What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.177 Comments
- zenscope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14This has *nothing* to do with keeping Bush in office. Case in point, the people who sponsored this:
Mr. HOYER - Democrat
Mr. HYDE - Republican
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts - Democrat
Mr. SENSENBRENNER - Republican
Mr. BERMAN - Democrat
Mr. SABO - Democrat
Mr. PALLONE - Democrat
Mr. SERRANO - Democrat - Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You guys are all making something out of nothing.
First of all, I doubt the president had anything to do with the proposed amendment.
Second, just because someone proposed it doesnt mean its going to go though. There is no way in hell this would ever pass guys... - MrGeorgeBush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6My fellow oscilloscopes,
Once I get done with my ABC's I will have more time to be president for another 2,3,or even 5 years.
And to any of you liberal commies out there:
I will liberatify you!
God bless muffins. - hellsyeah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's not for Bush:
" * Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.
* Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future. " - dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, he's circumventing the 22nd amendment by... introducing an amendment repealing it? An amendment that has to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states, in a process that takes several years? Do any of you have any idea how this country works?
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Digg: The place for meaningful, intelligent political discourse.
- musicmantrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow you ***** retards, if you bother to read more than just the title and the slanted description you will see no (none, neine, zip, zero, nada) reference to Bush. You see the title and description and it claims Bush is pushing this, you unintelligent lemmings take the title and dont read the article . - digg
- mutant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What a stupid ***** digg.. It was introduced by a FRIGGING DEMOCRAT:
Introduced (By Rep. Steny Hoyer [D-MD])
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-24
***** hate stupid people. - gregus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about you do a search using Thomas before sending this out. "Every Congress since the 99th has had at least one proposal with the sole intent of repealing the 22nd."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html
* 109th Congress - HJ Res 24 (2005)
* 108th Congress - HJ Res 25 (2003)
* 107th Congress - HJ Res 39 (2001)
* 106th Congress - HJ Res 24 (1999)
* 105th Congress - HJ Res 39 (1997)
* 104th Congress - HJ Res 71 (1995)
* 103rd Congress - HJ Res 107 (1993)
* 102nd Congress - HJ Res 61 (1991)
* 101st Congress - HJ Res 84 (1989)
* 100th Congress - HJ Res 156 (1987)
* 99th Congress - HJ Res 687 (1986)
Don't get me wrong, I still don't understand why WTC7 fell. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Are you all idiots? Franklin .D Roosevelt also "circumvented" This ammendment, he was elected for a third term. Probrally a fourth too if he hadn't died."
Not to be a stickler, but this is dead wrong. He couldn't have circumvented it because the amendment wasn't even proposed until after his death. In fact, it was proposed because of his three terms. - Sithseth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not that I hate him, but he's done. He's been in power far too long, and longer you're in power, the more corrupt people get.
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In all fairness, and I'm certainly no fan, but this has been tried by several administrations in the past--both Democratic and Republican.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You ***** idiot.
This bill was pioneered by a ranking DEMOCRAT.
It's not FOR BUSH, it's for the potential that HILLARY CLINTON becomes president in 2008.
How about learning something and reading between the lines instead of copying & pasting links/discussions from your ignorant gaming forums.
Idiots. - markos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ban XTCinOvaltine from digg.
- vtgeorge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The sponser of this bill and 3 of the 4 co-sponsers are Democrats.... I'm very confused. I haven't done much research but this may be some sort of political game... maybe to start internet rumors like 'GW trying to be president for life!'... GW is one of the worst presidents in the history of this nation but I doubt that he has anything to do with this particular bill...
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thats it, I'm moving to sweeden. Torrents for all!
- CowboyBebop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's gone from the front page. Keep the politics off this site PLEASE! There are plenty of other places on the net to spread your inaccurate anti-Bush rhetoric!
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, Bush has absolutly nothing to do with the sponsorship of this bill, hence he is not "trying" anything.
Second of all, this doesn't belong on digg anyways. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OH *****... I take my remarks back...
Hi Secret Service! I was jk'ing... lol....yea.... please dont arrest me. - cmg2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm..... growing economy, lower taxes, protected from terrorist. BUSH FOREVER!!!!!!!!
- RomieZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HELP SAVE THE WORLD!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"XTCinOvaltine" posted above:
"I know this is not a new story, but with all the conspiracies, and knowing Digg is one of the BEST methods to get info out, I posted it here. Hope it gets onto the podcast and spreads the word of Bush's attempt at domination.Why hasn;t he been impeached yet?"
I hope the podcast takes your applebag and hits it with a ball peen hammer. Maybe you should read some of the replies here. You'd find that the bill is sponsored by 6 Dems and 2 Reps and has nothing to do with Bush. - Carv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is America's next step towards a dictator ship :( .
- XTCinOvaltine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ mutant-My people as in Israel is a Jewish state, as in I'm Jewish. So really, screw you.
@ markos, mutant and toney5- I found this interesting, and I really did not think about how easily set off people are on the subject. I didn't 'know' that this would spark a debate, nor did I think about getting on the front page. I am an active digger, but this is the FIRST time I have submitted a story. So please, shut up and get on with your lives. I did not want "15 minutes of fame". It would be good to spread the word, but I really do not care about any so called 'fame' it brings. Also, I am not 'ignorant', I follow politics and watch CNN and C-Span (C-Span only occasionally), and I am surprised at those who still support Bush and his attempt at a theocracy within our nation. Corruption, pushing of agendas (Terry Schievo), ILLEGAL surveillance, force feeding us Christian morals and ideals (abortion, gay marriage) and an unjustified war. If you still root for Bush, then I'm sorry, but you are truly the ignorant one. We ended the 1990's on such a high note, countries loved us, BOOMING economy (can we say a $300 billion + surplus), all to have this cretin come into office and RUIN our foreign policy, dance all over civil liberties, bring us into a 8 trillion dollar DEFICIT (for all you Bush supporters, that means we owe 8 TRILLION dollars. Also, the lack of immediate response to the Hurricanes and the use of fear tactics (if you don't like Bush then the terrorists win). 9/11 could have been avoided if Bush or any of his cronies read the memo stating "Osama Bin Laden to Attack within the US". He has to be the WORST president ever, even worse than Hoover. He was elected only once (in 2004) only because he used slander (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth) and played to the fullest extent the Christian platform. So yeah, I;m not ignorant, and seriously, I hope this has opened your so very closed eyes. - TheJadedDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not only is this an old story, but the sheer volume of proposals like this that are submitted each year is mindblowing (why do you think it takes them so long to actually do anything). Add that to the fact that even if something like this got off the ground, it is pretty hard to change the constitution, those old guys in 1776 knew what they were doing. Seriously, let's all take our fingers off the panic button and remember that the things that unite us are far more important than the things that divide us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly, I don't even care.
One president is as bad as another. Think about all of us who thought Clinton was one of the worst ever. Now we have Bush and we're saying "wow, Clinton wasn't such a bad president after all". But he still sucked. Just not in comparison to Bush. Big deal.
Left, right. Conservative. Liberal. It doesn't matter. They're all part of the in-crowd. The machine. They don't get that power by following anything but THE AGENDA. Party affiliation doesn't really matter on the inside and you all know this.
So if we keep bush for the rest of his life or have 20 new presidents. It doesn't really matter. It'll all just be the same. And do you think getting rid of Bush will really stop guys like that ***** in Chicago who wants to stick video surveillance cameras in restaurants, stores, apartments and even private homes? Of course not.
Privacy and most of your liberties are already gone. You just don't realize it yet. - teamgreen02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How does this garbage get to the front page? Very few countries have term limits for their leaders. I don't have a position either way. Too many liberals on this site.
- SFBay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is EVERYONE on this site STUPID???
I think yes!! This article is not even about Bush! Bush has nothing to do with this!! What are all these diggs?!
You're all RETARDS!! - serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You idiots can't even get the color association for Democrats/Republicans straight. BLUE is the color used to represent Democrats, RED for Republicans.
And, no, GWB is not trying to overturn the 22nd amendment (also known as the FDR amendment). Love him or hate him, he will be out of office in '08.
If anyone is out to overturn the 22nd amendment, it is Bill Clinton. He's publicly stated that the thinks it's a ridiculous amendment and said he would have run for a 3rd term if he was legally able to do so.
Jeesh. Slow day in tech news and the libs just can't keep it in their pants. - misfit410, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shows how stupid liberals are, they think the President does and controls EVERYTHING.
The President can't change amendments. - curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how does a story like this get buried, I'm on the brink of leaving this site completely! 90% of the diggers that are now here due to its popularity have destroyed what used to be a great great site! Now like everywhere else in life it has been overrun by idiots!
- bloodywolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4wtf does this have to with tech? f**king libs destroying my tech site.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's funny.
"Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"
Mr. Hoyer's a Democratic Representative from Maryland.
Mr. Berman's a Democratic Representative from California.
Mr. Sabo's a Democratic Congressman from Minnesota.
Mr. Pallone is a Democratic Congressman from New Jersey.
Why would 4 Democrats be pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to keep President Bush in office? I'm thinking they are betting on some future Socio-Progressive move to turn the U.S. into the next U.S.S.R. or Red China. - ctbfourone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hello Sheep,
If you bothered to READ THE STATEMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIVE REPRESENTATIVE THAT PRESENTED IT TO THE HOUSE you would see that it WOULD NOT APPLY TO PRESIDENT BUSH.
Sheesh. I don't like Bush either, but AT LEAST PAY ATTENTION. - xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""Jimmy Carter in '08!
Oh wait! He couldn't even get elected to a second term. Never mind.""
That would suck so bad lol - longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is the 22nd ammendmant that they are trying to change. those "old guys back in 1776'' had nothing to do with it.
This has nothing to do with keeping bush in office. Both parties know that it is in their best interest to not have a limit to the amount of time the president is in office. Ya, one party might rule for a while, but then the other will get its turn and will try to hang onto it for 48 years. It is just another thing that makes political parties inherently bad; they are just trying to gain power instead of helping the people they represent.
I say that the next ammendment to the constitution should be no political parties. George washington didn't want parties because he saw all of the bad things that could come of it. This whole rule about not splitting the votes of states for president--its all or nothing-- was brought about by the parties as well just to make sure that no third party can get a foothold. It is not that way in all states, washington, and one other allow it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0GARR!!!!
First of all, this is a year old. Secondly, how is Bush even remotely linked to this bill, disregarding implausible conspiracy theories? It's being sponsored by 4 democrats, congressman only related to the president by the company they work for: themselves.
1st rule of digg: read first. digg (or not) later. I can't stand mindless digging, politically charged or not. - JackandCoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wouldnt be too suprised if this got repealed and then bush said, "i am doing such a great job keeping you people safe, i dont think there are going to be any elections this upcoming season."
but, i'm not so worried about it, but if it starts to actually roll out, then you'll be seeing some rallying. - BigMax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OMG, I was wondering where all the slashdot public uid >700,000 went! Here you are!
A lot of people don't like W, me included, but try to be reasonable, plz. For some reason, the "super-rich" comment tipped me of. I am not superrich, I am from paycheck-to-paycheck crowd. Bush's tax cut helped me a LOT. How can this stupid blind madness engulf so many!!! - GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's been in the House Subcommitee on the Constitution since 4/4/2005. It's dead, Jim.
I'm not pleased to see my party pushing for this, but I'm not suprised. Everyone has a solution to the reign of GWB, but none of them should come to repealing amendments.
Also, I've heard of this several times before getting posted on digg, each time saying it has been sent to the subcommitee. Undugg. - randm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0finally buried
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not an American so in many ways it doesn't make any difference to me, but... I'm not saying it should be done away with but I've always got the impression that US Presidents spend most of their first term just trying to get elected as opposed to actually doing anything and then they spend their second term doing nothing because they don't have to get elected again. Obviously I'm aware that this opinion is a gross generalisation and not specifically a Bush thing but it's just something that occurs to me.
- Tonye5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is another example of why stupid people are always liberal. Please if you are going to partake in this democracy, try to learn something about how it works. It would take 2/3 of the states to pass this in a popular election, meaning it would take years if anyone would even consider this. I would never vote for this, heaven forbid if stupidity prevailed in electing Hillary, you know there is no chance in hell she would relinquish power.
- ConfusedONE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@cmg2005: I get it you just want to stir the pot. Good for you. I am sure all your 5th grade friends are very happy and proud of you.
- withinreason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hurah! for facism....someone get out my Swastika!!!!!!All hail George,,King of the free world.....
- zenscope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://digg.com/undig/USERNAME/227488
- nextyoyoma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As people have said, many bills like this have been introduced, but have not passed.
The fact that many of us are just finding out about this particular bill demonstrates something that many of you have failed to consider: the reason congress seems to operate independent of the will of the people is that we, as voters, do not demand the information. Under our system, we should be able to assume that our elected representatives will cast their votes in accordance not only with the WILL of their constituents, but also in their best interest. However, this assumes that we actually put some thought into who we choose to represent us. That doesn't just mean voting on election day, but participating in the entire electoral process, from pre-nomination to election day. That is what our system is based on, and since that factor is no longer present (for the most part), our government cannot function properly.
All of this is to say that if we don't participate in the government (and I am certainly not saying that anyone here does not do this already), we cannot expect the government to operate in a responsible manner. - TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bush for a 3rd term? Sure. Sounds fine for me. Hell, I say make him President for life and the office is transfered to his decendants. And repeal the Bill of Rights too. Project for a New American Century would be proud.
- cmg2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@maldon
have we been attacked since 9/11? I rest my case. - MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ cmg2005
How has he done any of the things you claim? The economy naturally stablized and began to increase. Lower taxes have been proven to be bad in the long term, and how the hell did he protect us from terror attacks? As far as I know, the only one planned happened. To me that is not protection. -
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is