Just curious -- would like information.

Ventura -- seems to have gone off into left field Bush -- seems to have gone off into left field Buchanan -- no one knows where he's going

All scenarios, including martial law, no martial law but crisis situations.

Can Clinton legally keep himself in office next year? If he can, can Congress do anything to stop that from happening? Will government exist as it is now or what could replace it?

Like I said just curious, would welcome all opinions.

-- claurann (claurann@aol.com), October 06, 1999

Answers

Of course Clinton will be in office next year you schmuk. His Presidential Term doesn't end until the end of 2000.

Never listen to anyone with an AOL.COM address.

-- (hey you@aol.com nitwit! shaddup!), October 06, 1999.

Oh and by the way the new millennium doesn't begin on 1/1/2000 either.

-- (do you feel@welcome . yet?), October 06, 1999.

Clinton's term ends in January of 2001. George W. Bush will then be moving into the White House.

-- (that's@all.folks), October 06, 1999.

keep voting for republocrats and Nothing will ever Change.

-- Dan G (thepcguru@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999.

After Y2K ravages this country, people will be equally disgusted with Republicans and Democrats. Ventura will win by a landslide. And I doubt Bill will try to comandeer the Oval Office when he sees a former SEAL headed his way.

-- a (a@a.a), October 06, 1999.

No, when Y2K hits ppl will think about God again. Ventura sunk himself with his comments in Playboy. Times a'changing. Nobody will be elected who does not have proof that they sounded the Y2K alarm loud & clear starting at least in 1998.

-- zzzzzzzz (zzzz@zzzzzz.zzzzzzz), October 06, 1999.

Okay, fine -- he technically walks 1-1-01. Does he legally have the ability to announce prior to that time that he's not walking?

-- claurann (claurann@aol.com), October 06, 1999.

No, clurann, he technically walks on 1/21/01, the 20th being a Sunday. Stop being silly.

-- (that's@all.folks), October 06, 1999.

Just remember this "equation":

William J. Clinton = President-For-Life

God help us all!

JJ

-- Jeremiah Jetson (laterthan@uthink.y2k), October 06, 1999.

Jesse Ventura was right on when he said that religion is a crutch for the weak-minded. Always was; always will be. (The most highly really religious [as opposed to the opportunists] are doddering old crones.) The human race is going nowhere (and quite likely down the tubes) because they are SHEEPLE. Congenitally stupid, willfully ignorant, the abstracting ability of flatworms, and the aesthetic sensibilities of maggots. Time to grow up, kiddies, and discard primitive superstitions -- reliance on a purported "Big Brother" in the sky, and to discard reliance on a secular Big Brother in reality.

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 06, 1999.

I'm foreced to dissagree with you there A, I am very religous, as I have EXPERENCED a Miricle, that only could have been sent by God. I belive very strongly in my faith, and that helps me make decisions... I feel that regardless of if you belive in god or not though, the rules of religion are good one, ie: dont murder, steal, rape, ect... along with avoiding unmarried sex(AIDS is a perfect example why, so is Gonnereah, Crabs, G. Wort, ect, ect, ect...) and treating others as you would like to be treated IF POSSIBLE, of course!!! Obviously this is not an ideal world, and won't be until HE returns, but we should still try...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), October 06, 1999.

I think there's a big difference between religious and spiritual. In a nutshell, I think religious means following a system of beliefs on the make up of the universe, usually unquestioningly, and spiritual means questioning the makeup of the universe, and attempting to seek a clear view of reality. Looking at it that way, I would tend to agree with Ventura, who, by the way, will never be elected president. And, Clinton will not crown himself king for life, no matter what a handful of paranoid people on this board may think. Article XXII of the constitution makes it clear, and besides, he does not have the support of the military, which would be necessary to pull off a consitutional coup.

-- (that's@all.folks!), October 06, 1999.

And, by the way, IF there are no elections in 2000, which is highly unlikely, Article XX of the Constitution says that "Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified."

You can be DAMN sure that Congress will kick Clinton out, and stick the Speaker of the House in his place, until someone else is chosen.

-- (that's@all.folks!), October 06, 1999.

That's@all.folks! - what makes you think that the FedGov is currently following the Constitution *anyway*?? Have you ever heard of the 2nd Amendment?? Is the meaning of that followed?? I find it to be pretty D@mn clear in meaning.

If I vote, I will vote for Ventura; maybe for Beaty- I have to check him out more. *DEFINETLY* not any career Politician..."how do you know when a POL is lying?? When his mouth is open." <----how old is that now??? and people STILL DGI????

LOL...life is funny.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), October 06, 1999.

Yes, I have heard of the 2nd Amendment. If I recall, it reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If this is clear to you, then we have different definitions of clarity.

"A well regulated Militia..." Regulated, as in regulations may be imposed? "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." in order to be part of that well regulated militia? or for other purposes? "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." Sounds like for the purpose of being part of a militia. A free State as in State? or Nation-State? "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This seems to contradict the well regualted part. Greater minds than mine (not too hard to find) have pondered this question. It seems to me that this allows for some regulations. Like maybe, a background check? Or purchase limits? I don't have a problem with that, because there are too many assholes out there with guns. Yes, most gun owners are responsible. How would you limit access to guns for the assholes, without regulations?

While I've never been particularly enamored of the political structure, saying that you wouldn't vote for a career politician is kind of like saying that you wouldn't go to a career dentist. Got a better system? Lay it out.

-- (that's@all.folks!), October 06, 1999.

Well let me see now, do I vote for dog sh*t or cat sh*t?

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 06, 1999.

that's:

I've been puzzled by the first half of the second amendment too. Are "the people" being regarded as some kind of dormant backup military force, subject to regulation in that role? Or does the regulation clause apply to a formal militia, like a National Guard? I've seen speculation that the 2nd amendment was simple recognition of political realities of the times -- that gun ownership even then was widespread and (in the wake of the war) regarded as crucial, so getting the guns away from people was a political hot potato. And the early government had the resources neither to fund a standing army nor to outfit a conscript army, so the authors of the amendment found a way to "protect a right" that would save big money at the same time.

In any case, today the first half seems to be ignored, guns are rampant, there is no practicable way to get them out of the hands of the assholes, so having one yourself is the only viable alternative. If *I* were King, every qualified citizen would be issued a gun, the use of which would be a required part of public education,.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 06, 1999.

that's: You truly amaze me. I am stunned and disappointed by you interpretation.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

That to me is REAL basic.

You say "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This seems to contradict the well regualted part."

Ummm, no. That means that the "well regulated part" is NOT what you WANT it to mean. Did you know that every male citizen in the U.S.A. under the age of 45, over the age of 18 and NOT in any of the armed services is a member of the Militia of the Fed Gov by LAW???

U.S.C. Title 18....I'll have to find the section for ya', but it IS there.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), October 06, 1999.

Flint -you said "If *I* were King, every qualified citizen would be issued a gun, the use of which would be a required part of public education."

OH my GOD, I agree with you on something.........................(I'm waiting for the world to end, now) .................................(hmmm, hasn't happened yet) ...............................................

(I'm kidding) (about the world ending part)

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), October 06, 1999.

Just curious, but if y'all are GITs, then why don't you take Libby Dole seriously as a candidate for at least VP? With her management/coordinator experience with the Red Cross, one would think she would be a natural for an executive position during a time of potential disaster and crisis.

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), October 06, 1999.

Brent, you're just stunned and disappointed that someone interpreted it differently than you. Personally, I don't see regulations saying that convicted whackos can't buy guns, that you have to wait a couple of days, and that you can only buy X number of guns at one time as being infringements. This has been gone over for generations. Let's just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

-- (That's@all.she.wrote!), October 07, 1999.

If you recognize a politicians name, vote for the other candidate unless you can write down three specific things that the recognized candidate did that helped the country. This would really be a challenge for some of these characters. What specifically did Clinton do for you? He did NOT create the good economy, his executive orders will have undesirable effects, he ignored Y2k issues, and the time and effort spent on the scandals could have been better spent on helping the people.

-- Louie (Louie@notamoron.gum), October 07, 1999.