American Monarchy - Yea or Nay?

[Island Blue]

In every presidential election since 1980, there has been either a Bush or a Clinton somewhere on the ballot .

How do you feel about this?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

2. Jenna would be the first president to be sworn in by placing her hand on rolling papers....

:smoke:

[originalpckelly]

3. Personally, I don't think the last one is possible...

Technically, Bush's testicles are still apart of the larger Bush, and therefore cannot run for President.

[ck4829]

4. And if the Bush and Clinton Dynasties unite, then what?

[originalpckelly]

5. Clintush?

Blinton?

^^^Isn't that one of Satan's Firedeers?

[IndyOp]

7. The Bush and Clinton Dynasties have already united - you haven't noticed?

[YOY]

6. Monarchy isn't the word for it...Duo-Legacy is more like it

and be careful. The Hilary worshipers might get their panties in a wad if you start saying she shouldn't be the next president!

[IndyOp]

8. "panties in a wad" is sexist -- like a football coach insulting his players

by calling them "girls"...

How about "briefs in a wad" or "undies in a wad" or "self-imposed wedgie"...

:shrug:

[YOY]

11. As you like it

Good enough point. No insult intended to anyone.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Thanks! I appreciate it! nt

[IndyOp]

13. I know that women & men have both used the phrase and I

am on a mini-crusade because it has caught on *big* time around here.

Thanks for listening and considering my point of view.

:hi:

[YOY]

15. I don't believe that any words should ever be banned, but using an idiom that

can be better worded to be a bit less sexist is fine by me. No problem.

[sweetheart]

9. corporatist dominion

The evolution of fascism will be fascinating study in future, tracing
its origins to the social planning orders set forth in the 1930's of
fabricated global dominion and stripping out of human conscience,
thought and the ability to think for ones self.

The dominion is not there if you get rid of it, they are kings only
in their city state, we're rolled back 1000 years and moving by these
new bushian papists, and overjoy the dems with big expectations take
the chair.

[pinto]

10. Last I checked they were all primary winners and nominated by

their respective parties based on the primary votes. Maybe there's a different point you meant to discuss.

(aside) Disclaimer, I probably would've voted to re-elect JFK and would've definitely voted for Bobby, so I don't buy the last name/family as "monarchy" premise up front.

[IndyOp]

14. As much as I love the Kennedys -- really love them --

and deeply feel the loss of John & Bobby, I don't want any two family members in the Presidency -- not husband & wife or father & son or mother & daughter or two brothers.

Had Bobby been elected after John's tragically short time in office that would have been only fair.

I even have a less hard time with FDR serving three terms (and campaigning for his fourth when he died) than I have with a family dynasty.

We don't have any terrible shortage of talent such that we need - or should tolerate - family dynasties.

:(

[pinto]

17. And that's what primaries are for. We've seen a groundswell

of broad based Democratic participation in an off term election. I hope that carries on to our decision on a nominee for 2008.

In the mean time, let's kick the Republican's behinds these next two years and legislate some real progress for us all.

:kick:

[Bucky]

16. By "Party over here, party over there!" I assume you mean the secret Paraguayan compound

See? They're serving

[Glorfindel]

18. hmmm...a separation of the office of Head of State from

that of Chief of Government might be a very good thing, indeed. A hereditary Monarch to lay cornerstones, open bridges, receive ambassadors, and the like with no connection to the actual running of the government or the vicious sniping of politics - I'd be all for it. An elected president to serve as First Minister of the Monarch's Government, who could get his or her hands dirty without involving the office or the dignity of the Head of State; why not? Maybe we could petition Her Majesty the Queen to send us Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, to be our Monarch. Of course I know it will never happen; it's far too sensible, and besides, didn't we fight a Revolution to rid ourselves of Monarchs? Nevertheless, one can dream, and imagine a system where G. W. B*shit has to answer weekly Questions in the House from Members of Congress....*sigh* He'd self-destruct in about 10 minutes.