h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I shall follow the link and educate myself.
Thanks, azahar!

It's nice to know that someone did more with their tax refund than just go buy a car.

Oh...linky to the Fox news story about Hamas: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115046,00.html

>> but this gives you four whole years to gather support, formulate some policies, get some funding and then you're fit to run in 2008! <<

From where I sit unless you can put together in excess of $20,000,000 you have no chance of running for president, which makes it a rich mans sport. Whereas, here in the UK there are spending limits on elections which makes running for Prime Minister open to a whole lot more people with an equal chance of succeeding.

Donald

Twenty million isn't really that much, and while George W and John Kerry are exceptionally wealthy men I believe Howard Dean showed that fuind raising can be done successfully at a grass roots level.

Actually, there IS a limit on how much money an incumbent president can spend on his or her reelection campaign.

Also, Donald, considering the low voter turnout at the last election (you know, the one Bush allegedly rigged) I would argue that if one person were to be able to find out what these people, who failed to vote, want from a President, and be able to communicate his or her willingness to represent them...and then ask for a one dollar contribution to campaign funds...there wouldn't be a problem. The perception is that you need to be rich to run but the truth is both Bush and Kerry are spending rather a lot of money to cloud their records, pasts and policies long enough to get to the election without the people of the USA noticing that neither man is a good candidate. Most political campaigns are dependant on image and personality specifically because 'average people' are confused by the real issues and there is a significant likelyhood that if the 'average person' were to understand a candidate's policies there would be an outburst of public annoyance and anger. Maybe even a revolution.

The thing is, while people believe that it's too costly to try they won't bother to find out if that's true.

Also, the UK has a 'first past the post' electoral system which means if you want to be Prime Minister you must be the leader of the majority party in parliament. That means you have to contend and win more seats than everyone else. What's the deposit per seat? Which ones can you reliably contend? In the USA, you can run for President independantly of which party has a majority in the Senate or Congress. You don't need to be a member of a political party at all.
Cheaper, in the long run.

I notice, by the way, that the world has told Israel that what they did was wrong, illegal, immoral, bad and probably fattening.

The deposit to stand for election in the UK stands at £500. If the candidate polls more than %5, the deposit is refunded. The deposit is there to stop spurious candidates for standing, although it didn't stop Screaming Lord Such. There are 651 seats to be contested in the Houses of Parliment.

Each candidate is then limited on the amount they can spend which varies depending on the constituency and the region with an overall limit of up to £15,000,000 for the party. In the 2001 General election the highest spenders where the Conservative party with £12,751,813.

Donald

Thankyou.

And now, in order to become PM please consider how much it would cost you, in terms of time and money, to work your way up the hierachy of one of the major political parties, fighting and winning enough elections to make it off the back benches to a point where you can hold the leadership.

Now granted, in order to be considered as a serious Presidential candidate you pretty much have to have been a Senator, Governor or held other high office but there is no impediment to Chuck Average from Nowhere, Montana running for President.

he was a great spiritual leader and will be sorely missed

christians celelebrate the death of jesus all the time

??? no they don't. they remember it, and then celebrate his resurection 2 days later - with chocolate eggs (!)

(The chocolate eggs are a later accretion... but I love them)

They certainly celebrate his death here with a week of constant processions, carrying huge platforms with statues of Christs and Marys in various stages of the Passion and with long lines of penitents in robes and covered faces. On Easter Sunday there is only one procession for the resurrection and it is not that well-attended.

az

Are not most of the processionist's catholic, that in its self speaks
for its self, given the state of the world ect!!!

Well, yes, they would all be Catholic. Or at least would say they were. Mostly I think they just like dressing up and being out in the streets in huge crowds, so it's more of a social event these days.

az

all ypu need to be president is a series of bf b movies and stacks of cash(see Ronald Wilson Reagan)666 ....I'll be back

The point being for those "lurkers" those of "these" who are condemming "others" for celibrateing in the streets with regard to
countless mindless acts .

They thereselfs celibrate one of the first recorded political assasination blamed on third parties integated by "factions" within
factions of a country under Empire rule.

an excellant argument against capital punishment

"Palestine is now part of an arc of Muslim resistance"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1177404,00.html


"Ariel Sharon's decision to incinerate a 67-year-old blind quadriplegic cleric outside his local mosque will certainly go down as one of the most spectacularly counter-productive acts of violence in the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict."


. . . an attempt to get back on topic.

az

<>
You'd think they would have *predicted* that!
I heard something on the radio to the effect that the USA had vetoed a United Nations condemnation of the attack on Yassin. Predictable!

they probably ordered it

The attack? No, Sharon is mad enough on his ownsome...

"ordered it"

no, the veto.


i did find it interesting, however, that the only country not to condemn this folly was the U.S.