouldn't have been, but on the other hand I think the 2 term limit is a very good thing. When I took my government classes they mentioned the reason for it, the very thing the video talks about, that more than 2 terms allows a president to become too powerful. God forbid Obama is able t do this. :(
-
Please use some critical thinking when listening to this guy. He just said that Woodrow Wilson moved us towards paper money. That immediately sent up a red flag. Let's not forget about the nutcases who want to move us back to a precious metal money standard like we had in the dark ages before the renaissance. This guy also said that he spent $100,000 in research at the begining of the video.
There's a reason why there's not time index adjustment or sound adjustment in the presentation. In my opinion this man is a charlattan and is trying to brainwash people. Bubbe Maises.
-
Please use some critical thinking when listening to this guy. He just said that Woodrow Wilson moved us towards paper money. That immediately sent up a red flag. Let's not forget about the nutcases who want to move us back to a precious metal money standard like we had in the dark ages before the renaissance. This guy also said that he spent $100,000 in research at the begining of the video.
There's a reason why there's not time index adjustment or sound adjustment in the presentation. In my opinion this man is a charlattan and is trying to brainwash people. Bubbe Maises.
What's wrong with the precious metal standard versus the oil standard?
-
Fiat currency is not based on any commodity as a standard but rather on the idea that the power of the fiat is enforced by the strength of the country militarily. This is the proper way to issue currency. It doesn't need to be backed by anything. The fact that the process is abused doesn't mean the structure is incorrect.
If we based currency on gold, based on all the gold that is already extracted from the earth's crust, there would only be enough gold to give each person in the world 5 small gold rings.
Explain to me how you would buy groceries... Would you go to the local shop and barter a big heavy sack of barley for a big heavy sack of oats!?
-
Fiat currency is not based on any commodity as a standard but rather on the idea that the power of the fiat is enforced by the strength of the country militarily. This is the proper way to issue currency. It doesn't need to be backed by anything. The fact that the process is abused doesn't mean the structure is incorrect.
If we based currency on gold, based on all the gold that is already extracted from the earth's crust, there would only be enough gold to give each person in the world 5 small gold rings.
Explain to me how you would buy groceries... Would you go to the local shop and barter a big heavy sack of barley for a big heavy sack of oats!?
Gold would be a valuable metal! How would I buy groceries?I would make my own food. Yes I would barter
-
I don't have a computer right now, so I am having trouble responding to peoples posts. It's called hard work, you produce extra for others and charge them for it, or trade. You have something I want, I have something you want, so we trade.
-
It's impractical. That's why we have money. People cannot go about carrying wagonloads of produce to exchange with eachother.
-
It's impractical. That's why we have money. People cannot go about carrying wagonloads of produce to exchange with eachother.
The money will soon have no value, because it is paper. Our Government keeps printing money, so it will be worth nothing soon.
-
I believe that there needs to be something (be it gold or whatever) which backs up the value of the currency.
Otherwise it is 'just paper' and can be printed easily...
-
Yes there is a risk of inflation with paper (fiat) currency. But precious-metal backed currency is certainly not the answer.
-
I think that there were some amendments added that shouldn't have been, but on the other hand I think the 2 term limit is a very good thing. When I took my government classes they mentioned the reason for it, the very thing the video talks about, that more than 2 terms allows a president to become too powerful. God forbid Obama is able t do this. :(
Limiting the power of the president and preventing it from becoming excessive is definitely in line with the principles of the founders. So although it's an amendment, it's an amendment that fits within the scope and purpose of the constitution.
-
Limiting the power of the president and preventing it from becoming excessive is definitely in line with the principles of the founders. So although it's an amendment, it's an amendment that fits within the scope and purpose of the constitution.
I watched biographies of the presidents of America on election week...
One of the presidents who attempted to strengthen the power of the office of the President was Andrew Jackson. It turns out he was one of the early Democrats...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was the seventh President of the United States (1829–1837). Based in frontier Tennessee, Jackson was a politician and army general who defeated the Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1814), and the British at the Battle of New Orleans (1815). A polarizing figure who dominated the Second Party System in the 1820s and 1830s, as president he dismantled the Second Bank of the United States and initiated ethnic cleansing and forced relocation of Native American tribes from the Southeast to west of the Mississippi River. His enthusiastic followers created the modern Democratic Party. The 1830–1850 period later became known as the era of Jacksonian democracy.[1]
Jackson was nicknamed "Old Hickory" because of his toughness and aggressive personality; he fought in duels, some fatal to his opponents.[2] He was a wealthy slaveholder. He fought politically against what he denounced as a closed, undemocratic aristocracy, adding to his appeal to common citizens. He expanded the spoils system during his presidency to strengthen his political base.
.
.
.
Elected president in 1828, Jackson supported a small and limited federal government. He strengthened the power of the presidency, which he saw as spokesman for the entire population, as opposed to Congressmen from a specific small district. He was supportive of states' rights, but during the Nullification Crisis, declared that states do not have the right to nullify federal laws. Strongly against the national bank, he vetoed the renewal of its charter and ensured its collapse. Whigs and moralists denounced his aggressive enforcement of the Indian Removal Act, which resulted in the forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). Historians acknowledge his protection of popular democracy and individual liberty for United States citizens, but criticize him for his support for slavery and for his role in Indian removal.[3][4]
-
FDR served 4 terms... well just barely... since he died shortly after being inaugurated in 1945....
Actually FDR had had enough by the end of his third term and had given serious consideration of not running again... His mother had who he was very close to had passed away and the family money which they all depended on was running low... FDR realized he was in poor health and wanted to go back home and work in the private sector while he still could... It was the Democrat party that pushed him to run a 4 term although I don't believe they had to push very hard... I think it was almost an unspoken given in the administration that FDR would never survive to see the end of his term... The end however came sooner than anyone suspected because when FDR died suddenly Truman who was new to the administration was tossed into the presidency totally unprepared to deal with Stalin at the Potsdam conference and the birth of atomic bomb... If anyone reads enough about the Roosevelt presidency they will clearly come away with the understanding that two terms is about all any president should have.
-
:dance:
Almost four terms too many for that anitisemitic swine, yimach shemo!
-
Actually FDR had had enough by the end of his third term and had given serious consideration of not running again... His mother had who he was very close to had passed away and the family money which they all depended on was running low... FDR realized he was in poor health and wanted to go back home and work in the private sector while he still could... It was the Democrat party that pushed him to run a 4 term although I don't believe they had to push very hard... I think it was almost an unspoken given in the administration that FDR would never survive to see the end of his term... The end however came sooner than anyone suspected because when FDR died suddenly Truman who was new to the administration was tossed into the presidency totally unprepared to deal with Stalin at the Potsdam conference and the birth of atomic bomb... If anyone reads enough about the Roosevelt presidency they will clearly come away with the understanding that two terms is about all any president should have.
When FDR run for a 3rd term America was still out of the war, more then a year before pearl harbor. I think FDR wanted to rule like a dictator, and dictators have a habit of clinching to their seat of power till their last breath.
-
When FDR run for a 3rd term America was still out of the war, more then a year before pearl harbor. I think FDR wanted to rule like a dictator, and dictators have a habit of clinching to their seat of power till their last breath.
You are more than likely correct about FDR's mindset going into his third term since he was still in reasonably good health at that point... What I was talking about was the time leading up to his final term where his health had rapidly gone down hill... I corrected my post to make that more clear.
-
It lets me pause it. Just click on it.
Thanks.
Limiting the power of the president and preventing it from becoming excessive is definitely in line with the principles of the founders. So although it's an amendment, it's an amendment that fits within the scope and purpose of the constitution.
I agree. The checks and balances system gets unbalanced if one branch of government becomes too powerful.
-
BHO won't have a third term. He'll just be king.
-
Sukarno was a lifetime president.