New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

I was being facetious. Well sort of...I definately want that thought out there ...If George II can run again...so can teflon Willy. It is more important to defeat the ideology and outright lies, that the current Republicans are ( quite succesfully ) deceiving the American population with. Slick Willy scares the Republicans. Even if they change the laws so Arnold can run against him. There is a great doubt that even Schwartzenager's (sp) appeal won't be enough to defeat him.

One leader, provided that leader is forward thinking is not always a bad thing. It when that leader gets mired in corruption and complacency that trouble arises. Ideally we as a society would prefer to have changes in the leadership to help prevent one party from being entrenched in power for to long. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, even in a democracy. If that were the case I'm sure Martin would have been sent packing long ago.

The problem is, for Canadians at this point in time there is no viable alternative. You have Harper, yeah right!!! You have the Bloc, which is for tearing the very ideals of the country apart,Then you have the NDP. Which for some unexplicable reason, Canadians seem to be terrified to elect. Then you have a bunch of smaller parties and individuals, which have some great ideas, but just don't have the clout to form a majority government.

This leaves you with the Liberals. ( How many years have they been in power?) As you have pointed out ...not a lot of creative thinking coming out the party headquarters lately. They have become a stagnant party, much as you suppose an individual would become. I am not saying your wrong about that. I too see it, as more of a probability, than a possibility.

But I digress.My goal is to merely point that this could indeed be a grave tactical error on the part of the Republicans.

Excellent post. zen. Just as a party can become stagnant, so can an individual.....and his immediate group that governs. If a leader was in for life......the mentality would change immediately. They would feel "secure" in their position and probably not try as hard. Just a basic human failing most humanoids have. Some might welcome the "stability" that might represent. But all too quickly and insidiously stability can turn into passive complacency. Nature of the humanoid .

but it poses interesting considerations...

 

[zenfisher]

Yes it does...an indivdual is occaisionally more interested in challenging themselves than a party is at challengiing the party line. If that weren't true, we would not have writers, we would not have musicians sculptors and artists. The trick is to approach politics or leading with this kind of reasoning. Coming to the realization that change is an important part of life and implementing ideas for the betterment of society.

It is definately true that people seek out the easiest path. This has held true in politics as well...sort of the devil you know, kind of thinking. I am not sure if it is so much complacency. I see it more of a reaction to aging. Survival, for most of us is tough. A majority of the world have it far more difficult, than we have in N. America. Yet living is still a difficult proposition. In a certain sense I think we just tire of mundane challenges of the day to day. We seek simpler paths to complete these tasks. This allows are mind pursue more creative and challenging interests. If you compare the amount of hobbies that younger and older people have...you begin to see that the older people devote more time to their passions.

This brings us back to a leader ( or party). What is needed is to free up some of the more mundane and trivial aspects of political life, while keeping an eye on the direction a society needs to go.

 

[Curiosity]

The whole concept of being able to change a government within four years or eight years is a good one.

Stagnation as a concept was used earlier and I agree. Too many governments become bogged down in their own little pet agendas
rather than working toward an overall compromise (which government is), to get the best out of their decisions.

If there is any one majority of government over a lengthy period of time, many little fiefdoms and even kingdoms are created, and politics becomes personal rather than "for the people" - it's original mandate.

Governments should be a morphing entity, constantly updating to meet the current needs of the country and its population.

The public must be very careful about entrenched politicians who are cruising in the long term. Never assume they are still doing what's best for their constitutents, but rather doing for themselves.

Once voted in, a politician must be under scrutiny the same as any employee. It's the peoples' money after all.

 

[Just the Facts]

We have nothing like the 22nd amendment in Canada. I guess that means we're no better than the Nazis.

Chretien just won three terms in office in a row. He probably could have won more if he didn't decide to retire. How come no assassination attempts?

 

[Said1]

Isn't there all kinds of idiot bills that have come up more than once and have been squashed? I can't see Americans standing for it, or those with their eye on the job either.

Sounds like hype, hype and more hype. And why, as Canadians, would we care?

 

[Curiosity]

Said...agreed - why should Canadians care?

 

[zenfisher]

Canadians should care! Because of their proximity and the economic links to the US.Invariably US policy affects how laws form in Canada. Just look at something simple like the change from daylight savings back to standard time. The US has voted to push it back to Nov. ...now Canada feels it has no choice but to do the same. Think of how something far more complicated becomes an issue.
Take the legalization of pot. Americans feel it will affect their ability to fight " the war on drugs". Canada would probably have legalized pot by now, if it weren't for this influence.
Look at abortion. If the supreme court down here becomes stacked. You know there is going to be an influx of American women coming into Canada to have abortions. How long do you think it will be before the US government starts flexing a little muscle and "requesting" Canadians desist. It didn't take long for them to clamp down on pharmaceuticals crossing the border.
Not to mention...this man has his finger waving over THE BUTTON that can end it all. I'm damn sure...I don't want this nut in power for a third term! I think everyone in the world should stop and think about that. Especially one that thinks he will go to heaven if he brings on the Apocalypse. That's why Canadian's should be concerned.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make Bush President For Life

Canadians should care! Because of their proximity and the economic links to the US.Invariably US policy affects how laws form in Canada. Just look at something simple like the change from daylight savings back to standard time. The US has voted to push it back to Nov. ...now Canada feels it has no choice but to do the same. Think of how something far more complicated becomes an issue.
Take the legalization of pot. Americans feel it will affect their ability to fight " the war on drugs". Canada would probably have legalized pot by now, if it weren't for this influence.
Look at abortion. If the supreme court down here becomes stacked. You know there is going to be an influx of American women coming into Canada to have abortions. How long do you think it will be before the US government starts flexing a little muscle and "requesting" Canadians desist. It didn't take long for them to clamp down on pharmaceuticals crossing the border.
Not to mention...this man has his finger waving over THE BUTTON that can end it all. I'm damn sure...I don't want this nut in power for a third term! I think everyone in the world should stop and think about that. Especially one that thinks he will go to heaven if he brings on the Apocalypse. That's why Canadian's should be concerned.

Hype, especially the last part about the man having his little finger on the BUTTON.

 

[zenfisher]

And what exactly would I be promoting? Its not hype its reality. Do you believe that what happens in the US has absolutely no bearing on Canada or any other country in the world?

 

[mrmom2]

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New Bill Could Make B

It isn't hype and Canadians should care who is in power in the US.

US policy influences the entire world and when you've got somebody like Bush in power, that influence is extremely negative.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make B

It isn't hype and Canadians should care who is in power in the US.

US policy influences the entire world and when you've got somebody like Bush in power, that influence is extremely negative.

It is hype and I never said they shouldn't care who is in power, I said why should they care how long they are in power especially since US hedgemony is shrinking daily - rock on Can-na-da!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New Bill Could Make B

Perhaps you should explain why you think it's just hype.

A very real of US influence in Canada would be the recent arrest of Marc Emery. US influence might be shrinking in the rest of the world, but we are now arresting our own citizens because the US doesn't like them.

Another example would be that the US military is most likely going to be calling the shots for our people in Afghanistan. That leaves Canada in the position of aiding and abetting in war crimes.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make B

Perhaps you should explain why you think it's just hype.

This sort of stuff is eaten up by Bush haters - hyporamma. Perhaps you should explain why it isn't, hype. Perhaps you could explain why any presidential hopefuls would actually sign a bill giving Bush the job until he croaks, makes no sense. We're not talking Freedom Fries here, we're talking about very powerful people giving up any chance they have at running for president for a very long time.

A very real of US influence in Canada would be the recent arrest of Marc Emery. US influence might be shrinking in the rest of the world, but we are now arresting our own citizens because the US doesn't like them.

What does that have to do with Bush being president for life? Anyway, if I have the details correct, Emery broke the law in the United States, did he break any laws in Canada? I'm not totally familiar with the case. Plus, I thought the courts hadn't ruled on the extradition yet either.


[qutoe]Another example would be that the US military is most likely going to be calling the shots for our people in Afghanistan. That leaves Canada in the position of aiding and abetting in war crimes.[/quote]

Canada is calling the shots now, how? They aren't aiding and abetting in war crimes as it is already?

 

[Curiosity]

Said1

Excellent responses - regarding this topic - there are too many "chicken little" scenarious being offered - unresearched - uncited - and unthought as to their consequences. :wink:

The almost fantastical vignettes I read here are great fiction but not based in reality. Hype makes news - news is not often fact but concerns itself with rating boosts.

Let me know when the sky begins its plunge downward will you please?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New Bill Could Make B

It's a real bill beuing put forth by members of a real government, Said. That means it is, by definition, more than hype.

The Bush government has been far more regressive than the Clinton government was when it comes to drug laws. Emery was no in the United States, so the legality of what he did there is completely irrelevant.

There are some very serious questions as to the legality of selling seeds in Canada. It would take a Supreme Court ruling for that to be cleared up beyond a doubt. The Vancouver Police are on record as saying that it is not an arrestable offence though. In the US, it carries a minimum 10 year sentence and there's a good chance that Emery could get a sentence of life because it is clear that they are out to get him.

You obviously misread what I wrote about Afghanistan. I said clearly, according to your own post, "Another example would be that the US military is most likely going to be calling the shots for our people in Afghanistan."

See? The US telling our people what to do. Given that US military has been beating people to death, I don't think we should be taking any orders from them.

You can try to defend the indefensible all you like, but the fact is that there is a movement to make Bush president for life. We have arrested three of our own citizens to enforce the regressive laws of the US. Our soldiers are being put in the position of taking orders from people who we know have a real problem following even the most basic international laws.

Go ahead and say that none of it matters though. Everything is just fine. As long as we do what the US tells us to.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make B

but the fact is that there is a movement to make Bush president for life.

Therein lies the answer as to why it's being called hype. It's because it is not a fact that there is a movement to make Bush president for life. There is a movement to remove a restriction on the American peoples freedom to decide who should be president. Big difference, that.

Repealing the 22nd ammendment doesn't mean Bush gets to forego any more elections. It means Slick Willy can come back and wipe him away.

When you have a disconnect between what is happening, and a bunch of doom and gloom despair about the consequences, you have hype. (well, I wouldn't call it hype personally, more like misguided and clueless, but since "hype" is being used in this thread we'll go with it :wink: )

 

[Curiosity]

Just The Facts

Now why didn't I put it that way! Rational thought clears the air!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: New Bill Could Make B

Misguided and clueless would be the way to characterize those who aren't concerned about this coming up. There have been serious questions as to the results of the last two US elections, or had you decided that didn't matter either?

The message implicit in trying to write this off as nothing but hype and to denigrate those that would discuss it is that we should all just shut up like good little robots.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: New Bill Could Make B

It's a real bill beuing put forth by members of a real government, Said. That means it is, by definition, more than hype.

The Bush government has been far more regressive than the Clinton government was when it comes to drug laws. Emery was no in the United States, so the legality of what he did there is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I know. There are tons of "real" bills, so what? Does every bill get passed? This only means he can run again doesn't it, that won't ensure his success - unless the stone cutters have their way.

The Vancouver Police are on record as saying that it is not an arrestable offence though.

In Canada?

In the US, it carries a minimum 10 year sentence and there's a good chance that Emery could get a sentence of life because it is clear that they are out to get him.

Emery broke the law in the Untied States, they have the right to prosecute him under their laws. Now I'm not saying it isn't extreme, but he still broke the law.

You obviously misread what I wrote about Afghanistan. I said clearly, according to your own post, "Another example would be that the US military is most likely going to be calling the shots for our people in Afghanistan."

See? The US telling our people what to do. Given that US military has been beating people to death, I don't think we should be taking any orders from them.

Then I said "how is this different from what is happening now?" Then I went onto ask you if (in your opinion) Canada wasn't already aiding and abetting war crimes in Afghanistan. SEE?

You can try to defend the indefensible all you like, but the fact is that there is a movement to make Bush president for life.

What am I defending, exactly? What movement?

We have arrested three of our own citizens to enforce the regressive laws of the US.

If Canadians commit crimes in the United States, they have the right to prosectute. Just as we have the right, but probably shouldn't, right?

Our soldiers are being put in the position of taking orders from people who we know have a real problem following even the most basic international laws.

Seems they are already taking orders, our brass is doing what their brass tells them. And our guys already have a history of war crimes to their credit.

Go ahead and say that none of it matters though. Everything is just fine. As long as we do what the US tells us to.

Sure, whatever.