Forums > Social Discussion > Could Katrina sink Bush?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Didn't want to add to the other Katrina thread as this is a bit of an extended side issue...
We're seeing a LOT of criticism of the Bush administration at the moment. His popularity rating in the US is at an all time low (something around 33%) and I have yet to see anything he's said or done which can alleviate this.
Katrina has raised so many issues for him - the national/home guard being depleted due to Iraq, him going on a fundraiser 2 days after Katrina (He visited N.O 5 days after...), lack of funds available for relief, slowness of response (in many peoples eyes due to the ethnography of the city), diverting funds away from disaster relief/prevention for 4 consecutive years etc etc.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking - but could his (and his govenerments) shocking treatment of this disaster be enough to un-seat him?
Some abstract thoughts: -
~ It's always seemed Bush is popular with the strict Christian population. By all means, in their eyes this is an act of God - directly in response to his war?
~ Post 9/11 it was deemed un-patriotic to criticise the Government over it's handling of that disaster (leading up to and aftermath), yet this one has been pretty much no-holes-barred against him - surely a sign of his ever decreasing popularity? In such a media driven country, if all the news channels are saying the same thing, this can't do anything but scupper his supporters even more.
Maybe it won't be an immediate thing - but I really wouldn't be at all surprised if his 4-year terms is cut dramatically short.
Didn't want to add to the other Katrina thread as this is a bit of an extended side issue...
We're seeing a LOT of criticism of the Bush administration at the moment. His popularity rating in the US is at an all time low (something around 33%) and I have yet to see anything he's said or done which can alleviate this.
Katrina has raised so many issues for him - the national/home guard being depleted due to Iraq, him going on a fundraiser 2 days after Katrina (He visited N.O 5 days after...), lack of funds available for relief, slowness of response (in many peoples eyes due to the ethnography of the city), diverting funds away from disaster relief/prevention for 4 consecutive years etc etc.
Perhaps this is wishful thinking - but could his (and his govenerments) shocking treatment of this disaster be enough to un-seat him?
Some abstract thoughts: -
~ It's always seemed Bush is popular with the strict Christian population. By all means, in their eyes this is an act of God - directly in response to his war?
~ Post 9/11 it was deemed un-patriotic to criticise the Government over it's handling of that disaster (leading up to and aftermath), yet this one has been pretty much no-holes-barred against him - surely a sign of his ever decreasing popularity? In such a media driven country, if all the news channels are saying the same thing, this can't do anything but scupper his supporters even more.
Maybe it won't be an immediate thing - but I really wouldn't be at all surprised if his 4-year terms is cut dramatically short.
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
NYC, you'll find my opinions about Trittin's letter in the original Katrina-thread, but this quote doesn't say "Bush caused Katrina" either, it says Bush doesn't see that air pollution affects the climate and that might be in the long run more expensive than spending money on energy-efficiency.
As to how pot-head the German Green Party is - I know quite a few of them and I think I should maybe not comment
NYC, you'll find my opinions about Trittin's letter in the original Katrina-thread, but this quote doesn't say "Bush caused Katrina" either, it says Bush doesn't see that air pollution affects the climate and that might be in the long run more expensive than spending money on energy-efficiency.
As to how pot-head the German Green Party is - I know quite a few of them and I think I should maybe not comment
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
ancient oachkatzlschwoaf
248 posts
Location: germany
248 posts
Location: germany
Posted:
well birgit am I right if your "not comment" is meant badly ?
well birgit am I right if your "not comment" is meant badly ?
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Forgive my cynicism but Fox is hardly renowned for its fair and balanced reporting. Equally the German Green party is similar in outlook to the US Green Party, who are considered to be way off the mainsteam political map.
Right wing commentators have a tendency to defend their positions by attacking 'liberal' views which few if any people hold because they're as ridiculous as a statement like Bush caused Katrina. Thus their own positions are advanced as the only sensible one.
'there is a vocal minority that believes that Bush's politics allowed global warming'
allowed global warming??? thats past tense???
there is a vocal minority (perhaps in the US) at home and majority (how many countries signed up to Kyoto) worldwide who believe that Bush's policies in failing to stem greenhouse gas emmissions and rely upon fossil fuels for energy, are contributing to a climactic shift which creates more freaquent and severe 'natural' disasters.
why the need to dumb it down. especially when it gets simplified into something it doesn't mean. note that while this statement suggests a link between bush's policies and environmental disaster it doesn't state this to a be the single, or even most important cause.
Forgive my cynicism but Fox is hardly renowned for its fair and balanced reporting. Equally the German Green party is similar in outlook to the US Green Party, who are considered to be way off the mainsteam political map.
Right wing commentators have a tendency to defend their positions by attacking 'liberal' views which few if any people hold because they're as ridiculous as a statement like Bush caused Katrina. Thus their own positions are advanced as the only sensible one.
'there is a vocal minority that believes that Bush's politics allowed global warming'
allowed global warming??? thats past tense???
there is a vocal minority (perhaps in the US) at home and majority (how many countries signed up to Kyoto) worldwide who believe that Bush's policies in failing to stem greenhouse gas emmissions and rely upon fossil fuels for energy, are contributing to a climactic shift which creates more freaquent and severe 'natural' disasters.
why the need to dumb it down. especially when it gets simplified into something it doesn't mean. note that while this statement suggests a link between bush's policies and environmental disaster it doesn't state this to a be the single, or even most important cause.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
....of doom!
585 posts
Location: Hastings, UK
....of doom!
585 posts
Location: Hastings, UK
Posted:
are you joking? georgie boy quite clearly loves it - they pay him to take holidays! they tell him what to say and when to say it, daddy is on the sidelines, he has a whole bunch of people telling him how great he is (i wonder if he knows they're paid to do so yet?), he gets to play with big planes and roll his sleeves up(dubyas first visit to NO after katrina had some spectacular sleeve rolling action - conveying images of action bush! the all american president! dont worry, george will save the day! etc) and look important and cameras follow him around everywhere and there are nice men who'll take a bullet for him etc etc etc
i have a dim view of dubya. who doesn't? from here it looks like he treats his job as some kind of hobby. and that he doesnt care about the people in new orleans at all.
i'm interested that a lot of you attribute the delayed reaction to katrina to race. its my first instinct too, and it is subtley suggested on the news here. however, i've seen a good few sites that are saying that race really has nothing to do with it. i don't know if this is some kind of rose tinted specs american thing or really the truth..i suppose i never will.
Written by: Doc Lightning
I wouldn't be worried about him running again in 2012. Very few Presidents enjoy the Presidency.
are you joking? georgie boy quite clearly loves it - they pay him to take holidays! they tell him what to say and when to say it, daddy is on the sidelines, he has a whole bunch of people telling him how great he is (i wonder if he knows they're paid to do so yet?), he gets to play with big planes and roll his sleeves up(dubyas first visit to NO after katrina had some spectacular sleeve rolling action - conveying images of action bush! the all american president! dont worry, george will save the day! etc) and look important and cameras follow him around everywhere and there are nice men who'll take a bullet for him etc etc etc
i have a dim view of dubya. who doesn't? from here it looks like he treats his job as some kind of hobby. and that he doesnt care about the people in new orleans at all.
i'm interested that a lot of you attribute the delayed reaction to katrina to race. its my first instinct too, and it is subtley suggested on the news here. however, i've seen a good few sites that are saying that race really has nothing to do with it. i don't know if this is some kind of rose tinted specs american thing or really the truth..i suppose i never will.
member
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posted:
My opinion is that it won't get him out (unfortunately), but it could wrap up the occupation of Iraq. There is not enough military in the US to help with the clean up and to stop the looting. Bush called for the people to dig deep and donate their own money. But this could have been prevented if the 1/4 of a billion $$$ was given to the project to finish the levies and pump houses. After a bad hurricane in the 60's the government spent large amounts of money to start defending New Orleans from the city. When the Iraq war (which I do not agree with) started they pulled all founding from the project. It was 1/4 of a billion $$$, it sounds like a lot. But that isn't even the cost of a days spending in Iraq. The Mayor of New Orleans had stated to the higher ups that he felt protecting his city WAS PART OF HOMELAND SECURITY. But they ignored him.
There will be scapegoats a plenty from this but I feel we may finally get the troops out of Iraq with this.
And Bush, well he didn't even win either of his "elections" Daddy bought them for him. So I doubt we could kick him out if we can't even stop him from stealing the Presidency.
My opinion is that it won't get him out (unfortunately), but it could wrap up the occupation of Iraq. There is not enough military in the US to help with the clean up and to stop the looting. Bush called for the people to dig deep and donate their own money. But this could have been prevented if the 1/4 of a billion $$$ was given to the project to finish the levies and pump houses. After a bad hurricane in the 60's the government spent large amounts of money to start defending New Orleans from the city. When the Iraq war (which I do not agree with) started they pulled all founding from the project. It was 1/4 of a billion $$$, it sounds like a lot. But that isn't even the cost of a days spending in Iraq. The Mayor of New Orleans had stated to the higher ups that he felt protecting his city WAS PART OF HOMELAND SECURITY. But they ignored him.
There will be scapegoats a plenty from this but I feel we may finally get the troops out of Iraq with this.
And Bush, well he didn't even win either of his "elections" Daddy bought them for him. So I doubt we could kick him out if we can't even stop him from stealing the Presidency.
I thought I waz just dreammin'?!!??!!??!! Dis place can't really be real.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Nobody hates Fox more than me but I just happened to post the quote from the Fox website. It has also been posted in reputable news agencies as well.
If you do a search you can find quite a few more reputable sources trying to link global warming to the increase in drastic weather.
And dream, I miss spoke. I meant to say there's a vocal minority who believe Bush's policies played a serious impact into how destructive Katrina was. Obviously Bush has to answer for his own lack of environmental ethics.
As an aside, I'm finding folks picking apart my facts a bit lazy. I don't mind folks picking apart my opinion. If you don't believe that a Fox webside is reputable, look elsewhere. If you don't believe that ANYONE (as Lightning said) is linking the CAUSE of the destruction and Bush's enviornmental policy, at least check another source or two before posting.
This is the part when people start disagreeing with stuff I didn't say... so I'll duck away.
Written by: dream
Forgive my cynicism but Fox is hardly renowned for its fair and balanced reporting.
Nobody hates Fox more than me but I just happened to post the quote from the Fox website. It has also been posted in reputable news agencies as well.
If you do a search you can find quite a few more reputable sources trying to link global warming to the increase in drastic weather.
And dream, I miss spoke. I meant to say there's a vocal minority who believe Bush's policies played a serious impact into how destructive Katrina was. Obviously Bush has to answer for his own lack of environmental ethics.
As an aside, I'm finding folks picking apart my facts a bit lazy. I don't mind folks picking apart my opinion. If you don't believe that a Fox webside is reputable, look elsewhere. If you don't believe that ANYONE (as Lightning said) is linking the CAUSE of the destruction and Bush's enviornmental policy, at least check another source or two before posting.
This is the part when people start disagreeing with stuff I didn't say... so I'll duck away.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I do think that people don't realize that a majority of this country supports our president. I see stuff like this all the time on HoP. I think we're all too often on our own liberal island. I don't support him, but I think that he won the last election fair and square.
I live in a country that often turns its head from the suffering of the minority, that can't tell the difference between Sadam and Osama, and that thinks that George Bush is doing a pretty good job.
I've never actually MET any of those people but I accept the fact that they're out there and they make up a majority of my country.
Sad but true.
I'm ducking, I'm ducking.
Written by: MurfdaSmurf
And Bush, well he didn't even win either of his "elections" Daddy bought them for him. So I doubt we could kick him out if we can't even stop him from stealing the Presidency.
I do think that people don't realize that a majority of this country supports our president. I see stuff like this all the time on HoP. I think we're all too often on our own liberal island. I don't support him, but I think that he won the last election fair and square.
I live in a country that often turns its head from the suffering of the minority, that can't tell the difference between Sadam and Osama, and that thinks that George Bush is doing a pretty good job.
I've never actually MET any of those people but I accept the fact that they're out there and they make up a majority of my country.
Sad but true.
I'm ducking, I'm ducking.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
I looked elsewhere and found the quote repeated by the herald and the times, both of which like fox are owned by Rupert Murdoch and are known as right wing publications who used the quote to attack the idea that Bush's environmental policies caused Katrina.
' I miss spoke. I meant to say there's a vocal minority who believe Bush's policies played a serious impact into how destructive Katrina was. Obviously Bush has to answer for his own lack of environmental ethics.'
Yes. If you'd have said that at the outset I wouldn't have disagreed with you. But here you dont say 'Bush caused Katrina', you say his policies 'played a serious impact,' ie assisted the destructive impact of the hurricane. Please tell me you see the difference.
'If you don't believe that ANYONE (as Lightning said) is linking the CAUSE of the destruction and Bush's enviornmental policy'
Again you use the term 'The CAUSE,' which is singular, rather than 'a cause' which allows someone to say that climate change has probably influenced the destructive capability of the hurricane, but as there is annual hurricane season in the Gulf/Carribean this cannot be the only cause.
I'm sorry if you think I'm disagreeing with stuff you didn't say, or picking apart your grammar, but the variations covey a change in meaning which means you take a fairly plausible statement with widespread scientific support and replace it with an absurdity like 'Bush caused Katrina.'
I looked elsewhere and found the quote repeated by the herald and the times, both of which like fox are owned by Rupert Murdoch and are known as right wing publications who used the quote to attack the idea that Bush's environmental policies caused Katrina.
' I miss spoke. I meant to say there's a vocal minority who believe Bush's policies played a serious impact into how destructive Katrina was. Obviously Bush has to answer for his own lack of environmental ethics.'
Yes. If you'd have said that at the outset I wouldn't have disagreed with you. But here you dont say 'Bush caused Katrina', you say his policies 'played a serious impact,' ie assisted the destructive impact of the hurricane. Please tell me you see the difference.
'If you don't believe that ANYONE (as Lightning said) is linking the CAUSE of the destruction and Bush's enviornmental policy'
Again you use the term 'The CAUSE,' which is singular, rather than 'a cause' which allows someone to say that climate change has probably influenced the destructive capability of the hurricane, but as there is annual hurricane season in the Gulf/Carribean this cannot be the only cause.
I'm sorry if you think I'm disagreeing with stuff you didn't say, or picking apart your grammar, but the variations covey a change in meaning which means you take a fairly plausible statement with widespread scientific support and replace it with an absurdity like 'Bush caused Katrina.'
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
So it's one thing to say that the Bush policy of ignoring climate change will lead to natural disasters like Katrina and it's quite another thing to say that Bush *caused* Katrina.
Mr. Trittin was saying the former.
Written by: NYC
Do a search Lightning. You're wrong.
I searched yahoo for "bush caused Katrina" and found 405 sites.
Here's a quote for you:
"The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy. The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina."
So it's one thing to say that the Bush policy of ignoring climate change will lead to natural disasters like Katrina and it's quite another thing to say that Bush *caused* Katrina.
Mr. Trittin was saying the former.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
AMEN, sistah!
Sing it! Sing it loud!
Written by: NYC
Because there's a large portion of American that would rather see RIVERS full of poor dead black people than a $5 gallon of gas.
[Can I get a AM-EN?!]
AMEN, sistah!
Sing it! Sing it loud!
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The thing is that I've met these people. Hell, they're my patients half the time. They're REALLY nice people (most, anyway). They just operate under the assumption that that which does not affect them does not matter.
Honestly, it's like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
Written by: NYC
I do think that people don't realize that a majority of this country supports our president. I see stuff like this all the time on HoP. I think we're all too often on our own liberal island. I don't support him, but I think that he won the last election fair and square.
I live in a country that often turns its head from the suffering of the minority, that can't tell the difference between Sadam and Osama, and that thinks that George Bush is doing a pretty good job.
I've never actually MET any of those people but I accept the fact that they're out there and they make up a majority of my country.
Sad but true.
The thing is that I've met these people. Hell, they're my patients half the time. They're REALLY nice people (most, anyway). They just operate under the assumption that that which does not affect them does not matter.
Honestly, it's like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
The 22nd Amendment provides that "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." It's not consecutive...it's at all since FDR did 4 terms.
From www.senate.gov
"Since 1789 only 17 federal officers have been impeached by the House, 14 of which were tried by the Senate. Three were dismissed before trial because the individual had left office, 7 ended in acquittal and 7 in conviction. All of those convicted were federal judges."
"Treason and bribery, the two constitutionally designated impeachable crimes, were clear cut. But what were "high crimes and misdemeanors?" In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1960, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." "
So looking at these and at history, nope...it won't. I can dream, but it won't.
And Bush can't run in 2012. However, his cousin who is currently Gov of Florida could.
With the current trend of continuing disenchantment with the entire Bush family, there would need to be some extreme changes over the next 3 years...like NOLA being fully rebuilt and this damn war ending and an end to the poverty levels it has thrown us into to sway people back to his favor for any Bush to win next term.
People don't quickly forget the extreme economic hits we are taking.
And as for it being a "fair" vote...they aren't ever. First of all, after the highly publicised findings of the screwed up vote in Florida with Bush's first term win, to the fact that our entire voting system is set up like a pyramid scheme and are not at all infallable for multiple voting and misrepresentation....there is no such thing, just alot of hope when we push those little levers.
So back on topic...nope it won't bring him down, but it sure as hell is losing him *alot* of ground with the faith of the people.
The 22nd Amendment provides that "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." It's not consecutive...it's at all since FDR did 4 terms.
From www.senate.gov
"Since 1789 only 17 federal officers have been impeached by the House, 14 of which were tried by the Senate. Three were dismissed before trial because the individual had left office, 7 ended in acquittal and 7 in conviction. All of those convicted were federal judges."
"Treason and bribery, the two constitutionally designated impeachable crimes, were clear cut. But what were "high crimes and misdemeanors?" In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1960, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." "
So looking at these and at history, nope...it won't. I can dream, but it won't.
And Bush can't run in 2012. However, his cousin who is currently Gov of Florida could.
With the current trend of continuing disenchantment with the entire Bush family, there would need to be some extreme changes over the next 3 years...like NOLA being fully rebuilt and this damn war ending and an end to the poverty levels it has thrown us into to sway people back to his favor for any Bush to win next term.
People don't quickly forget the extreme economic hits we are taking.
And as for it being a "fair" vote...they aren't ever. First of all, after the highly publicised findings of the screwed up vote in Florida with Bush's first term win, to the fact that our entire voting system is set up like a pyramid scheme and are not at all infallable for multiple voting and misrepresentation....there is no such thing, just alot of hope when we push those little levers.
So back on topic...nope it won't bring him down, but it sure as hell is losing him *alot* of ground with the faith of the people.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Duvan, I don't know Trittin's private habits, but the Green Party's origins are an environmental and very liberal protester type of person on the one side, and a more moderate, nearly center politics, other side that just happens to have different priorities (environment and human rights) than other parties (exonomy). Our foreign minister was attacked by the press for having been in demonstration marches in the late 60s and throwing rocks at the police, though I'm not sure that could be proven, and people generally think he's doing a good job. Trittin seems to be quite a moderate person most of the time unless he really gets annoyed with something, and I suppose Katrina did that job.
NYC, sorry for discussing your opinions
I don't think anyone wanted to pick on what you said, it's just that what you posted is not what you said it'd prove... but I'll shut up now 
And Pele (or any other American) - I thought presidents could get re-elected after a break? Does the break have to be longer, or is that wrong? (And does anyone think Bill Clinton will try it again, or is he going to be happy with the celebrity-politician role he has now?)
Duvan, I don't know Trittin's private habits, but the Green Party's origins are an environmental and very liberal protester type of person on the one side, and a more moderate, nearly center politics, other side that just happens to have different priorities (environment and human rights) than other parties (exonomy). Our foreign minister was attacked by the press for having been in demonstration marches in the late 60s and throwing rocks at the police, though I'm not sure that could be proven, and people generally think he's doing a good job. Trittin seems to be quite a moderate person most of the time unless he really gets annoyed with something, and I suppose Katrina did that job.
NYC, sorry for discussing your opinions
I don't think anyone wanted to pick on what you said, it's just that what you posted is not what you said it'd prove... but I'll shut up now And Pele (or any other American) - I thought presidents could get re-elected after a break? Does the break have to be longer, or is that wrong? (And does anyone think Bill Clinton will try it again, or is he going to be happy with the celebrity-politician role he has now?)
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
ancient oachkatzlschwoaf
248 posts
Location: germany
248 posts
Location: germany
Posted:
birgit which foreign minister are you talking about ? maybe I mixed something up because I thought you are from Edinburgh, but your description to that minister fits 100% to Joschka Fischer.
birgit which foreign minister are you talking about ? maybe I mixed something up because I thought you are from Edinburgh, but your description to that minister fits 100% to Joschka Fischer.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
It is Fischer, but I'm German Sorry Didn't realise you were from Germany, too, I could've saved all the explanations about the Green Party 
Shouldn't type early in the morning really, should I...
It is Fischer, but I'm German
Sorry Didn't realise you were from Germany, too, I could've saved all the explanations about the Green Party Shouldn't type early in the morning really, should I... "vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Posted:
have read of this rant
morrigan
and for a laugh read the geoff the ento
have read of this rant
morrigan
and for a laugh read the geoff the ento
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
Im in a lonely battle with the world with a fish to match the chip on my shoulder. Gnu in Binnu in a cnu
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Nope. Politicians have tried to ratify the 22nd Amendment but it did not go through and any changes keep getting voted down. A President can only serve two terms, break or no. GW is serving two terms. He's done after this.
Although, there is debate whether or not an ex-President can then serve as Vice-President or if that is unconstitutional.
Clinton served two terms (1993-2001). He can't be re-elected, which is unfortunate because the country did very well during his term.
As of right now his wife Hillary, who is currently persuing her own political career, is stating that she is not looking to become president, however...that could change in the next 3 years.
(Check out about the 22nd Constitution at this site )
Written by: Birgit
And Pele (or any other American) - I thought presidents could get re-elected after a break? Does the break have to be longer, or is that wrong? (And does anyone think Bill Clinton will try it again, or is he going to be happy with the celebrity-politician role he has now?)
Nope. Politicians have tried to ratify the 22nd Amendment but it did not go through and any changes keep getting voted down. A President can only serve two terms, break or no. GW is serving two terms. He's done after this.
Although, there is debate whether or not an ex-President can then serve as Vice-President or if that is unconstitutional.
Clinton served two terms (1993-2001). He can't be re-elected, which is unfortunate because the country did very well during his term.
As of right now his wife Hillary, who is currently persuing her own political career, is stating that she is not looking to become president, however...that could change in the next 3 years.
(Check out about the 22nd Constitution at this site )
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
PoiBoi
627 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
PoiBoi
627 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Grrrr... Ya know, I voted yes coz I want it to, but many of ya are right... He won't lose his presidency because of it. I can just hope he isn't re-elected in 2008... Got my fingers crossed, legs, toes, eyes... I just look silly now!
Grrrr... Ya know, I voted yes coz I want it to, but many of ya are right... He won't lose his presidency because of it. I can just hope he isn't re-elected in 2008... Got my fingers crossed, legs, toes, eyes... I just look silly now!
Stuck in my Poi comfort zone....
BRONZE Member
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Classically British
5,689 posts
Location: Epsom, Surrey, England
Posted:
Interesting that the poll reflects different results than the thread would suggest...
Too drunk to comment on this though - I'm off to bed
Interesting that the poll reflects different results than the thread would suggest...
Too drunk to comment on this though - I'm off to bed
Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude
member
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posted:
I hate to say it NYC but you are wrong. The majority doesn't support Bush. Over and over though out the media it is stated that this country is the MOST DIVIDED it has been. And unlike some the other folks from other plces here on HoP I am from the US and I have traveled accross it far and wide. I have lived upon both coasts the midwest and in the southwest. The media says that we are about even ( 50/50) in our belief and support of Bush. I think they are porposely not noticing the large amount of younger people. The 18-25 yr olds. I think if they were noticed the polls would come out differently.
As for Bush being elected. I am sad you believe it. The amount of inapropiate behavior and "strange events" that surround both elections I feel show that something is wrong. The only reason it has never been fully ivestigated is the US Gov doesn't want to be any more of the laughing stock of the world than it all ready is. I have met many people from all over the world that are mad at us in the US for letting Bush steal the Presidencey. They have told me that many more from their counrties feel the same. For me though the issue goes deeper. Untill we are given more than two parties to vote for then the system is not a real democracy. The two are backed by the same big corp. and the same intrests. They are the same as far as I see it. Untill there is a third fourth and fith party, we have no truth or democracy. Elections are just a sham to make Americans feel they can change things. Untill we have a real election with equal play for all parties (did you know we have a communist party? Not that I agree with them, but did you know?) then it is all a lie to placate the public, and all elections are rigged. If you don't know that a party or canadate exsists how can you research if you want them for office?
I hate to say it NYC but you are wrong. The majority doesn't support Bush. Over and over though out the media it is stated that this country is the MOST DIVIDED it has been. And unlike some the other folks from other plces here on HoP I am from the US and I have traveled accross it far and wide. I have lived upon both coasts the midwest and in the southwest. The media says that we are about even ( 50/50) in our belief and support of Bush. I think they are porposely not noticing the large amount of younger people. The 18-25 yr olds. I think if they were noticed the polls would come out differently.
As for Bush being elected. I am sad you believe it. The amount of inapropiate behavior and "strange events" that surround both elections I feel show that something is wrong. The only reason it has never been fully ivestigated is the US Gov doesn't want to be any more of the laughing stock of the world than it all ready is. I have met many people from all over the world that are mad at us in the US for letting Bush steal the Presidencey. They have told me that many more from their counrties feel the same. For me though the issue goes deeper. Untill we are given more than two parties to vote for then the system is not a real democracy. The two are backed by the same big corp. and the same intrests. They are the same as far as I see it. Untill there is a third fourth and fith party, we have no truth or democracy. Elections are just a sham to make Americans feel they can change things. Untill we have a real election with equal play for all parties (did you know we have a communist party? Not that I agree with them, but did you know?) then it is all a lie to placate the public, and all elections are rigged. If you don't know that a party or canadate exsists how can you research if you want them for office?
I thought I waz just dreammin'?!!??!!??!! Dis place can't really be real.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I had a decent response but then reread your post.
I don't think were from similar enough planets to actually have a discussion.
I fully support your viewpoint but don't share it. But I'm grateful that you officially cancel out one Rush Limbaugh.
I had a decent response but then reread your post.
I don't think were from similar enough planets to actually have a discussion.
I fully support your viewpoint but don't share it. But I'm grateful that you officially cancel out one Rush Limbaugh.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
This is actually not true and it is reflected in the Presidencies. Bush Sr. took us into poverty and a useless "war". Clinton pulled us out of the recession and got the country back on track for Bush Jr. to rip it apart again. Not only are the differences pretty intrinsic in the parties, there are lots of parties. We have the Green, Communist, American, America First, American Heritage, American Independent, American Nazi, American Reform, Christian Falangist, Constitution, Constitutional Action, Family Values, Grassroots, Radical Women/Freedom Socialist, Independence, Independent American, Labor, Libertarian, Light, Natural Law, Reform, Peace and Freedom, Veterans, Socialist, Socialist Reform, Socialist Worker, and Socialist Party USA Parties. And these are just the ones that were active in the 2004 elections. There are many more smaller ones.
I know I had votes in Family Values, Green and Grassroots in addition to the big two.
Part of the problem is that those who have no allegence to the two big parties are split between the numerous smaller parties so that the votes end up, essentially, not counting. If those people actually came together and voted for a common party outside of Dem or Rep, then that party would most likely win by a landslide.
And that those who do claim allegence to one of the big two tend to do so out of habit rather than knowing and believing in what they stand for and represent.
We learned all that over a decade ago in Poli-Sci class. Which is very sad to realize now because we can see that nothing changes. Americans, as a society (and many "Western" cultures, which is seen in the many who are making assumptive posts here when they clearly have not read the rest of the thread), are lazy and like to take things at face value instead of doing research and educating themselves. To me, that is the saddest thing of all.
Written by: MurfdaSmurf
The two are backed by the same big corp. and the same intrests. They are the same as far as I see it. Untill there is a third fourth and fith party, we have no truth or democracy. Elections are just a sham to make Americans feel they can change things. Untill we have a real election with equal play for all parties (did you know we have a communist party? Not that I agree with them, but did you know?) then it is all a lie to placate the public, and all elections are rigged. If you don't know that a party or canadate exsists how can you research if you want them for office?
This is actually not true and it is reflected in the Presidencies. Bush Sr. took us into poverty and a useless "war". Clinton pulled us out of the recession and got the country back on track for Bush Jr. to rip it apart again. Not only are the differences pretty intrinsic in the parties, there are lots of parties. We have the Green, Communist, American, America First, American Heritage, American Independent, American Nazi, American Reform, Christian Falangist, Constitution, Constitutional Action, Family Values, Grassroots, Radical Women/Freedom Socialist, Independence, Independent American, Labor, Libertarian, Light, Natural Law, Reform, Peace and Freedom, Veterans, Socialist, Socialist Reform, Socialist Worker, and Socialist Party USA Parties. And these are just the ones that were active in the 2004 elections. There are many more smaller ones.
I know I had votes in Family Values, Green and Grassroots in addition to the big two.
Part of the problem is that those who have no allegence to the two big parties are split between the numerous smaller parties so that the votes end up, essentially, not counting. If those people actually came together and voted for a common party outside of Dem or Rep, then that party would most likely win by a landslide.
And that those who do claim allegence to one of the big two tend to do so out of habit rather than knowing and believing in what they stand for and represent.
We learned all that over a decade ago in Poli-Sci class. Which is very sad to realize now because we can see that nothing changes. Americans, as a society (and many "Western" cultures, which is seen in the many who are making assumptive posts here when they clearly have not read the rest of the thread), are lazy and like to take things at face value instead of doing research and educating themselves. To me, that is the saddest thing of all.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
PoiBoi
627 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
PoiBoi
627 posts
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted:
Ooops... It just occurred to me that he can't be re-elected in 2008 anyway... It would have to be another republican candidate.... Come on the democrats!!
Ooops... It just occurred to me that he can't be re-elected in 2008 anyway... It would have to be another republican candidate.... Come on the democrats!!
Stuck in my Poi comfort zone....
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
'Clinton pulled us out of the recession and got the country back on track for Bush Jr. to rip it apart again.'
Clinton also blew up Yemen's largest pharmacutical plant, preventing an impoverished third world country from suppling it's citizens with medicene's they needed causing, according to the UN in the region of 10,000 unneccesary deaths. He also continued the sanctions against Iraq which according to the UN and humanitarian agencies were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 iraqi children between 1991 and 2003. Clinton's Secretary of State Madelaine Albright descibed this as a 'Price worth paying.' Clinton also oversaw the war in Kosovo, where the government inverted a chronology of events (which was then repeated questionlessly by the media) whereby before NATO forces amassed on the Kosovan border the majority of killings had been committed by the KLF whose stated aims were to provoke Serbian reactions which would cause Western intervention. Humanitarian agencies active in Kosovo described the US policy of destroying civillian infrastructure (such as bridges and radio stations) as a clear breaches of the Geneva Convention, which were widely condemned as war crimes.
But under Clinton the US economy did pretty well so I guess by your standards he must of been great. If the same standards were applied to US presidents as to Nazis at Nuremberg Clinton would have been hung next to Bush... Or both Bush's.
And I was glad to see that in your wonderful multi-party democracy you conducted a series of presidential debates last year featuring Bush, Kerry, Nader (independent) David Cobb (Greens) and the leaders of all the other parties you mentioned.
'Clinton pulled us out of the recession and got the country back on track for Bush Jr. to rip it apart again.'
Clinton also blew up Yemen's largest pharmacutical plant, preventing an impoverished third world country from suppling it's citizens with medicene's they needed causing, according to the UN in the region of 10,000 unneccesary deaths. He also continued the sanctions against Iraq which according to the UN and humanitarian agencies were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 iraqi children between 1991 and 2003. Clinton's Secretary of State Madelaine Albright descibed this as a 'Price worth paying.' Clinton also oversaw the war in Kosovo, where the government inverted a chronology of events (which was then repeated questionlessly by the media) whereby before NATO forces amassed on the Kosovan border the majority of killings had been committed by the KLF whose stated aims were to provoke Serbian reactions which would cause Western intervention. Humanitarian agencies active in Kosovo described the US policy of destroying civillian infrastructure (such as bridges and radio stations) as a clear breaches of the Geneva Convention, which were widely condemned as war crimes.
But under Clinton the US economy did pretty well so I guess by your standards he must of been great. If the same standards were applied to US presidents as to Nazis at Nuremberg Clinton would have been hung next to Bush... Or both Bush's.
And I was glad to see that in your wonderful multi-party democracy you conducted a series of presidential debates last year featuring Bush, Kerry, Nader (independent) David Cobb (Greens) and the leaders of all the other parties you mentioned.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Actually dream, Clintion did not initiate many of those things. Many of them were already in action and he did in fact work to get them out. We have a full political system, not just the President making decisions. Everything is subject to discussion and a vote, including outvoting the President (who can not, in fact, veto everything). The President is not the end all beat all by any means, he is primarily the buck stops here boy. Clinton was no saviour but *this thread* is about Bush and what he is currently doing, and the next election has been brought up, including whether or not Billy would run. So I absolutely concentrated on the American aspect of it, not because I am patriotic but I chose not to hijack this thread with a side topic or pettiness over something which I do not know much about.
Next..don't get me started on the "holier-than-thou" attitude I feel you just portrayed, because your country has centuries of oppression behind it that the US simply can't beat, and it continues into today right into the war along side Bush.
Next, the full Presidential debates and discussions invite *all* party representatives. Some do not show for a pluthera of reasons. If you do not have the support, you do not run. It comes down to how powerfully a person campaigns and unfortunately the almighty dollar. Certain channels included all of those who participated, and some chose the Republican and Democratic highlights because it is media and media is business and that is what attracts attention. Did you even read the portion where I mentioned independent research? Nor did I say that we have a wonderful democracy. I even pointed out some issues with it, and there are many more that I can go on about. Please don't assume something as an absolute because you saw a portion of it in the media.
There is no high horse here (though you sound like you are on one), because quite frankly, no political system has yet proved itself to be worthy of one, including yours.
However, if you have an opinion about the actual context of the thread, then please..post that up. Will Katrina bring Bush down dream?
Actually dream, Clintion did not initiate many of those things. Many of them were already in action and he did in fact work to get them out. We have a full political system, not just the President making decisions. Everything is subject to discussion and a vote, including outvoting the President (who can not, in fact, veto everything). The President is not the end all beat all by any means, he is primarily the buck stops here boy. Clinton was no saviour but *this thread* is about Bush and what he is currently doing, and the next election has been brought up, including whether or not Billy would run. So I absolutely concentrated on the American aspect of it, not because I am patriotic but I chose not to hijack this thread with a side topic or pettiness over something which I do not know much about.
Next..don't get me started on the "holier-than-thou" attitude I feel you just portrayed, because your country has centuries of oppression behind it that the US simply can't beat, and it continues into today right into the war along side Bush.
Next, the full Presidential debates and discussions invite *all* party representatives. Some do not show for a pluthera of reasons. If you do not have the support, you do not run. It comes down to how powerfully a person campaigns and unfortunately the almighty dollar. Certain channels included all of those who participated, and some chose the Republican and Democratic highlights because it is media and media is business and that is what attracts attention. Did you even read the portion where I mentioned independent research? Nor did I say that we have a wonderful democracy. I even pointed out some issues with it, and there are many more that I can go on about. Please don't assume something as an absolute because you saw a portion of it in the media.
There is no high horse here (though you sound like you are on one), because quite frankly, no political system has yet proved itself to be worthy of one, including yours.
However, if you have an opinion about the actual context of the thread, then please..post that up. Will Katrina bring Bush down dream?
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
member
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
59 posts
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posted:
Hey thanks NYC I agree with you to disagree and that is OK to me. I hope it is for you.
Pele... I just don't know where to start with you so I won't. Other than I agree with you on one thing. What is this thread about??? Oh yah...
...will Katrina sink Bush. Well I heard lots of blame being thrown around at first but now people seem to be putting that aside for the moment and are just trying to help solve the problems that are going on. Will the blame game return??? You bet. Will Bush get the brunt of it? I doubt it. He has time to find people to take the blame from him. Not to mention, he may not be really be to blame. I don't like him but I am able to say that it may not be his fault. There are a lot of other people to look at and possably take down.
So my answer as always to this thread is I doubt Bush will sink.
I do want to put one other thing in here. In my short time here at HoP I have noticed a lot of threads being taken over by tangents and others beside the person who posted the thread. I am wondering if it is normal for HoP? Oh well.
Hey thanks NYC I agree with you to disagree and that is OK to me. I hope it is for you.
Pele... I just don't know where to start with you so I won't. Other than I agree with you on one thing. What is this thread about??? Oh yah...
...will Katrina sink Bush. Well I heard lots of blame being thrown around at first but now people seem to be putting that aside for the moment and are just trying to help solve the problems that are going on. Will the blame game return??? You bet. Will Bush get the brunt of it? I doubt it. He has time to find people to take the blame from him. Not to mention, he may not be really be to blame. I don't like him but I am able to say that it may not be his fault. There are a lot of other people to look at and possably take down.
So my answer as always to this thread is I doubt Bush will sink.
I do want to put one other thing in here. In my short time here at HoP I have noticed a lot of threads being taken over by tangents and others beside the person who posted the thread. I am wondering if it is normal for HoP? Oh well.
I thought I waz just dreammin'?!!??!!??!! Dis place can't really be real.
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
As clearly stated a few times on this thread already, Bush cannot be re-elected anyway as he has already served 2 terms. So I suppose the only way this could 'sink' him is via an impeachment. Would any of you more knowledgable than me about the US system like to comment on the legal basis for this?
As clearly stated a few times on this thread already, Bush cannot be re-elected anyway as he has already served 2 terms. So I suppose the only way this could 'sink' him is via an impeachment. Would any of you more knowledgable than me about the US system like to comment on the legal basis for this?
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Firstly... if you want to know whether I think Katrina could sink Bush read the 1st page of the thread.
'Clintion did not initiate many of those things. Many of them were already in action and he did in fact work to get them out.'
Of the three examples I gave, Kosovo and Al-Shifa were initiated under Clinton. The sanctions against Iraq were initiated by Bush, but were repeatedly extended under the Clinton regime. Indeed the quote in my last post from Madelaine Albright came in a speech where she said that as long as Saddam remained, sanctions would remain (no matter how many people died as a result of them) hence the quote 'A price worth paying.'
'your country has centuries of oppression behind it... it continues into today right into the war along side Bush.'
absolutely... I'm sorry if you thought my criticism of Clinton somehow meant I was claiming that the UK conducts an ethical foreign policy - it doesn't - its just that this thread isn't about UK foreign policy (you later berate me for not sticking to the topic).
'the full Presidential debates and discussions invite *all* party representatives. Some do not show for a pluthera of reasons..
On November 26, 1985, a memorandum was issued and signed by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, hereafter, referred to as the Joint Memorandum. Contained in the Joint Memorandum, is a bipartisan agreement which states:
'It is our bipartisan view that the primary responsibility of each major political party is to educate and inform the American electorate of its fundamental philosophy and policies as well as its candidates' positions on critical issues. One of the most effective means of fulfilling that responsibility is through nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the two major political parties during general election campaigns. Therefore, to better fulfill our parties' responsibilities for educating and informing the American public and to strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process, it is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic National Committees.'
'Now with that Joint Memorandum a conspiracy was set in place by the two major parties to prevent competition from any other parties or candidates outside the two major parties. President Reagan set the precedent when he refused to appear at any debate in which an Independent was to be included (John Anderson). Since then, candidates like Ross Perot, Buchanann, Nader and others have been denied access to the Presidential debates, and effectively prevented from informing and educating the public of alternatives on policy issues, value systems, government priorities, other parties and other candidates. '
Thats the reason I know of why the presidential debates only feature Republican and Democrat candidates.
Firstly... if you want to know whether I think Katrina could sink Bush read the 1st page of the thread.
'Clintion did not initiate many of those things. Many of them were already in action and he did in fact work to get them out.'
Of the three examples I gave, Kosovo and Al-Shifa were initiated under Clinton. The sanctions against Iraq were initiated by Bush, but were repeatedly extended under the Clinton regime. Indeed the quote in my last post from Madelaine Albright came in a speech where she said that as long as Saddam remained, sanctions would remain (no matter how many people died as a result of them) hence the quote 'A price worth paying.'
'your country has centuries of oppression behind it... it continues into today right into the war along side Bush.'
absolutely... I'm sorry if you thought my criticism of Clinton somehow meant I was claiming that the UK conducts an ethical foreign policy - it doesn't - its just that this thread isn't about UK foreign policy (you later berate me for not sticking to the topic).
'the full Presidential debates and discussions invite *all* party representatives. Some do not show for a pluthera of reasons..
On November 26, 1985, a memorandum was issued and signed by both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, hereafter, referred to as the Joint Memorandum. Contained in the Joint Memorandum, is a bipartisan agreement which states:
'It is our bipartisan view that the primary responsibility of each major political party is to educate and inform the American electorate of its fundamental philosophy and policies as well as its candidates' positions on critical issues. One of the most effective means of fulfilling that responsibility is through nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees of the two major political parties during general election campaigns. Therefore, to better fulfill our parties' responsibilities for educating and informing the American public and to strengthen the role of political parties in the electoral process, it is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic National Committees.'
'Now with that Joint Memorandum a conspiracy was set in place by the two major parties to prevent competition from any other parties or candidates outside the two major parties. President Reagan set the precedent when he refused to appear at any debate in which an Independent was to be included (John Anderson). Since then, candidates like Ross Perot, Buchanann, Nader and others have been denied access to the Presidential debates, and effectively prevented from informing and educating the public of alternatives on policy issues, value systems, government priorities, other parties and other candidates. '
Thats the reason I know of why the presidential debates only feature Republican and Democrat candidates.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Funny, I seem to remember Perot at the debates in 1996. That was well after Reagan.
Written by: dream
'Now with that Joint Memorandum a conspiracy was set in place by the two major parties to prevent competition from any other parties or candidates outside the two major parties. President Reagan set the precedent when he refused to appear at any debate in which an Independent was to be included (John Anderson). Since then, candidates like Ross Perot, Buchanann, Nader and others have been denied access to the Presidential debates, and effectively prevented from informing and educating the public of alternatives on policy issues, value systems, government priorities, other parties and other candidates.
Funny, I seem to remember Perot at the debates in 1996. That was well after Reagan.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Nader and Buchannan were there too, but by far I remember Perot. He made me laugh so hard. I liked him for that reason alone. I don't remember any of his political stand points (except that he said this country is a business and should be run like one) just that I thought he was funny.
Nader and Buchannan were there too, but by far I remember Perot. He made me laugh so hard. I liked him for that reason alone. I don't remember any of his political stand points (except that he said this country is a business and should be run like one) just that I thought he was funny.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com