The Next US President

[michaeledward]

The next president should be drafted..."as you open the non-descript yet formal looking Fed Government envelope thinking, I did'nt really cheat on my taxes Tooo badly. What the hell is this? I am the 42nd President! S*&^t, how did that happen? I wasn't even registered to vote!"...

William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.
George Walker Bush is the 43rd President of the United States.

If you are drafted ... you will be number 44..... Go for it.

Mike

 

[TwistofFat]

Mike,


Sorry for the slip-up, I was working. G. Bush is the 42nd and by the draft you might be the 43rd - for the record.

Watch your mail box!

 

[Bammx2]

I should be president.

 

[Gary Crawford]

I should be KING-Then there would be no more politics

 

[Gary Crawford]

until I am overthrown-which would take about 20 minutes into my adminisrtation!lol!

 

[michaeledward]

I should be KING-Then there would be no more politics

In my senior year of high school, during class elections, one of my colleagues from our Latin II class put himself on the class ballot ... not as class president, but as class deity. It was great. He lost. - Mike

 

[Bammx2]

I want to be Q!

 

[Mark Weiser]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]

THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol

 

[TwistofFat]

I thought Gary Crawford was king?!!!

 

[Feisty Mouse]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]

THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol

I'm not laughing - he'd do it to retain power indefinetly.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm not laughing - he'd do it to retain power indefinetly.

To which, we could say :

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Mike

 

[shesulsa]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Sounds like common sense to me....

 

[Gary Crawford]

I thought Gary Crawford was king?!!!

SHHH! I am,everyone is in denial!

 

[Brother John]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]

THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol

You are misrepresenting this Mark.
this was first proposed by a Democrat, that IF a state (lets say a big one, like New York again) gets BOMBED or some-such by those that we know:
A: Want to.
B: Plan to disrupt the election.
C: Can...

On or very near election day
It would seriously disrupt the election process. It would probably mean the exclusion of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizen's votes.
NOT GOOD.
The Democrat, I believe one working with homeland security or the security council, suggested this "What if?" scenario, the President told a panel to look into it and they did and found that the authors of the constitution didn't take Islamic Terrorist Bombs into account when drafting it.
go figure.

Besides, it's NOT talking about eliminating the election...just postponing it by days or weeks to ensure that it's done right.

Think of it like this:
1: Large cities traditionally support Democrats more than Republicans, encumbant or not.
2: Large cities are the MOST logical/predictable targets for the sleeper cells that are thought to be in the USA planning their mayhem. (ie; the Twin Towers, The UN building, Madrid, London...etc.) This way their efforts effect the greatest numbers possible.
3: These Islamic Terrorists in question have already used their terror-tactics to disrupt major elections in another country (Spain, Madrid)...and they succeeded completely!
(I'm sure a person who's done as much research on terrorism tactics as you have would know these things already Mark)

SO: If President Bush is pulling a scam...the only votes it will go to protect will largly be those of Democrats.
Fact.

I'd want this change, NO MATTER who the President is.
It's not President Bush being "powerhungry"...
It's President Bush being fair.

Your Brother
John

 

[Mark Weiser]

Well John I was hoping for a response to the little excerpt I posted and I got one alright lol.

The problem with many things in life you have to take the whole picture and burn off the excess and see what is left. The media spin on the article was very apparent lol. The fine line between Democrats and Republicans are becoming more and more blurred and of coursee the Media will print what we as the public want to read. Since the Moore movie came out was and is so successful anything Anti Bush will sell Papers.

I just added the last line to get things stirred. I am a Republican myself so I saw the statement as absoultely hysterical lol in reference to Bush as King lol. Reminded me of some funny fables I read as a child.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

 

[michaeledward]

You are misrepresenting this Mark.
this was first proposed by a Democrat,

John, I have seen the reports that this idea was floated by 'Deforest Blake Soaries Jr', Who was appointed to the head of the Election Assistance Commission by President Bush (a Republican). Earlier, he was appointed to the position of Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey by Christie Todd Whitman (also a Republican).

I see no reference to his party affiliation in his biography. He does have a powerful biography.

http://www.eac.gov/soaries.asp?format=none

I hope he is paying as much attention to the Diebold voting machines.

Mike

 

[qizmoduis]

You are misrepresenting this Mark.
this was first proposed by a Democrat...

Errr...no.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

The proposer is a Bush appointee to the election commission who was a failed GOP candidate for Congress.

This is, of course, yet another attempt by Bush and his folks to manipulate the process to maintain his grip on ill-gotten and badly abused power. All joking aside, he DOES behave like a king, and not as an elected representative (which he isn't). He really needs to go.

 

[Brother John]

Okay.

The general media is very heavily slanted anymore.

I was a Democrat before I went to College. While in College I took a journalism class on "Detecting, avoiding and exposing bias". Then I took another class in the psyche department called "Deception in advertising". After a great deal of scrutiny of the media during the Bush/Gore run I HAD to become a Republican!!!! Besides, I really investigated the parties and realized that my beliefs were consevative Republican anyway...it fit better.

My vote is for President Bush.
He's intelligent, good speaker or not.
He's Honest.
He's got a wonderful work ethic.
He's a man of faith.
He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)
He's tough on terrorism.
He did the RIGHT thing in Iraq, and still is.
He HAS restored the dignity and honor of the oval office.

I don't agree with 100% of what he has done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is a fine President.

Then there's Kerry. SCARRY KERRY!!!
National Journal Named Kerry “Most Liberal” Congressional Dem Running For President.
In 2003, Kerry Voted With Kennedy 93% Of The Time.
Kerry Has Voted At Least 350 Times For Higher Taxes. :btg:
Kerry Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortions.
Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent/Notification For Minor’s Abortion.
Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Funding Of Abortions And To Provide Abortion Counseling In Federally-Funded Clinics. (There's where he wants YOUR extra tax money for, paying for children's abortion procedures)
GET THIS: Kerry says that he's all about "Fiscal responsibility", yet he's voted 350 times for a major HIKE in taxes!!!
BUT In September 2001, Kerry Said We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn. “The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn’t do either. ((But he did both)) We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, ((Yet he voted to, and voted against the tax break that DID help)) but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . . you don’t want to raise taxes.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/2/01)
THEN: in classic Kerry style: In December 2002, Kerry Flip-Flopped. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?” KERRY: “Well, I wouldn’t take away from people who’ve already been given their tax cut . . . . What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. . . .” RUSSERT: “So the tax cut that’s scheduled to be implemented in the coming years . . . .” KERRY: “No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn’t make economic sense.” RUSSERT: “Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 12/1/02)
HUH? :idunno:
Kerry Twice Voted Against Allowing Self-Employed Individuals To Fully Deduct Cost Of Their Health Insurance On Their Federal Taxes.
Kerry Twice Voted Against Bill Providing $10 Billion Funding For State Medicaid Programs.
Kerry’s Health Care Plan Could Cost As Much As $895 Billion Over 10 Years And Still Would Not Cover All Currently Uninsured Individuals.
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. FLIP FLOP!
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years.
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began.
But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge.
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.”
THEN: Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package.

I Could go on and on. There's tuns of FACTS that hurt Kerry's viability as a President.
Don't even get me started on Edwards!!!
I'm not spouting hyperbole, I'm giving facts that can be looked up by anyone.

You guys want to Bush Bash?
OK. It's your right. Infact it's rather shiek to do so.
too bad.


Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Errr...no.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

The proposer is a Bush appointee to the election commission who was a failed GOP candidate for Congress.

This is, of course, yet another attempt by Bush and his folks to manipulate the process to maintain his grip on ill-gotten and badly abused power. All joking aside, he DOES behave like a king, and not as an elected representative (which he isn't). He really needs to go.

Errr...no WHAT? I said a few things, one generalize 'no' isn't very clear.
You are correct, I was wrong. It wasn't a democrat who first proposed it. I did hear a democrat on TV backing it...thought it was his idea. Sorry. Other than that, my statement was correct.
The one who 'thought' of it was Soaries.
Here's a copy of the article from that web-site you posted:
"sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman."

Errr...no. President Bush was legally elected to the Presidency by means of the system established in the US Constitution.

Errr...no. It's not

yet another attempt by Bush and his folks to manipulate the process to maintain his grip

It's trying to be consistant. Like I said, if it's protecting votes...so what. They'd most likely be inner city votes...which is predominantly Democrat...so he'd be protecting Democrat voters. Hardly seems so devious to me.

he DOES behave like a king,

Errr...no.
how?
How does President Bush do this, give more than an open accusation to support your premise.
I propose that this is your liberal-media spoon-fed bias, well regurgitated....but lacking fact or substance.

President Bush acts in the best interest of our country.
Like him or not.


Your Brother
John

 

[TwistofFat]

William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.
George Walker Bush is the 43rd President of the United States.

If you are drafted ... you will be number 44..... Go for it.

Mike

Mike - should have clairified...if you count Stephen "Grover" Cleveland as the 22nd and the 24th then you are right. GWB is the 43 office holder (but 42nd man).