NationStates Jolt Archive

Makes more sense, don't you think?

Yes but don't you still keep the title 'president' after you leave office?

He didn't even win the election.

Heh, that's pretty funny.

He didn't even win the election.

He lost and sued for the Whitehouse.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~edbauer/blogs/jenny/archives/w.jpg

That´s an issue for the American people to decide.
They have to chose between Texas ranger George Bush and boring Heinz ketchup Kerry.

By the way: a president keeps his title even when he left office.
So every former president always remains Mr. President.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~edbauer/blogs/jenny/archives/w.jpg
Yes, I totally agree, NO MORE WOMEN!

Yes, I totally agree, NO MORE WOMEN!

even though i wouldn't have the beautiful girlfreind i have now :(

By the way: a president keeps his title even when he left office.
So every former president always remains Mr. President.
See? It's pedantically impossible.

See? It's pedantically impossible.

No, it isn´t. President (in office), President (out of office).

But he always reminds Mr. President. It is the same in other countries. Some countries use to say: Mr. Old-President, but a president always remains President, even if the term in office is over.

[img=no W]

This is now my avatar on a right-wing forum :)

No, it isn´t. President (in office), President (out of office).

But he always reminds Mr. President. It is the same in other countries. Some countries use to say: Mr. Old-President, but a president always remains President, even if the term in office is over.

;)

No, it isn´t. President (in office), President (out of office).

But he always reminds Mr. President. It is the same in other countries. Some countries use to say: Mr. Old-President, but a president always remains President, even if the term in office is over.

" Please welcome Former President of The United States of America, George W Bush Jr ... "

or

" Please welcome, Mr George W Bush Jr, Former President of The United States of America "

...

Hmmm, I think I like those two better. I always thought one stops technically being president when you can no longer get to the Big Red Button. I'm sure even the USSS would get touchy if he stormed in 6 months later yelling " Yee-haa, ! " and wearing a ten gallon ...

" Please welcome Former President of The United States of America, George W Bush Jr ... "
or
" Please welcome, Mr George W Bush Jr, Former President of The United States of America "
...
Hmmm, I think I like those two better. I always thought one stops technically being president when you can no longer get to the Big Red Button. I'm sure even the USSS would get touchy if he stormed in 6 months later yelling " Yee-haa, ! " and wearing a ten gallon ...

No, Mr. Clinton is still addressed as Mr. President. He remains the title. But of course: the powers of the president are transfered to the successor on the day of his inauguration. But the title remains forever on the person.
That´s the way it is: not just in the US but also in other countries regarding their head of state or head of government.

No, Mr. Clinton is still addressed as Mr. President.
Ah, but can he still be secretly serviced. Oh, of course I mean the USSS. Of course. :D
He remains the title.
" Dear Mr President,

My most sincere regrets at your no longer being Mr President ... "

;)

But of course: the powers of the president are transfered to the successor on the day of his inauguration.
Well, I noticed that. Else Ronald could have put on a post it note for the morning after :

" Note to self, buy milk, eggs. Clean out office stationary cup-board. Glass Russia in after-noon. Turn off lights for next guy. "

But the title remains forever on the person.

I will resist ! Clinton joke ! ... ;)

That´s the way it is: not just in the US but also in other countries regarding their head of state or head of government.

Meh, well we learn a new thing every-day. Even though I lost several minutes of my life learning it. Even though in Australia I am yet to hear of this. Even if I think it will confuse people who live under rocks and will thus be very unfair. Even if I think it makes no bloody sense ...

* Slaps fore-head.

Oh, right, politics !

:D

Meh, well we learn a new thing every-day. Even though I lost several minutes of my life learning it. Even though in Australia I am yet to hear of this. Even if I think it will confuse people who live under rocks and will thus be very unfair. Even if I think it makes no bloody sense ...


Ditto UK

@Komokom,

sometimes things are different then you think, I know that myself. I learned about that in another forum (not NS).
By the way: there is a parallel to sport. An olympia winner (champion) always remains Olympia champion and remains the title.
However: a winner of a world championship (like in football/soccer) can lose it if they don´t win the next championship. (The same is the case for other sports (wrestling, boxing, e.g.).

Coming back to politics: a MP (member of parliament) loses his title when he is not reelected, steps down or doesn´t run again for office. But a president always remains president, like a king always remains king - even if he steps down early and leaves the floor for his successor.

Same thing goes for the Prime Minister and Premier. I wonder, does the same idea apply for the mayor?

But didn't King Edward become Prince Edward? I'm referring to the one who abdicated to marry this woman.

Bush the Inmate.... Now that sounds like a charm :D

And hey, who can say he doesn't deserve it?

Imagine Bush's first day behind bars, meeting his cellmate. "Mr President, from now on you're my bitch! Understood?!" :D

But didn't King Edward become Prince Edward? I'm referring to the one who abdicated to marry this woman.

Don´t ask me about the UK or England. My reference to monarchy goes towards the title in Belgium and the Netherlans. I should have specified that.
For the US I can confirm that a president always remains the title president. The same is the case for Austria and Germany.
I don´t know how other countries handle this title thing. There may be some who do it differently though I think many have the same title rules.

Regarding abdication of kings because of marriage: they main reason of it is that the marriage is not seen as appropiate to the status. That may be the reason for losing the title as well. So: to step down is not enough, it also requires to give up the title.

:mp5: You're wrong.

It's, "That Gangster from Arkansas".

Now, flush out your head-gear, New-Guy and answer this question:

"What would you do if you were president of the United States and 9/11 happened all over again."

What you poor people don't understand is that the people were up against can't be reasoned with. If we are not vigilant, (even 300 years from now) one of their decendants will fly a plane into the re-built world trade center.

So for me...and for the future, "Absolutly God-Damn -Right, I want a Texas Ranger In office".

Whether one addresses a former President as "Mr. President" or not is simply a matter of courtesy and choice. There isn't any law that mandates it.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to address Ford, Carter, & Bush Sr. as Mr. President, but if I ever ran into Clinton he would be very lucky if I were polite enough to call him Mr. Clinton.

What you poor people don't understand is that the people were up against can't be reasoned with. If we are not vigilant, (even 300 years from now) one of their decendants will fly a plane into the re-built world trade center.
Wow. Terrorism is genetic?

Wow. Terrorism is genetic?

LOL

Myrth, I think you're in luck. I know from some pretty dependable sources that Bush some day will no longer be the president (even if he keeps the title)! :headbang:

Myrth, I think you're in luck. I know from some pretty dependable sources that Bush some day will no longer be the president (even if he keeps the title)! :headbang:

Absolutely. Either he leaves office in January 2005 - when he isn´t reelected - or in January 2009.
An US president can only run for two terms. That term limit is in place since shortly after World War II.

However: other countries don´t have such limits. Tony Blair for example could remain prime minister for a very long time, since there are no limits in the UK. He is already eight years in office. For an US president that is the maximum.

put bush where he belongs in his pants

> this is supposed to be British English than you know what I mean

it doesn't really matter if Bush keeps his title, what they meant by ex-president was probably just kick him out of office which i completely agree with! even though bush has done pretty well with the war and things, he made a bad desicion to bow up Iraq then rebuild it. kerry could probably do better then that.

The president keep his title, and you should use it while addressing the former president directly, but when he is being discussed it is proper to call him Former President. We dont say "President Jimmy Carter was speaking with PResident Bill Clinton about President Bush." It would be "Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were dicussing President Bush"




SO YES to FORMER President Bush!

SO YES to FORMER President Bush!

It would be correct to say to a future former president Bush. He either remains in office till January 2005 or January 2009.
And he remains the title president and if he is - as you said - adressed as Mr. President if someone speaks with him.
Otherwise it is appropriate to refer to him as former president to distinguish between the current president in office and the past president in office, which is now out of office.


But by the way: what is so bad about President Bush???
And what is so good about Ketchup-Kerry????

Wow. Terrorism is genetic?

Perhaps not genetic but there is certainly evidence that it is hereditary (as in passed down from generation to generation).

When ol Benj Franklin approached the ambasador to Tripoli (now modern day Libya) a muslim country and at the time one of a number of muslim countries engaging in wide spread piracy and slave trade in the Mediteranian, he was told (and I paraphrase here) that it was the Allah given right for muslims to kill or enslave any non muslim for being infidels.

This was near 300 years ago, and yet the groups we are still dealing with still believe this to this day. It doesnt help that their governing manifesto (i.e. the Koran) states that it's ok to kill infidels because, well they're infidels.

Uh, that depends on how you interpret the Koran. Remember, the Bible is subject to diverse interpretations.

I'll stick to calling him Bush or Dubya. He hasn't earned my respect yet.

That´s an issue for the American people to decide.
They have to chose between Texas ranger George Bush and boring Heinz ketchup Kerry.

By the way: a president keeps his title even when he left office.
So every former president always remains Mr. President.

Vote Michael Badnarik. Yay for freedom-living libertarians!

Perhaps not genetic but there is certainly evidence that it is hereditary (as in passed down from generation to generation).

When ol Benj Franklin approached the ambasador to Tripoli (now modern day Libya) a muslim country and at the time one of a number of muslim countries engaging in wide spread piracy and slave trade in the Mediteranian, he was told (and I paraphrase here) that it was the Allah given right for muslims to kill or enslave any non muslim for being infidels.

This was near 300 years ago, and yet the groups we are still dealing with still believe this to this day. It doesnt help that their governing manifesto (i.e. the Koran) states that it's ok to kill infidels because, well they're infidels.

that doesnt mean its hereditary. it just mean the belief is passed down.

if you showed me evidence of a person with a family history of terroroists who was raised by other people (like athiests or christians) and still turned out a terrorist, then i would believe you.

Vote Michael Badnarik. Yay for freedom-living libertarians!
I´m not american, as I say in my post.

I don´t know the person you mentioned, however I know a bit about the libertarian movement.
What is his programm: becoming president to get rid of government???

Well: it is always nice to hear that the US has more than two parties after all. However the political system of the US is of course helping the two existing parties and is making it pretty hard for others.
But that would be another topic: like voting reform or party funding.

that doesnt mean its hereditary. it just mean the belief is passed down.

if you showed me evidence of a person with a family history of terroroists who was raised by other people (like athiests or christians) and still turned out a terrorist, then i would believe you.

Perhaps it is my use of the word. I was trying to refer to the passing down of beliefs, customs, and traditions by means other than genetics, from one generation to the next. I used hereditary as a convenient catch all word to refer to this.

My point however, was that terrorism is, and has been a part of muslim culture for 220+ years, and has no signs of stopping.

Oh, and it's not an interpretation of the koran, it's pretty much spelled out in there.. Kill Iinfidels. I believe it's a chapter heading or something like that (tongue planted firmly in cheek. Why is there no smiley for that?)

I´m not american, as I say in my post.

I don´t know the person you mentioned, however I know a bit about the libertarian movement.
What is his programm: becoming president to get rid of government???

Well: it is always nice to hear that the US has more than two parties after all. However the political system of the US is of course helping the two existing parties and is making it pretty hard for others.
But that would be another topic: like voting reform or party funding.

He's not really trying to get rid of government. Its just a libertarian belief that the less opressive a government is, the freeer (sp?) the people, which is a good thing.

i think the main reason we have government is so people have someone to cry to. and the fact that people are power hungry bastards.



TheOneRule:
ok, i was thinking of the biology definition of "hereditary" which is something to the effect of "passed on through genes"
but i understand you.

I will never call him President Bush because the evidence says otherwise.

I will love to be calling him former Resident Bush though

Yes, I'll vote Bush for ex president. If I was 18.

"freeer (sp?)"
I don´t know: I´m not from an english-speaking country.
However that reminds me of a language reform which was made by a government appointed commission and pushed against the criticism of many and the will of the people. One point of this reform was to allow three same vowels and consonants after each other, which wasn´t possible before: before one was just left out.
But that wasn´t the nasty part of the changes. Other changes don´t make sense, do harm to the language and just don´t make sense. Some of the things were corrected, but many mischief has remained.
And that leads to the question: how much government should be there. The meddling around of the government everywhere is not a good thing.
Certainly: a language needs rules. But they develop over the passage of time. The government has in my view no right to force changes into the language rules. If changes accur due to a different use of the language by the people the rules should be gradually changes.
But this only a little example about government burocracy, which we have to suffer from in many parts of Europe.
In France there is still a law in place which limits the general work-time for employers to 35 hours. A product of the time of the socialists government in France from 1997-2002. However: there seems to be movement now. The new administration has already pushed some reforms and cut spending. Simular steps are taken in Germany.

"i think the main reason we have government is so people have someone to cry to. and the fact that people are power hungry bastards."
Historically there is also another reasons: to protect you from other governments, foreign governments who may occupy and annex a government free area.
And there are things government is pretty useful for. Even Adam Smith mentiones those aspects:
Internal security(police, legal system)
External security (military)
Infrastructure
and
the maintaining of instituitions which would not exists otherwise in an appropiate number but who are of benefit for the society - like for example schools.

*looks at who made the topic*
And people wonder why we [conservatives] think the mods are left-wing...

the Gov making laws about language?
THE HELL??

that is definitely going too far. language is language. not something that should be law. What do they do if you misspell something? arrest you? In my opinion that is wasting time and rescources on something trivial.

heh, and yes i relise those other reasons, but how much is too much?
I agree with most of the protection thing, but there is stuff that is a waste of time (which it is too early to discuss anyway. hm)

the Gov making laws about language?
THE HELL??
that is definitely going too far. language is language. not something that should be law. What do they do if you misspell something? arrest you? In my opinion that is wasting time and rescources on something trivial.
heh, and yes i relise those other reasons, but how much is too much?
I agree with most of the protection thing, but there is stuff that is a waste of time (which it is too early to discuss anyway. hm)

I agree with you entirely. By the way: the French are even more extreme with that. They have the Acadamie Francais which is aimed to keep the language "clean". For example they punish newspapers for using to many English words, the demand that 50% of the music in the radio has to me French-made and I think even more in the French language.
That´s really incredible.


By the way: to clearify things up. I`m talking about the so called great writing reform of the german language which was made and ratified by Switzerland, Austria and Germany. It was the first time in history the governments meddled in the language. Before that people where following "spelling books". The one with the highest reputation (and due to that the guide for the language and all other writings) was the Duden, which was published by a private company. That worked perfectly well for more than a century up until governments chose to step in. They didn´t like a private company to be in this monopoly decision. And so they decided to go for a reform.
The result is as a matter of fact more insecurity about the proper use of the language, unlogical rules and partly chaos. Fortunately this "reform" only involves 0,4% of the language. That´s worse enough but it is still too much.

Regarding punishments: official documents by the state as well as newspapers have to be in compliance with the official language and its rules. However: the reform grants a transitional period till 2005. So nobody can be punished till then. But afterwards that may happen. The could be fines against newspapers for example if they refuse to use the new rules (the regulations are however less strict. For example the are no restrictions at all regarding the use of foreign words or (in radios) for using foreign music - in contrast to France which is doing that). However: now the pressure is rising against the government to step out of this thing.

cant the government think of anything better to make laws about?

(i dont know if these are real issues.. just some ideas)
education
job security
gun ownership
crime
ANYTHING LESS TRIVIAL

What you poor people don't understand is that the people were up against can't be reasoned with. If we are not vigilant, (even 300 years from now) one of their decendants will fly a plane into the re-built world trade center.


Funny, that's exactly the same way white people used to think about natives in America, or black people. No good for anything other than slavery. Slavery was actually pretty good for them because otherwise they'd just be living in the jungle like savages.

Truth is that the West (including Europe and the US) hasn't done anything to address many of the right claims these people make. Sure, many of the beliefs they promote are simply barbaric, but remember that Christian civilization also approved of terrorism, slavery, and domination of women not that long ago, especially against peoples who were not Christian or white.

Second, what makes you think that Bush's actions will prevent other terrorist attacks? One really can't do anything about it, since it's an ideology and anyone who really wants to do it will find a way to accomplish it. Especially in 300 years, the man's not god, dude.

cant the government think of anything better to make laws about?

(i dont know if these are real issues.. just some ideas)
education
job security
gun ownership
crime
ANYTHING LESS TRIVIAL

Governments don't usually rule on languages, not even in France or the Spanish speaking countries (there is an Academia de la Lengua, you know) but the government usually appoints an organism to record the use of language and promote its good use. This doesn't mean there are laws that everyone must obey. Well, maybe in France because they feel so threatened about the bastardization of their language.

But it usually is as a cultural thing, which I think it's good. It will allow our descendants to know what the hell we were talking about.

Of course, technical professions is different. There you want to have a very well regulated terminology, to avoid potentially fatal confusion.

Bush totally has my vote for ex-president..lol :cool:

Bush totally has my vote for ex-president..lol :cool:

I agree with Steph.

Makes more sense, don't you think?
I disagree for reasons everyone already knows.

Bush totally has my vote for ex-president..lol :cool:

Doesn't matter if he has it, he's just going to steal it anyway...