kraftdinner
|
posted on June 25, 2002 12:51:06 PM new
It's been brought up before, but who's going to run against Bush in 2004?
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 25, 2002 12:56:31 PM new
Gore
|
gravid
|
posted on June 25, 2002 01:18:30 PM new
Does it really matter? It will be someone with an agenda beholden to large groups and business that will not care about you as an individual or guard your rights except as it benefits their use of your labor.
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 25, 2002 01:21:24 PM new
Maybe Martha Stewart, if she doesn't go to prison?
|
trai
|
posted on June 25, 2002 01:23:36 PM new
Putin
|
hepburn101
|
posted on June 25, 2002 04:08:26 PM new
Hillary
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 25, 2002 04:12:27 PM new
Hepburn!! Glad to see you. 
Hillary.....do you think the country's ready for her? I think she'd do well myself.
P.S. Just as a side note, the U.S. is now $526 trillion dollars in debt.... but maybe I didn't hear right....
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jun 25, 2002 06:45 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on June 25, 2002 04:22:55 PM new
After you owe a certain amount it becomes more of a worry to the lender than the one indebted.
What if the US allows inflation to run higher for a few years? Then they are paying back with devalued dollars.
|
auroranorth
|
posted on June 25, 2002 04:38:12 PM new
I have no doubt that the dems will run queen hilary for pres then after her term we get another bush baby to carry on the pathetic joke that we have a free country and a 2 party system
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 25, 2002 05:06:20 PM new
What comes after a trillion? So you think Gore or Hillary will run?
|
Borillar
|
posted on June 25, 2002 06:22:35 PM new
I think that by the time that the next Presidential elections come around, the Republican Party will have found a way to nullify our votes again.
|
hepburn101
|
posted on June 25, 2002 06:48:16 PM new
Im not much into politics, so pardon me if Im wrong...but didnt clinton get the debt lowered while he was in office? And didnt Bush run us back into the ground within 2 short years?
|
chococake
|
posted on June 25, 2002 07:28:27 PM new
No, you're right Hep. Didn't take Bush and gang long to spend our money, did it?
Borillar, now I have a question about the point you brought up. Is it true Bush can delay the election if he actually declares war? I'm sure I heard that on one of the political talk shows. If that's true and his popularity is down at that time, I wouldn't put it past him to stoop that low.
I still wish Jeffords would run. He saved us once when he pulled out of the Republican Party, maybe he can do it again.
Hi KD
|
hepburn101
|
posted on June 25, 2002 07:36:00 PM new
Hubby and I were discussing this earlier..about when Bush runs again, and we know he will since hes feeling right perky, safe and secure at the moment. We both figure he will do something to "win" just like he did last time. Whatever it takes. I said to him (hubby), "if he gets in AGAIN, I give up. Lets move to the woods in our funky RV and abandon all humanity, because something is WRONG if that idiot wins again".
|
auroranorth
|
posted on June 25, 2002 08:05:04 PM new
Clinton did not lower anything he jacked around with the figures just like the republicans do other than his sex and selling weapons to he was remarkabley like a republican just that he was willing to sell off even more of our nations security to make some money than a republican was. each clown that has been in for the last several administartions has found some glib way of screwing arund the figures to make them selves look good while our nations big cities are rotting and our infrastructure is getting near to collapse.try getting information out of an operator ? the roads in michigan have trees growing up thru them the snow always gets removed by june. battalions of lawyers goose stepping to the court house to settle their caes against an insurance company out of court. drunked and asleep public defenders, doctors on crack fbi agents selling scerets a total disgusting perversion of the future we were promised.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 25, 2002 08:41:18 PM new
Hi choco!! Can you imagine if he gets in again??? I think of all the brilliant people in the U.S. and he ends up representing the U.S.
Maybe you're right auroranorth. Maybe the system is too corrupt, but I still feel Clinton was a good guy and a good representative for the country. Bush makes Americans looks like air-heads.
|
Borillar
|
posted on June 25, 2002 10:10:08 PM new
. . . if only we'd look as good as airheads!
AN, you are not informed on this issue. Clinton and the Democrats did the unthinkable in 1993 and declared the United States of America to be bankrupt and threw us on the bankruptcy courts to arbitrate with the creditors to mitigate our interest on the debt. That's how the democrats were able to pull it off. The Republicans thought that they had dug us so deeply into debt with foreign nationals and multinational banks that there was no way that we could possibly ever get out of debt ~ endless interest payments. By declaring bankruptcy, the interest was lowered on the USA's debt and allowed for the economy to take off. You see, taxes play a big part in how an economy operates, but so does debt. We were actually able to start making payments on the debt, so much so, that the National Debt Clock ran in reverse for the first time in its history. It got to be so good that the clock was taken down because no one could imagine idiot voters and a corrupt supreme court getting us right back into the same situation! Now you can see WHY Bush is in such a hurry to wreak our economy and to get us so far into debt that bankruptcy won't even be an option next time.
UBB
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 25, 2002 10:16 PM ]
|
Borillar
|
posted on June 25, 2002 10:14:22 PM new
Borillar, now I have a question about the point you brought up. Is it true Bush can delay the election if he actually declares war?"
I've heard about it too. I'm not the first one to be worried about the precedent set by the last election. It is supposedly possible for the President to declare Martial Law and to suspend the United States Constitution and with it, elections. NOW do you see where all of this Hysteria about invisible Terrorist Plots is leading us?
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Jun 25, 2002 10:15 PM ]
|
chococake
|
posted on June 25, 2002 11:56:15 PM new
Wow, that's all it would take? That really is scary. He'll use any trick in the book to stay in office, so this is something to be aware of. I know he'll try to disrupt the election somehow.
|
yeager
|
posted on June 26, 2002 12:28:58 AM new
Maybe Martha Stewart can bunk with Leona Helmsey, the Hotel Queen! Martha can show Leona how to make beautiful seasonal wall decor from rejected license plates.
|
gravid
|
posted on June 26, 2002 12:45:00 AM new
The US has been in a state of emergency for several administrations. Congress keeps trying to end it and each new president is too fond of the power it gives them and extends the state. All it takes is a presidential finding to suspend normal commerce and he can run the whole country micro-managing everything.
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President
may: seize property; organize and control the means of production;
seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law;
seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the
operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of
particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens"
Sound fun?
"In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states
of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared
by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency
proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the
Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by
President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
Add states of emergency by both Clinton and Bush.
After 9/11 England learned to do the same thing-
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,591394,00.html
[ edited by gravid on Jun 26, 2002 01:02 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 26, 2002 07:04:32 AM new
As Chococake suggested November 2000, we are doomed.
I believe a major war will be arranged before the 2004 election and that all the little wimps who call themselves patriots will vote for Bush OR, Martial Law or the state of emergency that Gravid defined above will be declared and there will be no election.
Helen
|
gravid
|
posted on June 26, 2002 07:31:38 AM new
So best limit what you say. The last time Habeous Corpus was suspended and a war on the Republican administration under Lincoln rounded up 28,000 people and detained them indefinitely.
|
clarksville
|
posted on June 26, 2002 08:55:09 AM new
yeager I heard Winona Wanna-Ride-Her is going to be her B.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 26, 2002 09:31:09 AM new
NOW do you see where all of this Hysteria about invisible Terrorist Plots is leading us?
Borillar, do you really think the terrorist threats, plots and all that are just made up? seriously. You honestly think that we are under absolutely no threat at all? That the gov't is only doing this for their own gain?
Sure, all administrations in the past have done things for their own gain, but this? I personally do not think so.
Sure the 'color coding' thing is stupid. But I believe the threats to be real. Am I hysterical over it? no. But I do know that they will be looming over us, and I do not believe they are an 'invisible terrorist plot'.
[email protected]
|
mlecher
|
posted on June 26, 2002 09:37:09 AM new
The terrorist threats are real, but they have always been there. US Intelligence receives thousands of threats every day. The point is, now, they keep telling us about them no matter how obscure. Now is it because they honestly fear for our welfare, or do they want us focused on something else other than their REAL agenda. Namely the complete gutting of the American Dream by the ultra-rich......
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 26, 2002 09:44:39 AM new
mlecher.. I don't know. Which would you prefer... just not to have any 'warnings' put out at all, or have warnings, even if nothing happens (and we all hope to God nothing does) better to be safe(r) than sorry? I just don't know
[email protected]
|
mlecher
|
posted on June 26, 2002 10:10:28 AM new
They need to post real warnings. Not this generalized, obscure crapola they have been putting out to keep the press in check. Not "There is a terrorist threat" We do not know where, how, when, with what, who or how outrageous, so stop focusing on our adminstration's shenanigans and focus on warning the American people. Anything else is unpatriotic and high treason!"
There's a general terrorist threat???...WELL, DUHHHH, ever since July 1776....
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
[ edited by mlecher on Jun 26, 2002 10:18 AM ]
|
Dejapooh
|
posted on June 26, 2002 10:44:16 AM new
I think that the odds of Bush Declaring marshal law and suspending the consititution and elections are about as close to Zero as you can get. Bush is in office because he supported the illusion of democracy (funny how no one talkes about the 50,000 people taken off the registrar of voters in florida by Jeb Bush. Mostly registered democrats. Seems they had the same or similar names to convicted felons. No one took the time to check to see if they were the same person). If Bush were to declare Marshal Law he would abandon this illusion of democracy, and the sheep (oops, people), would not stand for it.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 26, 2002 10:44:42 AM new
mlecher, I agree; those general warnings are no real help to the general population.
If they gave us specifics though, I am sure there would be hysteria and panic, God knows what else, which wouldn't be good either, so I don't the answer.
[email protected]
|
