58 percent say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

I did not know that the Netherlands has actually outlawed popular people being elected.

You did not read what I said. I did not say that the Netherlands has 'outlawed' popular people from being elected at all.

The Netherlands have laws to prevent the media from pushing one party and giving them more air time than other parties.

Dutch law regulates that all parties who participate in elections get the same amount of media coverage, the law also regulates that businesses are not allowed to finance election campaigns for parties.

Of course, 'popularity' is a main aspect of any elections, but it should not be based on who gets the most tv coverage, it should be based on who makes the most sense.

[zcoder]

As I see it Bush is gone, he is on his last term, and has less then 2 years
left. so whats the problem???

I can't wait untill his term is completely over. so I can see just what
the bush bashers will find to bash.

Thank god I'm a Independent.

Zcoder....

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by Ferre

You did not read what I said. I did not say that the Netherlands has 'outlawed' popular people from being elected at all.

The Netherlands have laws to prevent the media from pushing one party and giving them more air time than other parties.

Dutch law regulates that all parties who participate in elections get the same amount of media coverage, the law also regulates that businesses are not allowed to finance election campaigns for parties.

Of course, 'popularity' is a main aspect of any elections, but it should not be based on who gets the most tv coverage, it should be based on who makes the most sense.

not only in the netherlands.. it is the same in germany, austria, spain, france and as far as i know also in scandinavia.
each party has to get the same airtime on tv - and that is law.

a democratic election should not be about who is the richest and can afford the most ads.... look at germany: angela merkel for sure was not the most popular candidate for chancellor, but , here she is! and in her case you also can be very sure, it was not a matter fo being attractive on tv!

[rpbu.com]

I cant wait until he's gone.

[micksss]

Worst President EVER!!!

[ScriptMan]

Bush won the office in 2000 according to the system we have in place. Popular vote means nothing under that system.

I am going to take a different view from most of the posters here. No president should be based on the lawful choices made until time has revealed why those choices were made.

I hope we elect people and they hire people smart enough not to tell CNN everything they know. This is afterall a Republic, not a Democracy. Sometimes hard choices have to be made based on the known and undisclosed, to the public, information.

Arm-chair quarter-backing a sports event is bad enough. The same for world events is completely stupid IMO.

[South]

Originally Posted by micksss

Worst President EVER!!!

Ahh, the radical overstating for dramatic impact that keeps conservatives looking good and liberals looking looney. Love it. You even capped the "EVER" and used three "!s". Shouting, that's good.

Now, go read up on administrations like Carter, Grant, Clinton.

[factoring]

Get him out of there.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by jg_v7n

Bush is the most powerful man in the world, the leader of the most powerful nation there has ever been, commander of the worlds most powerful army ever...

Not so sure I'd agree with that statement. HU Jintao might also have a problem with it.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

Not so sure I'd agree with that statement. HU Jintao might also have a problem with it.

Economically, China is not even in the same league as the US. Militarily, China is the third most powerful nation, behind the US and Russia.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Economically, China is not even in the same league as the US.

Agreed, however, it takes more than money to win a war.
And, China isn't exactly broke, either.
And the US is certainly spending a lot, but some of that is borrowed money.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Militarily, China is the third most powerful nation, behind the US and Russia.

I think that's debatable.
They have the ultimate equalizer (the bomb).
They certainly have the military numbers game cornered. They have way more bodies.
And, they have spent the last 10 years or so, pouring a lot of money into and upgrading their armed forces. Meanwhile, Russia has been busy with their new "democracy" and the Chechens and the US has been busy with Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan with thoughts of North Korea and Iran.

Information about the Chinese military is also sparse so it's difficult to tell just how much more powerful they are than we already know about.
Even the US government has a tough time trying to figure it out.
But they are the "talk of the town", so to speak.

[littleFella]

There is also a major distinction between the ability to inflict damage and casualties, and actually occupying a territory with its nation. In post WW2 history I don't know of any such territory or nation that has been successfully controlled by the US, while China did nearly double its territory. Yes, it was relatively peaceful and weak Tibet, but still. No other powers even dared to think about intervening in this unjust occupation.

In general it's hard to say which nation is more powerful. Often, dollar figures are used to express the might. But then there is a reality check. The supposedly militarily most powerful country has a big time problem controlling a country with an economy 5.5 times smaller than the economy of New York City. Looking at the reality, at how much money was wasted in Iraq, and how bleak the outcome has been so far, one might think that Iraq is #1 military power, sharing the honor with the US. After all, there is a stalemate at best

[Zap]

I think maybe stalemate might be the best term to describe China vs. the US.
Neither country would dare mess with the other so they probably share the top spot.

[ScriptMan]

Originally Posted by Zap

I think maybe stalemate might be the best term to describe China vs. the US.
Neither country would dare mess with the other so they probably share the top spot.

Stalemate between all countries of the world who want the right to do as they please WITHIN their borders, grant the same rights to other Nations and practice non-agression toward others is the perfect world. That is how we all should live. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Domain name master]

and everybody thought bill clinton was bad when he got his rocks off. they were talking about impeachment. I think bill clinton was one of the best president in my life time. I'm on the 58% side. down with bush. oil man bush!!! I wander why gas prices are the highest they've been.

[ScriptMan]

Originally Posted by Domain name master

and everybody thought bill clinton was bad when he got his rocks off. .

DNM, I am just tripping all over you tonight.

Bill did not get in trouble because of his rocks. I don't care who what or how he did it it in the oral office. His business, not mine.

The man lied under oath. That is what got him in trouble. Did and should have. If Bush, Cheney or any of the rest do the same, impeach their butts also. If Martha Stewert can go to jail for a mis-statement, lie?, to the FBI all the rest deserve the same especially when they do it under oath.

[South]

Originally Posted by Domain name master

I think bill clinton was one of the best president in my life time.

Then you've either had a very short life or just woke up from a very long coma.

[littleFella]

so what's your problem with blow jobs?

[Zap]

I love how it's NOT OK to lie about a blowjob, but it IS, somehow, OK to lie about outing a CIA agent and patriot.
WTF?!?!?!?