Posts
'via Blog this'Theincumbent, inpolitics, is the existing holder of a political office. This term is usually used in reference to elections, in which races can often be defined as being between an incumbent and non-incumbent(s). For example, in the 2004 United States presidential election, George W. Bush was the incumbent, because he was the president in the current term while the election sought to determine the president for the following term. A race without an incumbent is referred to as an open seat.
http://soldoutaftercrisis.net/index4997.php?v=y
Re: WHY ISN'T PRESIDENT BUSH BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE IRAQ LIES, & THE NEEDLESS DEATHS OF U.S. SERVICEMEN?
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message473082/pg1
Because our congress is involved. I wish everyone would vote out incumbents in the next election. Whether you like the senator or not, send a message that the public is fed up. GET INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE. I will take 6 years to do this. Can we recall senators?
The Justice system is satanic/freemason controlled. No way a satanic justice system will ever bring Bush the anti Christ to justice.
(That's sounding a little nutty, but I have started thinking of the religious zealots as demons since I lived in the south, not so much as magical ones, but more like people who LOOK normal and inside are all rotting and evil, like orcs underneath human clothing.)
Because Americans are too busy watching television and gourging themselves on pizza and beer.
(And Prozak and Valium, xanax, and the kids are on X)
The fix is in. The 2006 Dem win in the election was a farce.
Compare the brouhaha of 18 months, special prosecuter team and $100M spent on Clinton's bj.
Unbelieveable really, yet the congress and the media go on like nothing is happening.
The fix is in.
The world now knows that the WMD's were a lie. Does anyone know? Is accountability for murder, nonexistent in the 21st century?
The invasion of Iraq was a war crime according to international law. The Geneva Convention requires that a war criminal be arrested and brought to trial or, where this is not possible, assassinated by any means possible.
Both Tony Blair and George Bush are dead men walking-- and the arrogant scum know it. The only reason they are not in prison or six-feet under is cowardice on the part of the police, military and cicilian population.
Every police officer and every citizen is REQUIRED BY LAW (GC) to either arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
Every police officer and every citizen is BREAKING THE LAW every single day by failing to arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 288226The invasion of Iraq was a war crime according to international law. The Geneva Convention requires that a war criminal be arrested and brought to trial or, where this is not possible, assassinated by any means possible.
Both Tony Blair and George Bush are dead men walking-- and the arrogant scum know it. The only reason they are not in prison or six-feet under is cowardice on the part of the police, military and cicilian population.
Every police officer and every citizen is REQUIRED BY LAW (GC) to either arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
Every police officer and every citizen is BREAKING THE LAW every single day by failing to arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
i was unaware of this. John Howard is also a war criminal who had his head up Bush and Bliars arse. Are you telling me under the law i have a obligation to assassinate him?
What about the rest of the aussies government who voted to aid and abet the war crimes. Are they also legitimate targets for assassination?
arnt ya all forgeting something, hes above the law!!!
Quoting: LaZe[link to www.youtube.com]
If any is above the law, then there is no law.
The world now knows that the WMD's were a lie. Does anyone know? Is accountability for murder, nonexistent in the 21st century?
The invasion of Iraq was a war crime according to international law. The Geneva Convention requires that a war criminal be arrested and brought to trial or, where this is not possible, assassinated by any means possible.
Both Tony Blair and George Bush are dead men walking-- and the arrogant scum know it. The only reason they are not in prison or six-feet under is cowardice on the part of the police, military and cicilian population.
Every police officer and every citizen is REQUIRED BY LAW (GC) to either arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
Every police officer and every citizen is BREAKING THE LAW every single day by failing to arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
i was unaware of this. John Howard is also a war criminal who had his head up Bush and Bliars arse. Are you telling me under the law i have a obligation to assassinate him?
What about the rest of the aussies government who voted to aid and abet the war crimes. Are they also legitimate targets for assassination?
Make my day.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 338074The invasion of Iraq was a war crime according to international law. The Geneva Convention requires that a war criminal be arrested and brought to trial or, where this is not possible, assassinated by any means possible.
Both Tony Blair and George Bush are dead men walking-- and the arrogant scum know it. The only reason they are not in prison or six-feet under is cowardice on the part of the police, military and cicilian population.
Every police officer and every citizen is REQUIRED BY LAW (GC) to either arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
Every police officer and every citizen is BREAKING THE LAW every single day by failing to arrest or execute Tony Blair and George Bush.
i was unaware of this. John Howard is also a war criminal who had his head up Bush and Bliars arse. Are you telling me under the law i have a obligation to assassinate him?
What about the rest of the aussies government who voted to aid and abet the war crimes. Are they also legitimate targets for assassination?
Make my day.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 338074
Yes, Howard participated in a war crime. He is a war criminal. The Geneva Convention describes an invasion against a non-aggressor as a primary war crime and the worst war crime of all.
THE GC (and other international laws) legally require that everything is done to prevent the war criminal from continuing his killing spree and brought to justice or, failing that, executed extra-judicially.
You are legally ENTITLED to execute a war criminal who has escaped justice.
Very GOOD question!
Cuz they'd have to prosecute all these guys too...
(What must his children think? George Bush screwed up their future, too. If I was Jenna Bush, I'd turn his ass in.)
You are legally ENTITLED to execute a war criminal who has escaped justice.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 288226I should hasten to add that you are LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so.
Obviously, it would have been better at a time when Howard, Blair and Bush were at their most murderous. But they are still MURDERERS and WAR CRIMINALS who are at large and free to prowl around looking for their next victim.
All three are potentially very dangerous men who may kill again.
I'm an expat and live in Switzerland. If I wasn't, I would have either figured a way of executing Tony Blair or I would have put together a front for the sole purpose of paying a professional assassin to do the job.
I would have then reclaimed that money at the International Court for War Crimes.
Whoops. International Criminal Court (ICC).
There are however other courts with "global jursidiction" in this matter, domiciled in Belgium and Germany.
God, I don't know why. I have asked myself this many, many, times! Quoting: Gawain 5367 |
Because the real people who control this Country don't want Bush out of office. He's the perfect puppet. They say jump and he asks "How high?"
Compare the brouhaha of 18 months, special prosecuter team and $100M spent on Clinton's bj.
Unbelieveable really, yet the congress and the media go on like nothing is happening.
The fix is in.
Interesting the comparison. Clinton gets impeached for lying to the American people over a blowjob.
Bush the murderer gets the red carpet treatment for lying to the American people as well.
(RiiiiGHT!!?? WTF?)
When the person with the power to impeach Bush for treason is also a member of the same criminal organization, what do you do?
Who is Nancy Pelosi?
On President Bush
Financial status
Nancy Pelosi is among the richest members of Congress,[110] with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million, the 12th highest estimated net worth in Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.[111]
While members of Congress are not required to disclose their exact net worth, organizations such as the Center for Responsive Politics prepare estimated ranges based on public disclosures. The CRP's midpoint estimate of the Pelosis' net worth is $58,436,537 as of 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, with a possible range from $7 million to $124 million.[112]
In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million and $25 million.[citation needed] Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $1 million in Apple Inc.[citation needed], and is the owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions of the United Football League.
In mid-July 2008, two days after President George W. Bush stated that Congress was ineffective and said, "This is not a record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better",[106] Pelosi responded by calling the president "a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the war, on the economy, on energy, you name the subject" and that Congress had been "sweeping up after his mess over and over and over again".[106]
Pelosi has stated that she opposes the interrogation technique of waterboarding.[95]As Speaker, Pelosi was still the leader of the House Democrats; the Speaker is reckoned as the leader of his or her House caucus.
She also spoke on Iraq as the major issue facing the 110th Congress, while incorporating some Democratic Party beliefs:
"The election of 2006 was a call to change – not merely to change the control of Congress, but for a new direction for our country. Nowhere were the American people more clear about the need for a new direction than in Iraq. The American people rejected an open-ended obligation to a war without end."[24]
On November 17, 2010, Pelosi was elected as the Democratic Leader by House Democrats and therefore theMinority Leader in the Republican-controlled House for the 112th Congress.[3]
How do the people go about getting justice, when the criminals control all the mechanisms required to get it?
Whatever this means, I hope it just gets Bush. It's not like we actually VOTED for the ugly, stupid, lying cheating scum.
Re: WHY ISN'T PRESIDENT BUSH BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE IRAQ LIES, & THE NEEDLESS DEATHS OF U.S. SERVICEMEN?
don't worry my loves. 2012 event (2007 to be exact) is approaching soon and all will be resolved.
Contents[hide] |
In general, incumbents have structural advantages over challengers during elections. The timing of elections may be determined by the incumbent instead of a set schedule. For most political offices, the incumbent often has more name recognition due to their previous work in the office. Incumbents also have easier access to campaign finance, as well as government resources (such as thefranking privilege) that can be indirectly used to boost a campaign. An election (especially for a legislature) in which no incumbent is running is often called an open seat; because of the lack of incumbency advantage, these are often amongst the most hotly-contested races in any election.
In the United States, incumbents traditionally win their party's nomination to run for office. Unseating an incumbent president, senator or other figure during aprimary election is very difficult, and even in the general election, incumbents have a very strong record. For instance, the percentage of incumbents who win reelection after seeking it in the U.S. House of Representatives has been over 80% for over 50 years, and is often over 90%.[4] However, this rate may be artificially inflated, as incumbents that feel unlikely to win may decline to run for reelection. Additionally, shifts in congressional districts due toreapportionment or other longer-term factors may make it more or less likely for an incumbent to win re-election over time. For example, a Democratic incumbent in historically conservative rural Texas would have less chance of winning than a Democratic incumbent in historically liberal New York City, because Texas has shifted away from the Democratic Party in terms of voting while New York City has shifted toward the same party (see also Congressional stagnation in the United States).
However, there exist scenarios in which the incumbency factor itself leads to the downfall of the incumbent. Popularly known as the anti-incumbency factor, situations of this kind occur when the incumbent has proven himself not worthy of office during his tenure and the challenger demonstrates this fact to the voters. An anti-incumbency factor can also be responsible for bringing down incumbents who have been in office for many successive terms in spite of performance indicators, simply because the voters are convinced by the challenger of a need for change. Nick Panagakis, a pollster, coined what he dubbed the "incumbent rule" in 1989--that any voter who claims to be undecided towards the end of the election will probably end up voting for the challenger[5].
When newcomers vie to fill an open office, voters tend to compare and contrast the candidates' qualifications, issues positions and personal characteristics in a relatively straightforward way. Elections featuring an incumbent, on the other hand, are as Guy Molyneux puts it, "fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent."[6] Voters will first grapple with the record of the incumbent. Only if they decide to "fire" the incumbent do they begin to evaluate whether the challenger is an acceptable alternative. At the same time, if the challenger is determined to be wholly unacceptable, voters might reluctantly vote for the incumbent.
[edit]Business
In business the term "incumbent" is used for the largest company in a certain industry, for instance the traditional phone company in telecommunications, typically called the "incumbent operator". In a sales process, such as public tender, incumbent may also refer to the vendor that has the largest existing commercial relationship with the issuer of the tender.
In large corporations it is the incumbent who is the holder of an office, or one that occupies a particular position.
[edit]See also
[edit]Notes
- ^ OED (1989), p. 834
- ^ OED (1989), p. 218
- ^ OED (1989), p. 124
- ^ "Re-Election Rates Over the Years". Opensecrets.org. Retrieved August 31, 2011.
- ^ Nick Panagakis (February 27, 1989)."Incumbent Rule". Polling Report. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
- ^ Guy Molyneux, The Big Five-Oh,The American Prospect, 1 October 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment