Comments on: Open thread http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/ Don't dis or dismiss this miss! Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:57:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: forest hunter http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88899 forest hunter Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:32:22 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88899 Was that a rock sailing past me or did you break another heel off your flip flop? :o Was that a rock sailing past me or did you break another heel off your flip flop? :o

]]> By: steve http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88845 steve Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:12:46 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88845 If anybody knows about what it takes to be an ignoramus it would be you forest hunter. Good luck. Peace If anybody knows about what it takes to be an ignoramus it would be you forest hunter. Good luck. Peace

]]> By: forest hunter http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88828 forest hunter Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:39:50 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88828 steve, did you know that a gross ignoramus is 144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus. /:) steve, did you know that a gross ignoramus is 144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus. /:)

]]> By: steve http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88821 steve Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:22:04 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88821 If a civil war breaks out and our troops are still in Iraq they could easily become pinned down and unable to be supplied with anything including ammunition. It is time to leave Iraq now. Peace If a civil war breaks out and our troops are still in Iraq they could easily become pinned down and unable to be supplied with anything including ammunition. It is time to leave Iraq now. Peace

]]> By: CB Howell http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88746 CB Howell Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:43:14 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88746 And lastly, come on Steve..."A bunch of them will die???" There are already a "bunch" of our troops dead and dying...not only in Iraq. That's thier job. That's what they do. I don't think too many are excited about that specific proposition, but they all know it's part of the description. This is one thing I hope Rumsfield stays true on. Picking a side in a midievil civil war would be rediculously stupid. EVERYBODY knows that. You don't have to graduate from West Point to be privey to that one. Either way, involvement would not seriously vamp up the death toll...not our's anyway. If there's one thing politicians understand, it's that the quickest way to unemployment'ville is down the road of stupid decisions that get our troops unecessarily harmed or killed. And lastly, come on Steve…”A bunch of them will die???” There are already a “bunch” of our troops dead and dying…not only in Iraq. That’s thier job. That’s what they do. I don’t think too many are excited about that specific proposition, but they all know it’s part of the description.

This is one thing I hope Rumsfield stays true on. Picking a side in a midievil civil war would be rediculously stupid. EVERYBODY knows that. You don’t have to graduate from West Point to be privey to that one.

Either way, involvement would not seriously vamp up the death toll…not our’s anyway. If there’s one thing politicians understand, it’s that the quickest way to unemployment’ville is down the road of stupid decisions that get our troops unecessarily harmed or killed.

]]> By: CB Howell http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88716 CB Howell Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:31:07 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88716 Further...Lorica Said: "Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be "unconstitutional"?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional." Term limits...as I spoke about earlier...for presidents cannot now nor ever be found "unconstitutional". It is part of the constitution. The only way to change it would be to amend the constitution again, repealing the 22nd amendment. (Like the 18th and 21st amendments.) Further…Lorica Said: “Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be “unconstitutional”?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional.”

Term limits…as I spoke about earlier…for presidents cannot now nor ever be found “unconstitutional”. It is part of the constitution. The only way to change it would be to amend the constitution again, repealing the 22nd amendment. (Like the 18th and 21st amendments.)

]]> By: CB Howell http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88705 CB Howell Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:26:22 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88705 1st of all Baklava, I know your drawers just get all up in a bunch if you can't classify and catagorize...but no, I'm not a liberal. Actually, I took a "D-scale" a few weeks ago and on a scale from 1-7, 1 being communist, 7 being fascist, I came in at a nice 3.998. About as close to the middle of the road as possible....like 80% of the rest of the people in this country. And relative to steve's comment, I was just trying to clear the air. He cherry picked nothing. He misquoted. Is that clear enough for you? There isn't a military on the face of the planet that could protect our guys and gals better than they could themselves. 2nd, if I'm understanding the thread right relative to the term limits, there is no mention of term limits in the constitution, presidential or otherwise. The 22nd amendment however, limits the president to two four-year terms. A vice president who succeeds a president due to death, resignation, or impeachment is eligible for a total of ten years in office: two years of a president's remaining term and two 4-year terms. The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1950...perhaps it was '51, as a direct result of FDR's successful 4 election winning streak. Prior to that, although only one tried for more than two terms (Grant), no one sat for more than 8 years. Now, relative to term limits for legislators. The only way a legislator can be limited in terms is by his/her own state. If the congress were to pass a law that limited terms, it would be unconstitutional due to conflict with the 10th amendment. (Powers not delegated to the federal govn't are reserved by the states.) I might be wrong on this, but I think as of last year, there are 16 states that have limited how long their legislators can remain in office. (Mine, unfortunately, isn't one of them. :( ) 1st of all Baklava, I know your drawers just get all up in a bunch if you can’t classify and catagorize…but no, I’m not a liberal. Actually, I took a “D-scale” a few weeks ago and on a scale from 1-7, 1 being communist, 7 being fascist, I came in at a nice 3.998. About as close to the middle of the road as possible….like 80% of the rest of the people in this country. And relative to steve’s comment, I was just trying to clear the air. He cherry picked nothing. He misquoted. Is that clear enough for you? There isn’t a military on the face of the planet that could protect our guys and gals better than they could themselves.

2nd, if I’m understanding the thread right relative to the term limits, there is no mention of term limits in the constitution, presidential or otherwise. The 22nd amendment however, limits the president to two four-year terms. A vice president who succeeds a president due to death, resignation, or impeachment is eligible for a total of ten years in office: two years of a president’s remaining term and two 4-year terms.

The 22nd amendment was ratified in 1950…perhaps it was ‘51, as a direct result of FDR’s successful 4 election winning streak. Prior to that, although only one tried for more than two terms (Grant), no one sat for more than 8 years.

Now, relative to term limits for legislators. The only way a legislator can be limited in terms is by his/her own state. If the congress were to pass a law that limited terms, it would be unconstitutional due to conflict with the 10th amendment. (Powers not delegated to the federal govn’t are reserved by the states.)

I might be wrong on this, but I think as of last year, there are 16 states that have limited how long their legislators can remain in office. (Mine, unfortunately, isn’t one of them. :( )

]]> By: Ray Robison http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88658 Ray Robison Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:39:28 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88658 <strong>Arabica!! (or why we don't like you al-Jazeera)</strong> Al-Jazeera.com has this story at the top: U.S. history of hypocrisy: Were Arabs 1st to discover America? Yes that's right, it seems that the Arabs found the Americas (obviously they weren't called that back then so don't try to jump Arabica!! (or why we don’t like you al-Jazeera)

Al-Jazeera.com has this story at the top: U.S. history of hypocrisy: Were Arabs 1st to discover America? Yes that’s right, it seems that the Arabs found the Americas (obviously they weren’t called that back then so don’t try to jump

]]> By: Big Bang Hunter http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88631 Big Bang Hunter Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:37:52 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88631 The two term limit on the Presidency is believed to have been written in by the initial Countinental Congress framers, simply because they basically followed exactly the pattern of G. Washingtons time in office. The limit has been set aside on occasion, such as FDR, because of WAR, ect. Other than that, there are no other term limits. - Bang **== The two term limit on the Presidency is believed to have been written in by the initial Countinental Congress framers, simply because they basically followed exactly the pattern of G. Washingtons time in office. The limit has been set aside on occasion, such as FDR, because of WAR, ect. Other than that, there are no other term limits.

- Bang **==

]]> By: Severian http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88622 Severian Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:11:53 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88622 I wonder if it matters where the term limits come from as to whether or not it's constitutional. If it came from the fed side, or from the state side. BTW, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention term limits? There's a constitutional ammendment limiting the presidents terms, but that's not part of the BoR. I wonder if it matters where the term limits come from as to whether or not it’s constitutional. If it came from the fed side, or from the state side. BTW, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention term limits? There’s a constitutional ammendment limiting the presidents terms, but that’s not part of the BoR.

]]> By: Lorica http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88619 Lorica Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:47:46 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88619 Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be "unconstitutional"?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional. Since term limits are already written into the Bill of Rights they would have to allow them. I think it is time for more folk to be talking about term limits and let's just see where our representatives go with them. After all 80% of the American public was against the Dubai ports deal. They were listening to the will of the people then, why not now on term limits. Or even on illegal immigration, or on tax cuts, or on oil exploration, or on ..... does this list go on and on or what?? =)) - Lorica Hey Sev, Can term limits be found to be “unconstitutional”?? They would have to find the term limits on the presidency unconstitutional. Since term limits are already written into the Bill of Rights they would have to allow them. I think it is time for more folk to be talking about term limits and let’s just see where our representatives go with them. After all 80% of the American public was against the Dubai ports deal. They were listening to the will of the people then, why not now on term limits. Or even on illegal immigration, or on tax cuts, or on oil exploration, or on ….. does this list go on and on or what?? =)) – Lorica

]]> By: steve http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88618 steve Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:46:47 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88618 "eluded to", you take your spin and the left will take it's. Who's side will the US troops take if a civil war breaks out? American troops are in great danger and if your spin is wrong then a bunch of them will die. The Left would like to prevent that. Peace “eluded to”, you take your spin and the left will take it’s. Who’s side will the US troops take if a civil war breaks out? American troops are in great danger and if your spin is wrong then a bunch of them will die. The Left would like to prevent that. Peace

]]> By: sanity http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88616 sanity Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:37:03 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88616 Believe CB pointed that out: CB says, <i>"The story can be found currently in Yahoo News under Politics, however, Steve presented the quote a bit out of context. <b>What Rumsfeld eluded to was if civil war broke out in Iraq, the Iraqi troops would have to take care of it themselves. We would not get involved.</b></i> Believe CB pointed that out:

CB says, “The story can be found currently in Yahoo News under Politics, however, Steve presented the quote a bit out of context. What Rumsfeld eluded to was if civil war broke out in Iraq, the Iraqi troops would have to take care of it themselves. We would not get involved.

]]> By: Lorica http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88612 Lorica Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:16:54 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88612 I am sorry CB but he took it out of context by more than just abit. I read several news stories, and I read an article right out of the DoD website. No where does it say that the American Military is going to be protected by Iraqi security forces. It says that we are going to do our best to stay out of it. Steve implies a meaning to that they are going to protect us. That is so far out of context it would be like looking at the sun from pluto. But we all know which planet Steve orbits. - Lorica I am sorry CB but he took it out of context by more than just abit. I read several news stories, and I read an article right out of the DoD website. No where does it say that the American Military is going to be protected by Iraqi security forces. It says that we are going to do our best to stay out of it. Steve implies a meaning to that they are going to protect us. That is so far out of context it would be like looking at the sun from pluto. But we all know which planet Steve orbits. – Lorica

]]> By: Baklava http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/comment-page-1/#comment-88590 Baklava Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:25:07 +0000 http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/03/09/open-thread-2/#comment-88590 CB, So are you (a liberal) saying that Steve misused or cherry picked information? CB, So are you (a liberal) saying that Steve misused or cherry picked information?

]]>