Is it too early to start talking about repealing the XXII Amendment?

[rhett o rick]

Wouldn't that scare the hell out of the rightys?

[Bok_Tukalo]

1. Never too early .... Reagan advocated its repeal

Personally, if we are going for amending the Constitution, I would like to see one eliminating the Electoral College.

[AllentownJake]

2. It shouldn't be done

8 years is enough for one man to be king.

[rhett o rick]

9. I agree, just havin some fun. nm

[havocmom]

3. Well, it would give the winger fringe something to do and keep them outta our hair for a spell

Bet Obama Administration could get 16 years of repairs done in 8 if the crazies were otherwise engaged ;)

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. So would some nice investigations and prosecutions.

And I expect some, along with skanky stuff continually surfacing for a long time. I think the RW be kept busy spinning the bad press from all of that, alright. The best defense is always a good offense... and justice demands it this time. This mess is all too big to get swept under any rug.

[baldguy]

4. For evey FDR or Obama

There's a Reagan or Bush waiting in the wings.

[Posteritatis]

11. And vice versa

Though I think a trained parrot would have destroyed Bush if he ran for a third term.

[Oak2004]

15. Trust me: a trained parrot can destroy a lot of things ;)

[Occam Bandage]

17. Heh. I was about to say, clearly not a parrot-owner there

if he thinks that it would ordinarily be difficult for a parrot to destroy anything. Little bastards just live to find things to break.

[ddeclue]

5. It will ALWAYS be too early... 8 years is long enough.

[rhett o rick]

12. I agree. I just want to see Joe Stupid-borough explode on air. nm

[sohndrsmith]

6. No. : ) I love the idea...

Not just to say "nyah-nyah-nyah" to the Republicans, but because - I love the idea of having this remarkable person leading the country for as long as necessary to get things right. FDR served 4 terms (1933, 1937, 1941, 1945) and that was in a time of inordinate national and international crisis as well...

[Bullet1987]

7. I think it should be repealed but with limits

Obviously, the people should still have the right to vote for a 3rd, 4th, etc term. Bush wouldn't be re-elected under the conditions nor would he probably even want to run. By all accounts, he was ready to give the Presidency over to Obama...he was tired of it. Unpopular Presidents wouldn't be re-elected.

[sohndrsmith]

8. Right - only applies to people who can actually think... : ) n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Before any discussion of the 22nd ammendment, we need to lose the electronic fraud machines

Yes, Obama won an electoral landslide. But if you think this elections still aren't stolen, look at Georgia.

If Obama DOES become the 21st century FDR - and God knows we NEED one - then he may very well need more than 8 years to get the job done. And if he is that type of transformative President, then he would be re-elected easily for term three. But let's not get ahead of ourselves in that prediction.....

Downside of course, is what happens when the Repukes can rely on our national memory lapse and run another Bush Crime Family criminal? Don't kid yourself, if we had no 22nd ammendment, Chimpy would have run again in 2008, despite his massive failures. And DIEBOLD would have gone all out for him. As they will for Jeb or whomever their next chosen frontman (or also frontwoman, you betcha!) might be.

pResident for Life Sarah Palin ??? :scared:

[elocs]

13. It's never too early to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences. n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

16. YOU WILL BRING BACK PROHIBITION OVER MY DEAD BODY.

Oh. Never mind.

[rhett o rick]

18. Prohibition sounded like fun. And lots of people got rich, like Kennedys. nm