Okay, you know it will be BEFORE the election coming up in Nov. so Bush can get re-elected. So pick your date now - you could be the big winner!
Enter the “Bin Laden Captured!” contest now.
Many choice dates still available!!
I have voted for Oct. 11th...it's a Monday, which will give all the media plenty of time to hype it...and it's the 11th, which will be a nice tie-in to 9/11.
#6. "RE: Beating the Bushes" In response to DavyWavy (Reply # 0) Wed Sep-08-04 10:12 PM by npmcl
"I have voted for Oct. 11th...it's a Monday, which will give all the media plenty of time to hype it"
Davy, nothing to do with your subject but your statement about timing for the media reminded me of something that happened here back in 1936 (I think). King George V was dying and his doctor Lord Dawson gave him a drug overdose so that he died in time for the announcement of his death to be in the first morning edition of "The Times"!
Rather more to do with part of your subject. Did you know that Tony Blair had to ask George Bush not to mention him in his election speeches (re Iraq support etc) as every time he has done it in the past Blair drops down in the opinion polls here? Blair has the Labour Party Conference coming up this month and a General Election next year so he's feeling sensitive.
#17. "RE: Beating the Bushes" In response to mickster (Reply # 16) Thu Sep-09-04 10:21 AM by DavyWavy
Surprise, surprise! Right, Mickster? So what day do you think they will "make the announcement"?
Hey! I just had a thought...why not pick the day Fahrenheit 9-11 goes to video? So, Fahrenheit 9-11 comes out on video, and Bush says "Look! We've caught Bin Laden!"
Last night I had a reply to this thread all typed out but decided not to post it.
The wording wasn't right, but the just of it was that since Bin Laden is obviously rooming with Michael Moore (as any good critic would realize) he shouldn't be all that hard to locate.
Yes, I'm being fecescious (Spelling ???)
Al, so you think he's dead huh?
Sure hope your right. One less loony toon on the planet is a good thing.
Bin Laden is dead, and his capture is completely unnecessary to the re-election of G.W. Bush. John Kerry is in self-destruct mode, and it will only get worse.
You know what I think, there is a very good possibility they already have him and are waiting for the right moment to release the info. But I could be very wrong.
I think Bin Laden's whereabouts are known by the U.S. When the time is right, (Oct. 11th?) they will "capture him" and announce it to the world, Noreen. But then I also thought the Weapons of Mass Destruction would be planted a long time ago...I was wrong on that... and might be wrong on Bin Laden...I hope so.
And how is it that Tony Blair has skated by this long?
#37. "RE: Beating the Bushes" In response to DavyWavy (Reply # 36) Fri Sep-10-04 11:57 AM by Josh N
>Our President is not elected by the American Public, >Noreen...
Not totatlly correct, but I may be misunderstanding you. If I remember my government class, whoever wins the popular vote in a state collects that state's electoral college votes. Those electoral college voters then in turn vote for who their state chose. By law their not required to vote that way, but it always does. That's why nominee's focus on states with a lot of electoral college votes. California, Texas, Florida, NY, and others are a few of those states.
Your system is still better than ours, how I hate to say that. The leader of the majority party after a general election is asked by the Queen if he is willing to take the job of PM, so he is actually only elected as a member of parliament although in recent times his fellow party members would have elected him as leader. In the past he could have been chosen as leader by an influential group within his party. Also he could have been a member of the House of Lords in which case he would only have been elected or chosen as leader! The system can come really unstuck if a PM can no longer carry on due to illness or death and there is no obvious successor in his party at that time. Then the Queen with the advice of senior politicians has to offer the position to someone in the party and sometimes in the past they have got it wrong, then the Queen gets the blame.
Of course I'm pretending that the office of Prime Minister is the same as the office of President which it isn't, although Tony Blair appears to think that it is.
Forgive an ignorant American, but who is the leader of your country? Isn't the queen just a figure-head and really doesn't have any power? Or is it spread out among several people?
#42. "RE: Beating the Bushes" In response to Josh N (Reply # 40) Fri Sep-10-04 06:26 PM by npmcl
All depends on what you mean by leader. If you mean the person with the real political power it is the prime minister, if you mean the person who represents the country and to whom loyalty is owed it is the Queen. She, as head of state, is above politics or political parties and therefore unites the country.
That's what I thought it was, but I'm confused by what you said.
"Of course I'm pretending that the office of Prime Minister is the same as the office of President which it isn't, although Tony Blair appears to think that it is."
Prime minister means first minister, he is first among a group of ministers who are chosen by him. They are ministers of the Crown, theoretically he and they are answerable to the Queen. It is the Queen's signature that turns legislation into law, not the prime minister's. The military forces' allegiance is to the Queen not to the prime minister although he decides on their actions.
It can be argued that the parliamentary system is more responsive to the people since a vote of confidence can be called at almost any time, and the members of Parliament are directly elected by the people. We on the other hand must wait for the end of the term of office of the president, or attempt a difficult and lengthy impeachment process.
The President, in fact does, serve as both head of state, and prime minister, where in your parliamentary system those jobs are separate.
There are benefits and drawbacks in both systems. I prefer our system of a non-political head of state separate from the political leader but prefer your system where the political leader is elected even if that is indirectly.
I just got in on the tail end of this conversation...(pinched nerve, laid up most of the day)...but I was just being facetious in my post to Noreen, saying, "the American people don't elect the President"... I was referring to this past election, and the fact that Bush didn't have the majority vote, Al Gore did. The Supreme Court elected Bush.
Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the public vote in either of his elections. So what?
The President of the United States is elected by a system outlined in the US Constitution. It is not the job of the President to represent the majority of the American people, it is the job of the President to run the Executive branch, represent the United States as a whole (note that is "States").
Al was correct, that is a plurality not a majority. Ir is difficult for any candidate to win a majority in a three way election. A majority is 50% of the votes cast + 1 vote
That's all fine and dandy for those countries to feel that way, but they don't elect our president, we do. And whose to say if the poll is really correct?
We live in a world of sound bites and decisions made on the last commercial seen by people. I don't belive either the pols or polls anymore. Neither choice is great, but if France, Germany and Spain want Kerry, then I want Bush.
Ask Putin if he wants Bush or Kerry and see what he says now that Russia has been hit. The radicals don't just want to kill Americans, they will eventually get around to all of the peace loving infidels after the big guy falls. Just like the Nazis in WW2, first the weak, then the sick, then the Jews.
Appeasement never worked for Chamberlain, nor will it work with these nuts.
Again, you may not agree with that, but that is your right to do so.
That is if he is alive. If he is alive and captured before the election he will be put on ice. To announce a capture now would endanger a political backlash.
I agree with Al about Kerry self-destructing. He is running a terrible campaign as a result of an unaccomplished 19 yr. Senate record.
The leader of the majority party after a general election is asked by the Queen if he is willing to take the job of PM, so he is actually only elected as a member of parliament although in recent times his fellow party members would have elected him as leader. In the past he could have been chosen as leader by an influential group within his party. Also he could have been a member of the House of Lords in which case he would only have been elected or chosen as leader! The system can come really unstuck if a PM can no longer carry on due to illness or death and there is no obvious successor in his party at that time. Then the Queen with the advice of senior politicians has to offer the position to someone in the party and sometimes in the past they have got it wrong, then the Queen gets the blame. 
