How to ensure Dubya steps down in 2008?

[shemp]

Do we trust George W. Bush to follow the Constitution and step down in 2008? Or will he declare a national state of emergency, use the military to prevent Congress and courts from stopping him, and take over as a dictator? Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I really think he would, but neither would I completely brush aside the possibility.

[bob_kark]

Just get something shiny to distract him or we could always send another pretzel assassin.

[shemp]

I use a flashlight to distract one of my cats. He will chase the light endlessly. I bet the same would work with Dubya.

[Pardalis]

I think the very idea is ludicrous.

[bob_kark]

Those little keychain lasers work really well.

[Ziggurat]

Just get something shiny to distract him or we could always send another pretzel assassin.

I'm afraid that's the result of a common misreport of the actual events. You see, Bush didn't choke "on" a pretzel, he choked "the" pretzel (http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/choking.shtml).

[WildCat]

I voted Planet X, on account of the poll question not matching the thread title, thus ruining the polonium 210 joke that Dave1001 loves so much.

[TragicMonkey]

I have faith in Americans that they wouldn't stand for such a thing were anyone to attempt it. After all, a president is surrounded by armed men. Surely one of them would be patriotic enough to assassinate him were he to try to pull anything. Just look at how many Caesars were brought down by their own Praetorian Guard.

[WildCat]

Tags: bush (http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/bush/), dictator (http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/dictator/), dubya (http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/dubya/), jerk (http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/jerk/)
No one does tags like shemp! :D

[Dave1001]

I voted Planet X, on account of the poll question not matching the thread title, thus ruining the polonium 210 joke that Dave1001 loves so much.

:D :p

[Learning Phase]

Topic title looked rather stupid, so I looked inside.

More of the same.

This discussion is only fit for "Airhead America" listeners.

[Glen.Nogami]

Topic title looked rather stupid, so I looked inside.

More of the same.

This discussion is only fit for "Airhead America" listeners.

Funny, I suppose.

[hgc]

I wouldn't worry about this. Bush already has low job satisfaction, due to the American people not having the sticktoitiveness to do whatneedstobedone in the Central Front in the War on Terror, aka Iraq. He'd quit today if he could figure out how.

[WildCat]

Topic title looked rather stupid, so I looked inside.

More of the same.

This discussion is only fit for "Airhead America" listeners.
Parody is lost on some, I guess.

[Solitaire]

I wouldn't worry about this. Bush already has low job satisfaction, due to the American people not having the sticktoitiveness to do whatneedstobedone in the Central Front in the War on Terror, aka Iraq. He'd quit today if he could figure out how.

Oh my ed! Then we get Dick in the end. That's why he won't quit. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53442) :eek:

[Region Rat]

Oh my ed! Then we get Dick in the end. That's why he won't quit. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53442) :eek:

Dare I say it?


OK.


That's what we've been getting for the last 6 years.

[Huntster]

Should this ridiculous poll and subject be in the Conspiracy Theory forum?

[Mycroft]

The subject is pure woo wooism.

[davefoc]

The subject is pure woo wooism.

To be serious for a moment, I don't think it is. I agree that it is highly unlikely right now, but I don't think it is impossible that some president would attempt to extend his stay beyond what the constitution allows.

I am not exactly sure what the scenario will be but my bet is that it will happen in the US (probably not in my life) and the US democracy will cease to exist as we know it today.

Things like Bushco's apparent disregard of the FISA court are probably precursors of the kind of behaviors that will precede a power grab by the president. And there will probably be some terrorist activity that results in substantial casualties that convinces at least some people in the government (including key military leaders) that it is necessary to maintain the current leadership.

[gtc]

I predict Bush will step down.

He will be happy to hand power to successful write-in candidate Jeb after the Diebold run election is declared 'fair and balanced' by the Supreme Court.

[gtc]

By the way, about this thread:

It's a joke sheeple!

[Gurdur]

The subject is pure woo wooism.
Wassup? You don't get the joke? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69915)

[shemp]

I think the very idea is ludicrous.

What, that the light would distract Dubya? He's no smarter than the cat.

[shemp]

Topic title looked rather stupid, so I looked inside.

More of the same.

This discussion is only fit for "Airhead America" listeners.

Welcome to American's understudy.

[gumboot]

Just look at how many Caesars were brought down by their own Praetorian Guard.


Not such a great comparison. I don't think the Praetorians assassinated any Imperators out of a sense of patriotism, and they probably placed more Imperators in power than they removed.

To the OP, I agree with Pardalis that it's ridiculous. But apparantly it's all an American joke I don't get.

-Gumboot

[TragicMonkey]

Not such a great comparison. I don't think the Praetorians assassinated any Imperators out of a sense of patriotism, and they probably placed more Imperators in power than they removed.

I probably should have put in a paragraph break. I meant the Praetorian example to simply show the dangers of being surrounded by heavily armed men. The funny thing is, leaders think that makes them safer.

Although I suppose some of the Praetorians were acting out of patriotism in a sense. Sometimes those wacky Caesars just got a little too wacky, and if you can be a kingmaker for the good of the state and make a profit out of it, what could be more American, I mean Roman, than that?

[gumboot]

I probably should have put in a paragraph break. I meant the Praetorian example to simply show the dangers of being surrounded by heavily armed men. The funny thing is, leaders think that makes them safer.

Although I suppose some of the Praetorians were acting out of patriotism in a sense. Sometimes those wacky Caesars just got a little too wacky, and if you can be a kingmaker for the good of the state and make a profit out of it, what could be more American, I mean Roman, than that?


True.

They say Americans are the ultimate capitalists, but I disagree. Did Americans ever auction the position of supreme leader to the highest bidder?

I think not.

-Gumboot

[Beerina]

Those little keychain lasers work really well.

I washed one in my pants pocket. Well actually my wife did. When she does the laundry she doesn't check pockets. This has destroyed my wallet twice. Now I remove it when I get home.

Oh, but the laser kept working. It was one of those disc ones that you can rotate the aperature to make different shapes to project. I think they work with quantum dots.

[aggle-rithm]

It doesn't matter. The NWO runs everything behind the scenes, anyway.

You didn't hear that from me, though.

[The Mutha]

A couple of months ago, a young temp employee here at my corporation (but at another location) thought that this was a very real concern and in an effort to inform all her friends of the fiendish plot, emailed a warning to all of them. The only problem was, she inadvertently (or maybe deliberately due to lack of thought) sent the email to every employee in the global address book, all 20k+ of them worldwide. The madness that ensued was mildly hysterical, aside from the fact that it brought our entire email system to its knees. Two people immediately replied with some form of "all liberals are idiots and must die", conveniently emailed to Reply All. 185 people replied with "take me off your mailing list" -- so they apparently no longer want access to company email, five people tried to instill calm by telling everybody not to hit "Reply All" by, of course, hitting Reply All, we heard from employees in other countries basically saying we don't care about your politics, and one enterprising soul asked for three co-workers to be put ON the mailing list...

The girl was given five minutes to clean out her desk and vacate the premises, all the while declaring her innocence and claiming that IT somehow added the entire global address book into her "Friends" list... The two guys who replied with some form of all liberals must die came dang close to getting walked out and have had their heads down working frantically since. One of the guys works at my location and the fact that people now say "flaming liberal coming through" when they walk through his area makes for some amusement.

[Skeptic Guy]

A couple of months ago, a young temp employee here at my corporation (but at another location) thought that this was a very real concern and in an effort to inform all her friends of the fiendish plot, emailed a warning to all of them. The only problem was, she inadvertently (or maybe deliberately due to lack of thought) sent the email to every employee in the global address book, all 20k+ of them worldwide. The madness that ensued was mildly hysterical, aside from the fact that it brought our entire email system to its knees. Two people immediately replied with some form of "all liberals are idiots and must die", conveniently emailed to Reply All. 185 people replied with "take me off your mailing list" -- so they apparently no longer want access to company email, five people tried to instill calm by telling everybody not to hit "Reply All" by, of course, hitting Reply All, we heard from employees in other countries basically saying we don't care about your politics, and one enterprising soul asked for three co-workers to be put ON the mailing list...

The girl was given five minutes to clean out her desk and vacate the premises, all the while declaring her innocence and claiming that IT somehow added the entire global address book into her "Friends" list... The two guys who replied with some form of all liberals must die came dang close to getting walked out and have had their heads down working frantically since. One of the guys works at my location and the fact that people now say "flaming liberal coming through" when they walk through his area makes for some amusement.

That is very funny!

Vote Hillary in 2008! :D

[hgc]

A couple of months ago, a young temp employee here at my corporation (but at another location) thought that this was a very real concern and in an effort to inform all her friends of the fiendish plot, emailed a warning to all of them. ....
Love that story. When will people find out about hotmail, yahoo mail, gmail? Yeah, I can't access them from within the office either (security policy), but then that's another thing my Treo is good for.

[Upchurch]

Do we trust George W. Bush to follow the Constitution and step down in 2008? Or will he declare a national state of emergency, use the military to prevent Congress and courts from stopping him, and take over as a dictator? Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I really think he would, but neither would I completely brush aside the possibility.
Seems to me that I remember before the 2004 election the Bush administration brought up the possibility of postponing the election because of the WoT. It was attacked so harshly on all sides (as I remember) that the idea wasn't floated long.

Anyone else remember this?

[Skeptic Guy]

Seems to me that I remember before the 2004 election the Bush administration brought up the possibility of postponing the election because of the WoT. It was attacked so harshly on all sides (as I remember) that the idea wasn't floated long.

Anyone else remember this?

I remember that idea being brought up for the NY elections. Rudy said that it shouldn't stand in the way of the democratic process.

[Gurdur]

...Anyone else remember this?
Yup, I remember this. I also remember much more recent self-congratulation that they actually managed to hold the 2004 presidential elections and the 2006 Congressional elections despite "being at war".

Sheeeeeeeeesh, what namby-pambies; you'ld think the Bush cabinet was itself fighting down there in the muddy trenches in Washington, D.C., from the way they go on with such empty self-congratulations.

Given the number of people in the Bush government who used various underhanded means to avoid being drafted off to Vietnam, maybe they're very gun-shy chickenhawks indeed.

[Grammatron]

One of the guys works at my location and the fact that people now say "flaming liberal coming through" when they walk through his area makes for some amusement.

I smell a lawsuit in the near future...

[Marc L]

To the OP, I agree with Pardalis that it's ridiculous. But apparantly it's all an American joke I don't get.

Don't feel bad. I'm an American, and I don't get it...

Marc

[Darth Rotor]

Seems to me that I remember before the 2004 election the Bush administration brought up the possibility of postponing the election because of the WoT. It was attacked so harshly on all sides (as I remember) that the idea wasn't floated long.

Anyone else remember this?
Nope.

May I recommend you check Snopes? This sounds like an Urban Legend.

DR

[Pescado]

The six people who have thus far voted for the first option of this outcome being 'likely' are all just yanking our chains, right? They are just in on the joke? And the 6 who consider it 'a possibility', they are as well?

If I tell myself that enough times maybe I will start to believe it. Scary thing is, I think that not all of the people who voted for those options were joking around. I guess even skeptics can be infected by political woo.

[mumblethrax]

Seems to me that I remember before the 2004 election the Bush administration brought up the possibility of postponing the election because of the WoT. It was attacked so harshly on all sides (as I remember) that the idea wasn't floated long.

Anyone else remember this?
Yes. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/)

[Crossbow]

Do we trust George W. Bush to follow the Constitution and step down in 2008? Or will he declare a national state of emergency, use the military to prevent Congress and courts from stopping him, and take over as a dictator? Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I really think he would, but neither would I completely brush aside the possibility.

I think that Bush is so fed up with being President that he would have left months ago if there was at least a semi-decent way to do so.

After all, he has always quit everything else in his life when it got to be too tough.

[firecoins]

True.

They say Americans are the ultimate capitalists, but I disagree. Did Americans ever auction the position of supreme leader to the highest bidder?

I think not.

-Gumboot
actually there are listing for lower Federal judges on ebay.

[Upchurch]

I think that Bush is so fed up with being President that he would have left months ago if there was at least a semi-decent way to do so.

After all, he has always quit everything else in his life when it got to be too tough.
Punchline #2: What? No exit strategy?

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/)
U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said a spokesman, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice tried to put an end to the controversy Monday evening.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war, and we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president. That's the view of the administration," she said. "No one is thinking of postponing the elections."
OK, Condi had to go out and conduct routine Rumor Control, thanks to an internal question (due dilligence) by that man Soaires who was staffing a "what if," a reasonable task for him thanks to perceived linkage between Spanish elections and a bombing in 2004.

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections

And some CT mided rube wishes to depict this as President Bush wishing not to hold elections, and being "pressured" into holding elections on time?

Upchurch, or poster who has hacked into Upchurch's account, is your name really Alex Jones? The smart, "head in one place" Upchurch is now planting a CT style rumors? GMAFB.

Who are you, and what did you do with Upchurch's body? Maybe we should call the cops.

Mumble, you didn't start this, but Dylan Avery needs you, and Loose Change forums should be your new home, if you believe the rumor that Upchurch started with his post. If you were just being helpful with a link, sorry.

DR

[Random]

Oh for crying out loud. George Bush will not try to remain president after 2008. Have you seen him lately? He looks like a terrified mole caught in a flashlight beam. He is stuck in a job that even he has to realize is way beyond him. He is dying to get out of office and back to his ranch where he can hide under his bed. I’m frankly surprised that he hasn’t resigned yet.

[Darth Rotor]

OK, Condi had to go out and conduct routine Rumor Control, thanks to an internal question (due dilligence) by that man Soaires who was staffing a "what if," a reasonable task for him thanks to perceived linkage between Spanish elections and a bombing in 2004.



And some CT mided rube wishes to depict this as President Bush wishing not to hold elections, and being "pressured" into holding elections on time?

Upchurch, or poster who has hacked into Upchurch's account, is your name really Alex Jones? The smart, "head in one place" Upchurch is now planting a CT style rumors? GMAFB.

Who are you, and what did you do with Upchurch's body? Maybe we should call the cops.

Mumble, you didn't start this, but Dylan Avery needs you, and Loose Change forums should be your new home, if you believe the rumor that Upchurch started with his post. If you were just being helpful with a link, sorry.

DR
Punchline #2: What? No exit strategy?
ROFL

@ Crossbow: Let's see, the job GWB had before President, and where he got re-elected, was governor of Texas. The record shows that he didn't quit that job. He competed for and got a new job, President of the US, while governor of Texas.

Are you sure you want to spin that as "GWB quit his job as Governor of Texas?" Or, were you just being slightly careless with the facts? (My guess)
After all, he has always quit everything else in his life when it got to be too tough.
Not buying this exaggeration.

DR

[TragicMonkey]

True.

They say Americans are the ultimate capitalists, but I disagree. Did Americans ever auction the position of supreme leader to the highest bidder?

I think not.

-Gumboot

Please do not give us ideas!

[Solus]

It would never happen but I would actually hope Bush tried something like that. He would end up in jail (where he belongs).

[Upchurch]

It would never happen but I would actually hope Bush tried something like that. He would end up in jail (where he belongs).
That would actually mean accountability. Why would you think that sort of thing would start now?

[daredelvis]

ROFL

@ Crossbow: Let's see, the job GWB had before President, and where he got re-elected, was governor of Texas. The record shows that he didn't quit that job. He competed for and got a new job, President of the US, while governor of Texas.

Are you sure you want to spin that as "GWB quit his job as Governor of Texas?" Or, were you just being slightly careless with the facts? (My guess)

Not buying this exaggeration.

DR


Texas Gov is a largely symbolic position.

Daredelvis

[ttch]

Do we trust George W. Bush to follow the Constitution and step down in 2008? Or will he declare a national state of emergency, use the military to prevent Congress and courts from stopping him, and take over as a dictator? Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I really think he would, but neither would I completely brush aside the possibility.
U.S. President George W. Bush will not follow the Constitution and step down in 2008.

He will follow the Constitution and step down at noon on January 20, 2009, when his term is complete and his successor is scheduled to be sworn in.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XX, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html

[gtc]

U.S. President George W. Bush will not follow the Constitution and step down in 2008.

He will follow the Constitution and step down at noon on January 20, 2009, when his term is complete and his successor is scheduled to be sworn in.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XX, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html

Stop oppressing me with your facts.

[firecoins]

Stop oppressing me with your facts.
ok we'll agree that its your right to have babies, even though you can't, which is no one's fault! Not even George Bush's.

[steverino]

ok we'll agree that its your right to have babies, even though you can't, which is no one's fault! Not even George Bush's.

"Life of Brian," right?
:D

[RandFan]

Do we trust George W. Bush to follow the Constitution and step down in 2008? Or will he declare a national state of emergency, use the military to prevent Congress and courts from stopping him, and take over as a dictator? Personally, I'm not so paranoid that I really think he would, but neither would I completely brush aside the possibility. I think it good that you are not paranoid. Just the same you are now on a list. :boxedin: BTW, I don't know you.

[SezMe]

Didja notice Shemp's last Tag: "worlds biggest twit". :) :)

Can you just imagine a new forumite trying out the tag search feature and making up some unimaginable phrase like "worlds biggest twit", hitting "go" (or whatever it is) and actually getting a result! He'd probably apply for the mil on the spot. :)

[steverino]

Didja notice Shemp's last Tag: "worlds biggest twit". :) :)

Can you just imagine a new forumite trying out the tag search feature and making up some unimaginable phrase like "worlds biggest twit", hitting "go" (or whatever it is) and actually getting a result! He'd probably apply for the mil on the spot. :)

Well I am proud that one of his gems is featured in my signature.:)

[NobbyNobbs]

I have faith in Americans that they wouldn't stand for such a thing were anyone to attempt it. After all, a president is surrounded by armed men. Surely one of them would be patriotic enough to assassinate him were he to try to pull anything. Just look at how many Caesars were brought down by their own Praetorian Guard.

Actually, the problem would solve itself. The Secret Service's duty is to protect the President of the United States. Even should Dubya try to hang on to the White House key, constitutionally he is no longer president. (Although, on second thought, even former presidents get SS protection.)

(Although, on 3rd thought, no former president has ever attempted a coup, so maybe even the Secret Service would all decide to take their lunch break at the same time.)

[SezMe]

Oh for crying out loud. George Bush will not try to remain president after 2008. Have you seen him lately? He looks like a terrified mole caught in a flashlight beam. He is stuck in a job that even he has to realize is way beyond him. He is dying to get out of office and back to his ranch where he can hide under his bed. I’m frankly surprised that he hasn’t resigned yet.
Hyperbole aside, I agree with Random. Remember when he mentioned his use of "the Google" to search for his ranch? The guy is just dying to get the hell out of Washington, out of responsibility, and out of accountability.

[TragicMonkey]

Somehow in history class they neglected to teach me that there apparently was, possibly, an attempt at a coup in US History: the so-called "Business Plot" against FDR. Only opinion is divided over whether it was real or not, and the newspapers of the time didn't bother to report it widely. I can't imagine such a thing not making the news now, whether or not it turned out to be genuine.

[CaptainManacles]

To be serious for a moment, I don't think it is. I agree that it is highly unlikely right now, but I don't think it is impossible that some president would attempt to extend his stay beyond what the constitution allows.

I am not exactly sure what the scenario will be but my bet is that it will happen in the US (probably not in my life) and the US democracy will cease to exist as we know it today.

Ultimately almost all the power lies in the hands of the military, so if they decided to willfully disregard the constitution no amount of voting or resolutions would stop them. It might not even be to extend the reign of a president, it would probably be over some kind of contensious issue, or even a minor issue. Let's say congress passes an amendment banning homosexual behavior. The supreme court says "no, that was not what your ability to amend the constitution was designed for, you can't take away basic human rights even by a vote" the legislature says "that's not within your power to say. we right the law, you interrept it, you can't just remove our changes because you feel like it" and ultimately whether the law got enforced could lead to a breakdown of the system.

The worst of it might just come from people realizing our system is that fragile. Ultimately, the constitution has no magical ability to make people behave; ultimately, civility in our country exists simply because people choose to be civil, and that can be a scary thought.

[CaptainManacles]

Somehow in history class they neglected to teach me that there apparently was, possibly, an attempt at a coup in US History: the so-called "Business Plot" against FDR. Only opinion is divided over whether it was real or not, and the newspapers of the time didn't bother to report it widely. I can't imagine such a thing not making the news now, whether or not it turned out to be genuine.

now that I'm at a point in my life where I have free time I'm amazed at all the things history class neglected to teach me, and I think I got quite an above average education.

[hgc]

Ultimately almost all the power lies in the hands of the military, so if they decided to willfully disregard the constitution no amount of voting or resolutions would stop them. It might not even be to extend the reign of a president, it would probably be over some kind of contensious issue, or even a minor issue. Let's say congress passes an amendment banning homosexual behavior. The supreme court says "no, that was not what your ability to amend the constitution was designed for, you can't take away basic human rights even by a vote" the legislature says "that's not within your power to say. we right the law, you interrept it, you can't just remove our changes because you feel like it" and ultimately whether the law got enforced could lead to a breakdown of the system.

The worst of it might just come from people realizing our system is that fragile. Ultimately, the constitution has no magical ability to make people behave; ultimately, civility in our country exists simply because people choose to be civil, and that can be a scary thought.
Every school child should be required to see the movie "Seven Days in May."

[Garrette]

Ultimately almost all the power lies in the hands of the military, so if they decided to willfully disregard the constitution no amount of voting or resolutions would stop them.Setting aside my quibbles about whether the military really has ultimate power (we're not physically set up the way Hollywood portrays, every soldier with his weapon and bullets handy, tanks set to roll out the gate...), I think you have little to worry about here.

The military is not monolithic, and I imagine the majority would not support such an action.

As an anecdote, a colleague of mine in the military brought this up last spring. He considered it almost a given that Bush won't step down, whereas I had never considered the possibility. He spoke about resisting when it happens; I told him I'd be his cell leader in Louisville.

[Crossbow]

Punchline #2: What? No exit strategy?

I think that his exit strategy involves one of those electronic countdown calendars in his desk.

Then it is back to Crawford for fishing, biking, and such.

;)

[Crossbow]

ROFL

@ Crossbow: Let's see, the job GWB had before President, and where he got re-elected, was governor of Texas. The record shows that he didn't quit that job. He competed for and got a new job, President of the US, while governor of Texas.

Are you sure you want to spin that as "GWB quit his job as Governor of Texas?" Or, were you just being slightly careless with the facts? (My guess)


Er, Bush did not quit being Governor of Texas to run for President of the USA because being President is an easier job. He ran for President of the USA in order to rehabilitate his father and show him what a good son he is.


Not buying this exaggeration.

DR

If you think it is such an exaggeration, perhaps a brief look at the facts will show otherwise:

Bush quit flying when it became too tough for him.
Bush quit the oil business after squadanering millions of dollars.
Bush quit the space exploration program he called for because it would be too much trouble to justify the spending.
Bush quit the Social Security Reform program he called for because he was unwilling to do the work needed to institute proper reform.
Bush quit the Kyoto Protocol because quitting it was far easier than implementing it.
Bush quit the International Criminal Court because it is easier to quit than to risk doing the right thing.
Bush quit the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it is easier for him to build weapons as opposed to craft agreements that are mutally benificial.

And so on.

[Crossbow]

U.S. President George W. Bush will not follow the Constitution and step down in 2008.

He will follow the Constitution and step down at noon on January 20, 2009, when his term is complete and his successor is scheduled to be sworn in.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XX, http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxx.html

Good posting of the facts!

:)

[Darth Rotor]

Er, Bush did not quit being Governor of Texas to run for President of the USA because being President is an easier job. He ran for President of the USA in order to rehabilitate his father and show him what a good son he is.



If you think it is such an exaggeration, perhaps a brief look at the facts will show otherwise:

Bush quit flying when it became too tough for him.
Bush quit the oil business after squadanering millions of dollars.
Bush quit the space exploration program he called for because it would be too much trouble to justify the spending.
Bush quit the Social Security Reform program he called for because he was unwilling to do the work needed to institute proper reform.
Bush quit the Kyoto Protocol because quitting it was far easier than implementing it.
Bush quit the International Criminal Court because it is easier to quit than to risk doing the right thing.
Bush quit the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty because it is easier for him to build weapons as opposed to craft agreements that are mutally benificial.

And so on.
Crossbow, your attributions are suspect.

Kyoto got killed in the US Senate when Clinton was President.

As to the ABM treaty, you are out to lunch. The bipolar strategic set up that made ABM a practical deterrent no longer exists, and hadn't existed by the mid 1990's. ABM no longer fits into a MAD regime, as the multipolar proliferation has not been stopped. The BMD programs reach back well into the early Clinton years, and some of the R & D before that.

The ICC is a political kangaroo court. It is not "the right thing" to subject American citizens to its jurisdiction.

Your other "examples" are as empty as the first two, the ICC a matter of differing opinion on what is "the right thing" for looking out after Americans.

Why not bash Pres Bush on facts, and real policy bungles, instead of red herrings? He's done plenty of factually messed up things -- see the budget for one, trade balance for another, Iraq war for another -- that are available for ridicule. No need to make up strawmen. He gives plenty of material each day he wakes up.

DR

[hgc]

Bush quit the Social Security Reform program he called for because he was unwilling to do the work needed to institute proper reform.
We can thank our lucky stars, or rather the popularity of SS, that he quit this one. Phase-out, not reform, is what he has in mind. SS is relatively healthy, other than the threat of default by borrowers against the trust fund (i.e. the U.S. Government). Medicare: now that's a government program in big trouble. Let's clamor for reform there please.

[Skeptic Guy]

I remember that idea being brought up for the NY elections. Rudy said that it shouldn't stand in the way of the democratic process.

Sorry, the NYC elections I was referring to were the 2001 elections. I skipped over the 2004 reference in Upchurch's post. Sorry. I don't think there was any such discussion during the 2004 elections.

[CaptainManacles]

Setting aside my quibbles about whether the military really has ultimate power (we're not physically set up the way Hollywood portrays, every soldier with his weapon and bullets handy, tanks set to roll out the gate...), I think you have little to worry about here.

The military is not monolithic, and I imagine the majority would not support such an action.


I would imagine. I don't think the military would ever be able to make a power grab, not only would there be a lack of unity within the military, but the people that they would be oppressing would be their friend's and family, I don't see it happening that way. But I think it would be pretty easy to disregard the constitution by failing to enforce it or by disregarding bits and pieces of it. And it'd be even easier for there to be some issue that may be sort of kind of constitutional but not really, and for disagreement on the subject to cause a break down.

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2150095#post2150095)
I remember that idea being brought up for the NY elections. Rudy said that it shouldn't stand in the way of the democratic process. Sorry, the NYC elections I was referring to were the 2001 elections. I skipped over the 2004 reference in Upchurch's post. Sorry. I don't think there was any such discussion during the 2004 elections.
Well, to tell the whole story, as the general election for NYC mayor was rolling around in Nov 2001 (the primary was on 9/11, and had to be rescheduled), Rudy, who was term-limited out of the job, was intimating that things were so tough for New York, that he should find a way to stick around a little longer. He got a number of mayorial candidates (new primary election was coming up) to say out loud that they would agree to let Rudy stay in the job for a few extra months if they were elected.

This made me madder than Hell, and when Rudy runs for president, I'll be reminding anyone who'll listen (the noble few) that Rudy thinks democracy is damn delicate and can be suspended by agreement among gentlemen in times of stress. I wouldn't trust him in any elected position.

[WildCat]

Well, to tell the whole story, as the general election for NYC mayor was rolling around in Nov 2001 (the primary was on 9/11, and had to be rescheduled), Rudy, who was term-limited out of the job, was intimating that things were so tough for New York, that he should find a way to stick around a little longer. He got a number of mayorial candidates (new primary election was coming up) to say out loud that they would agree to let Rudy stay in the job for a few extra months if they were elected.

This made me madder than Hell, and when Rudy runs for president, I'll be reminding anyone who'll listen (the noble few) that Rudy thinks democracy is damn delicate and can be suspended by agreement among gentlemen in times of stress. I wouldn't trust him in any elected position.
I don't suppose you could be bothered to support those assertions?

[a_unique_person]

The ICC is a political kangaroo court. It is not "the right thing" to subject American citizens to its jurisdiction.

DR

???

[WildCat]

???
Huh, you'd think someone from Oz would know what a "kangaroo court" is... ;)

[hgc]

I don't suppose you could be bothered to support those assertions?
You really ought to learn to trust me.

Here's a link to the NYT archives (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B10FC3C590C7A8EDDA00894D94044 82) from the time, with a very brief extract of the full article that lies within the fee-based site (Times Select).
September 29, 2001, Saturday
By ADAM NAGOURNEY (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section D, Page 1, Column 2, 1038 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Adam Nagourney analysis of New York City Democratic mayoral runoff vote discusses how Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has inserted himself into campaign as central issue because of his proposal to remain in office for additional three months to help ease transition because of extenuating circumstances caused by terrorist attack; tactic diverts attention from election issues

[Earthborn]

Huh, you'd think someone from Oz would know what a "kangaroo court" is... ;)Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court), let me help. Of course what people think the similarities are with the ICC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_court) is anyone's guess.

[Skeptic Guy]

You really ought to learn to trust me.

Here's a link to the NYT archives (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B10FC3C590C7A8EDDA00894D94044 82) from the time, with a very brief extract of the full article that lies within the fee-based site (Times Select).

I guess I mis-remember. I remember the discussion of him staying was discussed, but thought the suggestion was coming from elsewhere.

I recall that it made me upset that it would be considered at all.

[Ziggurat]

The ICC is a political kangaroo court. It is not "the right thing" to subject American citizens to its jurisdiction.

Neither, I believe, is it constitutional to cede the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over American citizens to a foreign court.

[WildCat]

You really ought to learn to trust me.

Here's a link to the NYT archives (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B10FC3C590C7A8EDDA00894D94044 82) from the time, with a very brief extract of the full article that lies within the fee-based site (Times Select).
That doesn't support your accusations at all. You have to demonstrate that:
1. The idea to postpone elections was Giuliani's, not produce Giuliani's answer to a hypothetical question from a reporter.
2. Giuliani then somehow coerced other mayoral candidates to support keeping Giuliani on the job after the elections.

If you can't do those things, your claims are bogus. Please don't post partial articles where context is not shown.

[WildCat]

I guess I mis-remember. I remember the discussion of him staying was discussed, but thought the suggestion was coming from elsewhere.
No, you remember correctly. It is hgc who is spinning the story to make it something it wasn't. Of course, hgc could prove me wrong by posting evidence for his claims, which he hasn't done so far.

[hgc]

No, you remember correctly. It is hgc who is spinning the story to make it something it wasn't. Of course, hgc could prove me wrong by posting evidence for his claims, which he hasn't done so far.
You want to think I'm spinning the story, but you just don't have any idea what you're talking about and are desperate to save the reputation of the lovely Rudy. You also seem to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If what I provided is not sufficient, more to come...

[WildCat]

You want to think I'm spinning the story, but you just don't have any idea what you're talking about and are desperate to save the reputation of the lovely Rudy. You also seem to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If what I provided is not sufficient, more to come...
I hope the "more to come" actually supports your accusations:

Rudy, who was term-limited out of the job, was intimating that things were so tough for New York, that he should find a way to stick around a little longer. He got a number of mayorial candidates (new primary election was coming up) to say out loud that they would agree to let Rudy stay in the job for a few extra months if they were elected.

[hgc]

I hope the "more to come" actually supports your accusations:
First, let's dispose of your demands:

You demanded above:

That doesn't support your accusations at all. You have to demonstrate that:
1. The idea to postpone elections was Giuliani's, not produce Giuliani's answer to a hypothetical question from a reporter.
Why? I said:

Rudy, who was term-limited out of the job, was intimating that things were so tough for New York, that he should find a way to stick around a little longer. I did not say that he thought it up himself. Nor do I care.

You also demanded that I demonstrate:

2. Giuliani then somehow coerced other mayoral candidates to support keeping Giuliani on the job after the elections.
Why? I said:

He got a number of mayorial candidates (new primary election was coming up) to say out loud that they would agree to let Rudy stay in the job for a few extra months if they were elected.
I did not say that he coerced anyone, nor do I care.

Now, more contemporaneous press on the matter, which supports my claim if not your strawmen:

From Newsday (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N47/mayor.47w.html):

In an unheard-of deal, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on Thursday got two of three contenders for his job to agree that if elected they would support letting him stay beyond his legal term.
...
Giuliani earlier threatened if there was no deal he would try to find a way around the term limits law to run again, which state lawmakers are reluctant, and possibly unauthorized by the law, to allow.Now, I haven't found a direct quote from Guiliani about these threats, so I still won't attempt to support your coercion strawman.

From AP (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/terror/front/1065336.html):

Rudolph Giuliani obtained the support of two of the three mayoral candidates Thursday for a plan that would allow him to stay on at City Hall for an extra three months while he guides the city through the aftermath of the World Trade Center attack.


Democrat Mark Green and Republican Michael Bloomberg agreed to go along with Giuliani's proposal, which would postpone the new mayor's inauguration until April.

Green "told the mayor that he would support legislation delaying the inauguration for up to three months, given the unprecedented World Trade Center catastrophe, the urgent need for a seamless transition and the importance of a united city," Green spokesman Joe DePlasco said.
Giuliani said at a news conference that he had met with Bloomberg and that the Republican agreed to it immediately. The Bloomberg campaign confirmed its support for the deal.
Giuliani, a Republican, said he had yet to meet with the third candidate -- Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, who will face Green in an Oct. 11 runoff for the Democratic nomination for mayor. Ferrer's campaign did not respond to calls seeking comment on the candidate's position.
...

Anything else?

[firecoins]

That doesn't support your accusations at all. You have to demonstrate that:
1. The idea to postpone elections was Giuliani's, not produce Giuliani's answer to a hypothetical question from a reporter.
2. Giuliani then somehow coerced other mayoral candidates to support keeping Giuliani on the job after the elections.

If you can't do those things, your claims are bogus. Please don't post partial articles where context is not shown.
Guiliani wanted to remain Mayor past his term to continue post 9/11 operations. I don't think he coerced any other canidates. There was alot of unity at the time but many people were oppossed to the idea. It of course never panned out.

[firecoins]

I don't trust the ICC. It is a kangaroo court.

[WildCat]

First, let's dispose of your demands:
Wasn't quite the power grab you made it out to be, was it?

[hgc]

Wasn't quite the power grab you made it out to be, was it?
You're welcome to your interpretation. I found it outrageous that he thought the conditions warranted suspending normal, established, predictable transition of leadership -- a foundation of any democracy. I also was mad as hell that Green and Bloomberg acceded to it, and voted for Green in the primary runoff and Bloomberg in November while holding my nose. It was illustrative to me of how Guiliani was buying his own press that he was some kind of 9/11 superhero, and only he could save the city. Despite the fact that he was an excellent public presense of leadership behind the podium in those days, I had thought he was a crappy mayor, and had long regretted voting for him the first time 8 years earlier.

ETA:
Once again, your ascribe opinions to me which I have not voiced. I never used the term "power grab," nor did I mean that. You would be well served to quote me directly rather than trying to recast in you own language.

[davefoc]

FWIW, hgc, I had a different reaction to all this than you did.

When I heard the idea initially, I thought it might be a good idea that some sort of mechanism be put in place to delay elections or the swearing in of a candidate when a major catastrophe occurs.

I was happy to see that leading candidates were willing to go along with that, but I wasn't sure this was enough of a catastrophe near enough in time to justify the action. In the end the transfer of power wasn't delayed and that seemed right to me for this catastrophe and this timing.

But one thing that might have happened out of this that didn't was for a mechanism to be developed and implemented that could delay an inauguration temporarily. It wasn't because I think that people would react to the implementation of any mechanism the way you reacted to this. Still I can imagine an emergency that could prevent the orderly transfer of government and not having a formal mechanism in place for that could exacerbate the situation if and when it occurs.

[hgc]

FWIW, hgc, I had a different reaction to all this than you did.

When I heard the idea initially, I thought it might be a good idea that some sort of mechanism be put in place to delay elections or the swearing in of a candidate when a major catastrophe occurs.

I was happy to see that leading candidates were willing to go along with that, but I wasn't sure this was enough of a catastrophe near enough in time to justify the action. In the end the transfer of power wasn't delayed and that seemed right to me for this catastrophe and this timing.

But one thing that might have happened out of this that didn't was for a mechanism to be developed and implemented that could delay an inauguration temporarily. It wasn't because I think that people would react to the implementation of any mechanism the way you reacted to this. Still I can imagine an emergency that could prevent the orderly transfer of government and not having a formal mechanism in place for that could exacerbate the situation if and when it occurs.
I don't totally disagree with the concept that catastrophic circumstances could cause such delays. For instance, the Primary election being held on 9/11 had to be rescheduled - there was no choice. Fortunately, that didn't ultimately require a delay in inaugurating the new mayor. One reason the idea didn't go forward was that it was unnecessary. But it was obvious, to me at least, that it was unnecessary at the time that it was being discussed. There was no talk of or need to delay the general election in November, and thus no shortened transition to the Jan 1 inauguration. What we had here was a case of one guy thinking that he personally was such a critical cog in the wheels of government that his duly elected successor couldn't to the job satisfactorily. This is a very dangerous notion.

I would also like to see a formalized mechanism in place for the delay of elections for a very short time in catastrophic conditions. Given the already lengthy transition time between an election some time between Nov 2-8 and the presidential inauguration, for instance, on Jan 20, I can't imagine a scenario where the transition of power would have to be delayed.

[Garrette]

FWIW, hgc, I had a different reaction to all this than you did.

When I heard the idea initially, I thought it might be a good idea that some sort of mechanism be put in place to delay elections or the swearing in of a candidate when a major catastrophe occurs.

I was happy to see that leading candidates were willing to go along with that, but I wasn't sure this was enough of a catastrophe near enough in time to justify the action. In the end the transfer of power wasn't delayed and that seemed right to me for this catastrophe and this timing.

But one thing that might have happened out of this that didn't was for a mechanism to be developed and implemented that could delay an inauguration temporarily. It wasn't because I think that people would react to the implementation of any mechanism the way you reacted to this. Still I can imagine an emergency that could prevent the orderly transfer of government and not having a formal mechanism in place for that could exacerbate the situation if and when it occurs.While potential advantages may exist, I think the potential for abuse far outweighs them. I would resist any such move at any level of government.