English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why change anything? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

2006-06-13 02:30:42 · 57 answers · asked by Dumb American 2 in Politics & Government Politics

57 answers

I am a man so I can't even say that I have to go to the bushes to ....., as the ladies did say a few decades ago.

................. hmmmmmmmm........George Bush, I don't know, I thought Lincoln and Kennedy and so many others were crowned the best presidents ever......... Bush is the ......... ah forget it I leave it to the Americanos to decide if their bush is the best............

But, for now, as I said, I am gonna go the john........er bushes.......er....loo......ach ...............batar.........
st

2006-06-13 03:01:10 · answer #1 · answered by Starreply 6 · 6 0

Since the 1800 presidential election, elections have always been held in years divisible by 4, so the next year for an election will be 2008. I think it would be very difficult to try and convince people to abandon a presidential election, but you might have a bit more luck trying to convince people to overturn the 22nd admendment that debars a president from standing for election more than once (i.e two terms). For this to pass, you would need 66 Senators to support the motion, 287 Congressmen to support the motion and 38 state houses to also support the motion.

2006-06-15 01:47:37 · answer #2 · answered by Harry Hayfield 6 · 0 0

Well regardless of your political views, our constitution requires we have a presidential election every four yrs. And that a sitting president can not hold more than 2 terms in office, which would be 8 yrs.

So you see G.W Bush will have served his 8 yrs by 2008, requiring us to elect a new president. This process keeps our government from becoming a monarchy or theocracy. Meaning we can never even come close to being ruled by only one person for long periods of time. These rules keep us a democracy!

2006-06-13 02:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by pl 2 · 0 0

Ur joking right? The best president ever would have retaliated to 9/11 thinking about proportionality. He would negotiate and deal with the problem in a calm way. He wouldn't be ruled by oil. He would be able to speak correct english and not make up words. He wouldn't have most of the rest of the world against him.

Seriously - I haven't spoken to anyone over here in the UK who actually supports Bush. We have bigger problems with Oil than you, so why attack Iraq? - To get rid of Saddam? Well you got rid of him. Well done. What now? Stay there and let the crisis break into civil war? Leave and let one person become the ruler (eg a new Saddam)?

2006-06-13 07:03:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Since you call yourself "Dumb American", I'll assume that this is a joke! If not, though, I'll just remind you of the fact that the U.S. is a DEMOCRACY and that the Constitution only allows a President to serve 2 terms. But then again, if Bush had his way, he would be a dictator instead of a President and he's never shown any respect for the Constitution, anyway, so I guess your views shouldn't be surprising! And it's not as if Bush was democratically elected, anyway, right?

2006-06-13 03:44:05 · answer #5 · answered by tangerine 7 · 0 0

Since the current President talks about being a stickler for Constitutional Law, you should know that our Twenty-Second Amendment only allows a person to:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

So, to complete the answer to your question....because the law says we do.

2006-06-13 02:38:56 · answer #6 · answered by T-Dub 2 · 0 0

If you look at the questioner's name, you'd probably figure out that this is sarcasm...:)

The only good thing about the last election was that it was the LAST time W will ever be elected president. Whoever is elected in 2008 will be better than W.

2006-06-13 02:34:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush is the worst president (except Richard Nixon resigning) because after Katrina he just said i will support all of the people in the southestern states. What has he done to rebuild New Orleans? plus a president can only serve 2 terms

2006-06-13 02:37:41 · answer #8 · answered by Cubbie 1 · 0 0

Because it the American tradition and law to have presdential elections every 4 years. If you don't like it, move somwhere else. And damn good thing that we will have a new president in 2008 too, because since you have failed to notice-Bush is a complete moron. Thanks to him were way in over our heads in an unnecessary war, or economy sucks and conservative chrisitans are trying to take over the country and remove all reasonable thought. But your a republican with no brain, what the hell do you know?

2006-06-13 08:47:32 · answer #9 · answered by jellybean24 5 · 0 0

How can anyone support the president if he is willing to send Amarican troops into what has essientaly become another vietnam. And drag the British and other co-alition forces in with him. Don't you guys have enough oil or do you intent to manopilise the supply so you can hold the rest of the world at ransom!

2006-06-13 02:42:30 · answer #10 · answered by Echo One X-Ray 1 · 0 0

I believe according to National History people said Abraham Lincoln was the best president ever, then again why change it when weve been just voting for the lesser of two evils for nearly 40 years?

2006-06-13 02:39:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers