well it would take one republican to do it. but after it is changed. you have the democrats saying, the light was okay and never needed to be change. then they would argue that the change was done wrong, then they would say that pres. bush lied about the change and resign. they would say that it was against the Constitution after supporting the change. then they would drag out false papers saying the change was all faked. it would led all the news stories and after they see that Americans are okay with they change the democrats will take charge and say that they did it themselves. and if you you point out they were against the change they will call you a racist, hypocrite, right wing fanatic
2007-06-13 03:10:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by rap1361 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
First of all they would have to agree that the bulb needed to be changed.
A committee of 12 would be appointed 6 Dems and 6 Rep.
Committee would recommend new power station.
The "friends" list would be consulted to ascertain what relative or friend's business would benefit from the purchase of a new bulb and construction of new power plant.
The environment agency would have to do their thing. More people would have to render decisions all of which would be ignored.
FEMA sends in candles three days after the bulb gets fixed.
Bottom line, it would take 451 people, 4 agencies, 3 pay offs, 1 new power plant, bulb would be turned on day and night so all concerned parties could see their good work.
Cost over runs still being blamed on "The other Party."
Work order error replaces good bulb.
2007-06-13 09:57:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by radar 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well... I'd say 1000 Republicans were invested in the manufacture of the light bulb...and 1000 Democrats were involved it the restrictions and regulations of the light bulb.
And let's say another Democrat screwed the light bulb.
2001 is my answer.
2007-06-13 09:38:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by gcbtrading 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
How many members of the Bush Administration does it take to change a light bulb?
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;
7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;
8. One to viciously smear #7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
2007-06-13 09:46:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Well, since they both plan to use the same technique for screwing it (in), it shouldn't require many; however, a committee to study...
2007-06-13 09:42:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by mrearly2 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
don c...humorous answer!
2007-06-13 09:59:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by AILENE 4
·
0⤊
0⤋