> > current "glorious" leader.    ( PS I do not vote because 
> the system  
> > is "mob rule" )
> > AGSC
> 
> Hmmmm. And how many people like you did it take to get our 
> current "glorious leader" elected?
> 
> Even if your bastard doesn't win, make the other bastards 
> work for their victory!


I understand your point, but there is another side to this issue: Who gets
elected has less to do with what happens than how the public reacts after
they get elected. 

Think about this logically. What motivation does the president have to do
what they say they will do after the election? Well, you could say that they
must have good ratings to get re-elected for a second term, but the public
memory is not 4 years long (sad but true) so the president can do as wants
for at least 3 years, then kiss up to the public for a year and get
re-elected. In the case of GW, it was 9/11 and the subsequent war. He would
NEVER have been re-elected had that not occurred, because his approval
rating was low even then. Now, after re-election, why on earth would the
President give a damn what the people think? They ONLY way they can get in
trouble is by being impeached, and that would require a LEGAL breach that is
clear and provable. I'm not going to argue that point right now... 

In general, only during the last bit of the first term is there any pressure
on the president from voters.

On the other hand, when people get pissed at the presidents political party,
and start voting against members of the house, then you MAY get some
pressure on the president from the head of the party. And that may, or may
not, be effective pressure.

The only real pressure comes from people physically demonstrating, going on
strike, changing their buying habits and in other ways messing with the
/personal/ interests of the person or his family. 

In this case, reducing oil use. Bush owns an "oil and gas production"
concern, the Lone Star Trust.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2003/N00008072_2003.pdf I mean, come on!
His approval rating is the lowest in US history! Does he give a damn?
Obviously not.

Bush made more money last year from investments in treasury notes and
royalties in the oil industry than he was paid in salary as President of the
United States.

Cheney made more last year than the other two politicians combined, thanks
largely to investments from the enormous $36-million payout he received
several years ago as the former CEO of Halliburton. That's the same Houston
energy services company now enjoying billion-dollar federal contracts in
Iraq but also losing more than its share of employees deployed there during
the recent surge of violence.

http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now.

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist