# U.S. Presidential Term Limit: Not quite..... Vote Bill Clinton 2004! ;-)



## adambyte (Apr 19, 2003)

btw, the title of this thread is just to get your attention... that was not me endorsing another term for Bill.

Anyway, recently in my Political Science class, we were discussing the written and unwritten rules of the presidency... And my professor told us the strangest thing: The rule that congress made says that the president may serve no more that two _consecutive_ terms. Apparently this means although Bill Clinton couldn't run for the presidency in 2000, he could actually run for president in 2004, and serve another two terms.... crazy, eh?


----------



## bobw (Apr 19, 2003)

Yep, and if he was elected to two more terms, he could wait another 4 years and run again.


----------



## toast (Apr 19, 2003)

...which is not strange at all, IMHO.

 ?


----------



## marz (Apr 19, 2003)

I've heard this rumor before, here's what the constition actually says:

"Article XXII.

Section 1.

  No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

So unfortunately for these United States, I don't see where Bill could be elected a third time without a repeal of this amendment.  But I'm no lawyer.


----------



## Dusky (Apr 19, 2003)

If marz' citation is correct, maybe Adambyte is in to gain some extra credit for proving the teacher wrong.  I'd start typing up that report...


----------



## adambyte (Apr 19, 2003)

Hot damn! I checked http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html , and Marz is, indeed, correct! Unless there's some discrepancy between this online government source and the actual amendment that was passed, it's true. It really IS two terms, max. Hot damn. Guess I'll start writing that paper. Maybe get me some extra credit!  Thanks!

Oh well. Poor Bill. 

On an slightly related note, go read "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. It's a tiny little bit biased, and a little radical, but very well researched, and overall, a very VERY good book. An enlightening experience.


----------



## fryke (Apr 20, 2003)

Let's say it is radical.
Let's say it is biased.
Let's say it is a good book.
Why do understatement? ;-)

And, you say, 'Poor Bill'. Actually, I don't know whether he'd WANT to run again. I'd say: Poor America, rather, as the US could do with a better president.


----------



## adambyte (Apr 20, 2003)

Well, hey, I said "poor Bill" half-jokingly... I doubt he'd want to run again.

On a somewhat related note, my Political Science class is taught from the "Elitist" point of view.... being that, the reason we have the electoral college and such is because the founding fathers wanted gradual change, encouraged by a two party system... rather than chaos from a whole bunch of parties, where nobody gets a majority of the vote.

"Poor Nader?"


----------



## pds (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *And my professor told us the strangest thing: The rule that congress made says that the president may serve no more that two consecutive terms.
> 
> I checked http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html , and Marz is, indeed, correct! Unless there's some discrepancy between this online government source and the actual amendment that was passed, it's true. It really IS two terms, max. Hot damn  *



Does this scare anybody else? What kind of shyster moron is this professor? I only hope he was trying to make a point that the students should look it up.

Adambyte didn't so maybe that wasn't the prof's point.

No wonder my son is shaking his head when he comes back from (insurance) school where his classmates ask seriously whether Hawaii is a state and whether Canada is part of the US. 

I once met a Peace Corps volunteer in Costa Rica who hailed from Washington (the state). She did not know what 54 40 or fight meant. She could not name the first president of the United States. She could not identify the Gettysburg address.

We have trained our young people to be meatheads.


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pds _
> *We have trained our young people to be meatheads. *



You are not alone ! Education is not brilliant everywhere else than in the US.


----------



## pds (Apr 20, 2003)

You are not alone ! Education is not brilliant everywhere else than in the US.
----------------

Toast, I guess you mean to say that the educational crisis is worldwide and I can only agree.  :^)   
I work in a school here in Cairo and the capacity for independent thought is almost nil.

When I think of things back home, I think maybe it's a good thing that less than half the eligible voters do actually vote.


----------



## fryke (Apr 20, 2003)

Here in Switzerland it's different for different people. While all children share the official primary school (age 7 to 12), which is, I think, quite good and 'open', people get very different education from 13 to 19.

The broadest theoretical education you'll get with a Matura, but even there you'll choose some direction (Latin/no latin, more or less math/natural, languages etc.). In the Gymnasium (leading to the Matura), you'll have about 10 different teachers, which is a very, very good thing, because they'll have different opinions. This not only gives you differentiated input (also in political matters, of course), you'll also automatically learn that it's okay to have your own opinion. This is far worse for the other schools, where you have two teachers only (one for maths/natural stuff, one for language/history stuff).

I also like the fact that we have many parties, not only two, because there, too, we get to hear different opinions...

I think part of the 'America-Problem' right now is that everything we see seems to be black and white. We don't hear very differentiated opinions out of the USA. We hear one opinion, basically, and that's the Republican opinion.

(Sure, we _can_ talk to individuals from the USA.)

With the two party system, an image is created and posted to the world, that 'the US' think binary. Yes or no. Black and white. This way or that way. While we are used to hear many opinions in our own country here in Switzerland.

Maybe that explains why we tend to think of the Americans as simple-minded unidirectional minds


----------



## Jason (Apr 20, 2003)

there are more than two parties fryke.. just the other parties arent the most popular....

myself, im not registered or affiliated with any party, although i tend to lean towards more liberal candidates


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 20, 2003)

For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice.

I'd love to make a low budget indie film, where I follow Michael Moore around with a camera, and chronicle what groups he spends his time with, where he eats, where he buys those flannel shirts, where he eats, etc. What's good for the goose is good for the (very large and out of shape) gander, no?


----------



## fryke (Apr 20, 2003)

Your post IMHO, serpicolugnut, is a sad proof of pride that's been hurt. Michael Moore is certainly provocating those feelings, but I urge you to do the following: Try to think that neither he or you are completely wrong or right about the things he's talking/writing about. The truth's in the middle, somewhere. But the fact that both of you say the other one's completely wrong should show that neither is completely right.

What good would your film do? Bashing a person for his opinion? Doesn't sound like a good cause to me. If you think he's totally wrong, just try and ignore him. If you can't ignore him, try understanding him. If you can't understand him and still can't ignore him, there's a problem somewhere that has to be fixed.


----------



## marz (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *...He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice.
> *



And Rush Limbaugh neither has facts nor logic to back him up, just loud mouthed rhetoric to incite his listeners that already agree with his specious logic.


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. [...] What's good for the goose is good for the (very large and out of shape) gander, no? *



The whole work of Michael Moore is aiming at provoking this type of reaction. Especially from people with Uncle Sam as an avatar   

Serpicolugnut, don't be afraid, we all know Moore isn't impartial. Still, the facts are with him.


----------



## pds (Apr 20, 2003)

It's interesting to see the tragic flaw of the American system played out in thread. While there are more than two parties, the majority of the others are fringe and one-issue groups that are not exactly looking for concensus (sp?). They are the Michael Moores and the "dittoheads".

As change is a good thing, we find that change in America swings either to the left or to the right every other four years. What is needed is a new centrist vision that recognizes that society is an extension of family. In a family both parents have central and different roles to play, that of breadwinning and that of sharing the wealth.

Don't jump to the flame button, I don't want to stereotype anyone, just that both roles (traditionally but not mandatorially male and female) are needed, even if there is only one person to do it. That person just has a harder time.

Society needs a balance of capitalistic, stand-on-your-own-two-feet individualism  (dad's push) and socialistic, let-me-help-you-when-your-down civic consciousness. (mom's love)

When you spend every other four years undoing what was done, there is bound to be imbalance. Maybe what is needed is a political earthquake that will swallow both major parties and create a reform party that really is one. Not left wing or right wing, center wing.


----------



## adambyte (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *For the life of me I can't figure out how this guy gets attention. He's like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, but he doesn't have facts or logic to back him up, just incense and outrage. He appeals to the lcd in the left, and if anything, does their cause a disservice./B]*


* 

Eh, I would just like to point out that this is, for the most part, wrong. In the back of Moore's book, "Stupid White Men," there are PAGES UPON PAGES of credits as to where he got the information from each chapter. I was simply amazed at the amount of information this man took in and put in his book. The statistics and records he cites are from various respected newspapers and books ( and, to concede, probably a few not-so respected ones, too, but I don't know). There's no doubt that Moore is fairly radical in his thinking, but at least he has lots of facts to back him up, even if you don't completely agree with the "logic."

Oi... we better watch it.... if we continue talking about "logic," we might get into my Philosophy class... ;-)*


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *In the back of Moore's book, "Stupid White Men," there are PAGES UPON PAGES of credits as to where he got the information from each chapter. I was simply amazed at the amount of information this man took in and put in his book. The statistics and records he cites are from various respected newspapers and books ( and, to concede, probably a few not-so respected ones, too, but I don't know).*



As I don't have this book, can I ask you to give a few examples from these pages ? I'd like to judge Moore's sources.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 20, 2003)

fryke - there you go again, missing the point. I'm not taking issue with Michael Moore's message/content, I'm taking issue with his approach. As I said, he does his cause a great disservice in the way that he goes about championing it.

For example, in his film Bowling for Columbine, he goes out of his way to embarrass Charlton Heston - a man suffering from Alzheimers. Many who agree with Moore felt that was over the top.

Also, his speech at the Oscars drew boos even from many who agreed with him.

Funny you feel my pride has been hurt by MM, because, frankly, he's a joke. I'm not certain what "facts" toast feels MM has right. I certainly haven't seen any "facts" from MM, just opinions rammed down the oppositions throat.

Whether or not I agree/disagree with MM isn't the point, and it's quite funny that people are taking it that way. Michael Moore stalks corporate big wigs and other higher ups with his camera in hopes of catching them doing something embarrassing on tape. He then passes this off to a dim-witted audience as further reinforcement of his opinion. His only chance of making his point is when he controls the medium and the editing room. 

Again - for those who haven't gotten the point - I'm not disagreeing with any of MM points, and could care less what he rails on about - it's the manner in which he stalks people and assaults them with edited pieces made to make them look bad and him look witty.

As someone smarter than me once said - "I can make the Pope look like Hitler with enough raw footage and a few hours in the editing room"....

And finally, my statement about wanting to turn the tables on MM and follow him around was made to illustrate the point that those who live in glass houses should throw stones...

Everybody got it? Good!


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *He does his cause a great disservice in the way that he goes about championing it. (...)*



He's in the show business industry. His method works in this domain. If Moore was teaching at Harvard, he would be acting differently.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *For example, in his film Bowling for Columbine, he goes out of his way to embarrass Charlton Heston - a man suffering from Alzheimers. Many who agree with Moore felt that was over the top.*



Alzheimer affects memory, not intellect. Heston was an easy target, but that's part of the game.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Also, his speech at the Oscars drew boos even from many who agreed with him.*



That's bizness ! His speech was quoted everywhere; his simplistic but short and easy to remember vociferations are known worldwide.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *I'm not certain what "facts" toast feels MM has right. I certainly haven't seen any "facts" from MM, just opinions rammed down the oppositions throat.*



He gives stats, in his books, in his film. I call this facts, only when they come with their source. And they do come with their source in Moore's argumentation.



> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *Michael Moore stalks corporate big wigs and other higher ups with his camera in hopes of catching them doing something embarrassing on tape.*



... And that's a distractive way to make fun of Nike's CEO, for instance. After all, cinema is leisure. Moore is not being serious because he's aiming at amusing, even if his topic could be serious. Compare to Roberto Begnini.

My 2¢. I have asked someone who's got the book to give some examples of MM's facts and figures, plus their sources.


----------



## adambyte (Apr 20, 2003)

I apologize, but I don't have a copy of the book with me here at school... I recently got done reading it, and gave it to my parents to read. But I do remember that he used things from "The New York Times" at least a dozen times...... damn my memory, though, can't think of other sources. Anybody else?

On a side note: I have not seen Bowling for Coumbine, yet, and it's been a long time since I've seen any of his shows.... (TV Nation, I think?) And I wouldn't be surprised if Moore's style of attack is more exagerated/extreme on film than it is in his book. TV is a "dumber" medium than print, and, as such, he might feel a need to attack differently. *shrugs*


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 20, 2003)

> ... And that's a distractive way to make fun of Nike's CEO, for instance. After all, cinema is leisure. Moore is not being serious because he's aiming at amusing, even if his topic could be serious. Compare to Roberto Begnini.



Actually, Michael Moore sees himself as a *documentary film maker*, not an entertainer. His words (read his quote from the oscars), not mine. Documentary films, which might be entertainining, are meant more to educate and convey a point. But I'd love the next interviewer who sits down with MM to make the Begnini comparison, and see how MM takes it.

What everyone here is failing to realize without me just coming out saying it point blank - I *agree* (gasp!) with quite a lot that MM has to say in his various commentaries (apart from his anti-Iraq war and Bush views). The problem is, when I see him use his films to portray his side of a story as fact without any direct challenging, it turns me off. Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh, but he answers to his audience 5 times a week for 3 hours a day. Even liberal talk show hosts (Mike Molloy, Alan Colmbes, et al) have more cojones than MM, since they have to defend their views daily.

MMs movies are nothing more than drive by journalism/commentary. If you perceive it as entertianment, then I applaud you. But the author, and millions others see it as a documentary, and it's by this measure that it comes up dreadfully short, in my opinion.


----------



## toast (Apr 20, 2003)

I see your point.
To give a nice form to mine, here's a quote from the Guardian presenting his book:

White frights

He's a joker not a philosopher, a film-maker not a statesman, but Michael Moore has diagnosed the source of the world's ills. It's Stupid White Men - from the Thief in Chief who stole the presidential election, to the company chairman who pollutes the planet, to the car salesman who sells you the dud car. Here, he sorts out the villains and the fall guys. "


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 20, 2003)

> He's a joker not a philosopher, a film-maker not a statesman, but Michael Moore has diagnosed the source of the world's ills. It's Stupid White Men - from the Thief in Chief who stole the presidential election, to the company chairman who pollutes the planet, to the car salesman who sells you the dud car. Here, he sorts out the villains and the fall guys



The two things that probably irk me most about MM are his selection of targets, and his politically correct approach.

For example...

In his movie, he dupes an unwitting Charlton Heston, whom he sees as a bad guy because he's head of the NRA. 

How about shining the light on the hypocritical Rosie O'Donnel, who's rabidly anti NRA, yet has no problem being KMarts spokesperson, a place where just about anybody can purchase a rifle.

Or how about exposing some eco-terrorist organizations, like ELF? Or the lunacy of Peta? Or exposing Jesse Jacksons shady business dealings?

He doesn't tackle these issues because it isn't PC. Even his book title "Stupid White Men" (a title that reveals more of his self loathing psyche) is a cheap shot. He has no cojones to take on non-PC causes, probably because he's afraid to tee off his core audience.

Then again, he was pretty hard on Bill Clinton, but that could be because Clinton wasn't far enough to the left for his liking...


----------



## habilis (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by marz _
> *Rush Limbaugh neither has facts nor logic to back him up, just loud mouthed rhetoric to incite his listeners that already agree with his specious logic. *



I don't agree with every_single_word Limbaugh speaks but I listen to his show at least 3 times(9 hours) a week. And aside from his adoption of over-pragmatized views of science he's an undeniable political genious. The left is mortified by his oratory because it *is* so powerful and ruggedly truthful. So I think it's exactly contrary to your statement; the reason why he has 20,000,000 American listeners is because he really does speak the hard-to-swallow truth and underground realities of the world.

As far as rhetoric, well, calling something rhetoric is just a way for one party to cast negative aspursions on anothers statements of belief - I don't buy it.


----------



## toast (Apr 21, 2003)

Anyone knows a way for us Europeans to watch this Mr Rush Limbaugh ? I hate to read about something I haven't tested myself.


----------



## habilis (Apr 21, 2003)

toast: http://www.wtam.com/main.html click on the "listen Live" link. WTAM is my local AM radio station here in Cleveland. His show is from 12:08 PM to 3:00 PM American Eastern Standard time so translate that to your time.

Let me warn you however, Limbaugh is a staunch right winger.


----------



## fryke (Apr 21, 2003)

Serpicolugnut: You ask why we think you don't agree/disagree with MM? You've entered him into the thread, and both from your icon and you previous posts in 'The Café' I have to assume that you're rather rightish. The tone you're using in the first post about MM in this thread sounds like your pride is hurt and that you want to pay 'this guy' back in the 'cheap way' he's using himself.

If I've totally got you wrong, please accept my apology.


----------



## toast (Apr 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *toast: http://www.wtam.com/main.html click on the "listen Live" link. WTAM is my local AM radio station here in Cleveland. His show is from 12:08 PM to 3:00 PM American Eastern Standard time so translate that to your time.
> 
> Let me warn you however, Limbaugh is a staunch right winger. *



Thank you very much.
And thanks for warning me ! I know he is staunchingly right-wing. Now I'll be able to tell you how much he is, from a French point of view.


----------



## wdw_ (May 2, 2003)

You know what would be the perfect campagn song for Clinton if he were to run again; Eminem's "Without Me". Just read the chorus:



> "Now this looks like a job for me
> So everybody just follow me
> 'Cause we need a little controversy,
> 'Cause it feels so empty without me"



Almost the entire song fits.Give it a listen.


----------

