King George I or King George II?

[lather]

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)

-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.

-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.

-- Business Week, July 30, 2001

Im not quite sure what President Bush would prefer as his title and whats the proper way to address him. I think since he likes the word dictator so much the title "Generalissimo Bush" would fit him best. But the title "Generalissmo" may be too "ethnic sounding" for his tastes. That said, I really think King would be an appropiate title--But my question is, whats his proper designation? George I or George II?

Since Pres. Bush's father was already President, Do we refer to our current President as King George II since the leadership followed a line of progression from father to son?

There is an equally compelling argument that he should be called George I because his line of progression to the throne was interrupted by that cigar-loving scoundrel Clinton. I also dont think the elder Bush shared his son's fantasy of being a supreme ruler. :)

What say you? George I or George II??

[Konigballer]

cut me a friggin' break man....I dont even like Bush, but I hate when people do crap like this.

If your in charge of the free world but could'nt always get anything done, for better or worse, because of the run of the mill capitol hill red tape, you would also joke around about how things would go easier for yourself if you were a dictator. People tend to find humor in their job, no matter how great or small.

When your joking around with people, you say stuff you dont really mean, its called exageration. You joke around about situations to get these things called "laughs". He's just a guy who cracked a joke about his job, but aparently he cant do that without people like you getting your cherry popped over it.

If any guy on this forum had some of the jokes we crack printed in the papers, none of us would ever hold political office. All just because uptight people jump on every friggin' word you say when your in the public eye. Get over it.

If I was president and the press learned about half the jokes I've made about retarded people, I'd be stoned in the white house lawn.

[Wolfen]

I'd be stoned in the white house lawn.

This just in, Konigballer gets stoned on the white house lawn! Details at 8. Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's also a thing called context. Almost anything you say can be turned into anything anyone else wants. Trust me, my friends do it to me all the time

[lather]

cut me a friggin' break man....I dont even like Bush, but I hate when people do crap like this.

If your in charge of the free world but could'nt always get anything done, for better or worse, because of the run of the mill capitol hill red tape, you would also joke around about how things would go easier for yourself if you were a dictator. People tend to find humor in their job, no matter how great or small.

When your joking around with people, you say stuff you dont really mean, its called exageration. You joke around about situations to get these things called "laughs". He's just a guy who cracked a joke about his job, but aparently he cant do that without people like you getting your cherry popped over it.

If any guy on this forum had some of the jokes we crack printed in the papers, none of us would ever hold political office. All just because uptight people jump on every friggin' word you say when your in the public eye. Get over it.

If I was president and the press learned about half the jokes I've made about retarded people, I'd be stoned in the white house lawn.

Glad you thought I was serious heh..
Umm its satire dude, You may see some examples of it on shows like SNL and The Daily Show.

Not everyone has the same since of humor, some like dry humor, some like satirical humor, political humor etc. and yes others may like retarded people jokes.

My apologies that my sense of humor is not exactly like yours..

[Konigballer]

oops..I thought you were some whiny liberal types who was being serious....ughh, sorry. I'm at art school so I'm surrounded by them.

I just did'nt think it was a satirical post because I did'nt think it was funny. You cant really pull off Daily Show/SNL type satire if no one can see your facial expressions or hear the inflections and pauses in your voice durring your delivery. Its just type on a page buddy, my bad.

[1stdeadeye]

, I'd be stoned in the white house lawn.

That's okay, just don't inhale!

In before the lock!

[MarkM]

Without getting involved in the politics of the thread George Bush Snr is technically George I and George Bush Jnr is George II. This is the same regardless of who came in between. We currently have Elizabeth II and the last Elizabeth was in the 16th century and just one or two rulers have been on the throne in between. But at the time the official title was just plain Queen (in your example King) Elizabeth....our next Monarch will become Charles III. The original rulers only have numbers applied when another of the same name reaches the throne until then they are unique.
Whilst I do understand that perhaps there is probably more sarcasm in this thread subject than I have given it credit, but on the rules of succession the above is correct.

[TheTramp]

Without getting involved in the politics of the thread George Bush Snr is technically George I and George Bush Jnr is George II. This is the same regardless of who came in between. We currently have Elizabeth II and the last Elizabeth was in the 16th century and just one or two rulers have been on the throne in between. But at the time the official title was just plain Queen (in your example King) Elizabeth....our next Monarch will become Charles III. The original rulers only have numbers applied when another of the same name reaches the throne until then they are unique.
Whilst I do understand that perhaps there is probably more sarcasm in this thread subject than I have given it credit, but on the rules of succession the above is correct.

Ah, but no one could consider George Sr. a king so Dubbya would still be George I (once there is another George).

What are we going to do when King Dubbya dies? God knows we don't want one of his daughters as queen!

[Mango]

..

[Rebel46_99]

Without getting involved in the politics of the thread George Bush Snr is technically George I and George Bush Jnr is George II. This is the same regardless of who came in between. We currently have Elizabeth II and the last Elizabeth was in the 16th century and just one or two rulers have been on the throne in between. But at the time the official title was just plain Queen (in your example King) Elizabeth....our next Monarch will become Charles III. The original rulers only have numbers applied when another of the same name reaches the throne until then they are unique.
Whilst I do understand that perhaps there is probably more sarcasm in this thread subject than I have given it credit, but on the rules of succession the above is correct.

Just a quick question, Mark. What if succesion to the throne is given to William and not to Charles? Maybe a better question is, who makes that choice?

Thanx

DW

[brianlojeck]

He's right, a dictatorship would be easier.

In fact, if you have a wise, benevolant leader, then a dictatorship may well be a superior form of government.

The founding fathers only put the check-and-balances in place because they knew full well that there would never find a wise, benevolant person to take political office.

(and I mean it this time! I. Will. Not. Get. Into. These. Pointless. Threads.)

[MarkM]

Just a quick question, Mark. What if succesion to the throne is given to William and not to Charles? Maybe a better question is, who makes that choice?

Thanx

DW

Only Charles can make that choice same as Edward VII did in 1937. Without being vindictive I think Charles would be unwise to take the throne but time will tell..there is of course an outside chance that the succession will not have to be skipped anyhow since Charles is far from young. Though the pressure on William to find a wife and produce an heir would be pretty immense if that was to happen.

[1stdeadeye]

George W. Bush is not a junior. His father is George H. W. Bush! Just an FYI for y'all!

[CasingBill]

I'm stayin out but Mango has some serious issues!!!!!.......At least it wasn't a penguin.

[-Carnifex-]

You're ****ing nutty.