WHY DID PRES.  SAID NO ?
119912
Raising the minimum wage is a horrible idea.\nMany companies will opt to cut jobs, as they cannot afford to pay the increased wages. Those that cannot cut the jobs, will need to raise their prices to offset the additional expenses, or cut money from other programs (R&D, advertising). This rise in prices, will only offset the raise in minimum wage. However, most companies will only raise the minimum wage, not other salaries (they aren't going to raise your salary to counter the prices). Therefore, the purchasing power for everyone else will decrease, making the dollar worth less to them. That is, of course, for the jobs where the company doesn't choose to relocate to another country, where they can get cheaper labor.\n\nAnd when wages go up, inflation does too.
82959
I guess the answer is that he was never elected. More or less, they needed a leader, and he stepped up to the plate. I don't even know if they asked him to do it....but i think they did. But there wasn't yet an election protocol set up yet, so that's not really a reason why he shouldn't. He even retired for a while and then came back when they needed someone to help in the war. But he wasn't really "re-elected". In general he was more or less an elected leader, not a president. Someone with the balls to be in charge.
488897
He didn't. There weren't organized parties as we know them then and he was against their formation. He is commonly referred to as a Federalist however.
405769
This is his second attempt to do so. The first one, with the war in the early stages and his being a Democrat in a Republican controlled congress, went nowhere.\nI feel there are two ways of looking at it. First, you could take him at face value when he says that the poor and uneducated are the ones doing all the fighting and that it is a form of discrimination to make those kids do most of the fighting. (This was an argument also used during Vietnam.)\nThe second possibility is that he is trying to force attention on the fact that the war isnt going so well, and by asking for a draft he can create a critical mass of anti-war sentiment and perhaps bring down the Republicans. Which way you believe probably depends on your politics.
246789
Supposedly, according to a high-ranking official who told CNN, there was a dispute between Porter Goss, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, and President Bush.\n\nTo put an end to the dispute, Bush & Negroponte got together and decided to fire Porter Goss.
295859
Yea and I'm not sure why. A real gut feeling that something is wrong with this picture. All the things he has done wrong and all. It must lay in the back of his mind how he avoided the call to service. But I understand it is tradition. For those of you who criticize this question I suggest you walk the walk first. Unlike our Pres.
469930
This is such a complicated question.  You ask much.\nSimply the founding fathers tried to create a system that would prevent any one man from declaring himself king, so they set up the 3 branches to create checks and balances hoping to keep extreme people from taking us in a bad direction and if that happened to provide a way to get back to balance.\n\nThe Pres does make foreign policy and if he is only willing to believe the things he wants to believe we get the Katrina foreign policy disaster we have now.  In theory congress can check him but until now they have just been Yes men and gone along using pack mentality.\nThings should get very interesting this winter. Stay tuned.
54472
He might have said no because you didn't ask him yourself. I turned down a guy while i was in high school, cause he got his friend to ask me.\n\nWhat you need to ask yourself is what is the worst scenario that could happen.  And could you live with that.\n\nWorst scenario is that he says no. alright, not the end of the world, better than wondering "what if?" for the rest of your life. \n\nBasically if you can handle that, then yeah you will be nervous, but any answer you will be okay with.\n\nJust do it, before you lose your nerve.
645444
The correct answer is ''NO''
393434
He asked Dubya, who declined from going on a lame Duck hunt. In order to be polite about the refusal, he went to Vietnam! While there Bush said some more random crap and shot himself in the foot, then stuck his foot in his mouth to stop the flow of stupidity from coming out his mouth.\nCheney did have a taker on the hunting trip. Sorry folks. Rush Limbaugh went on the hunt with Cheney. Dick got tired of listening to Rush rambling on and actually took aim. His show will not air until he sees Foley, who will no doubt fish out the buckshot from his arse.
46831
NO but he was willing to make a deal
442706
Just because he did not take time out of his busy day to visit you on the playground and ask for your ideas about Iraq does not mean he did not have a plan!\n\nSometimes you libs say such rediculous things, it's amazing you are smart enough to use a keyboard!
235524
The same reason George Bush can't say "Nuclear";\n\nIGNORANCE!
75238
The deniability in this case is becoming less and less plausible. He ignored the warnings so he could make darn sure he had a "good reason" to start a war in the Middle East. It was his Pearl Harbor (for which warnings were also ignored intentionally).
479818
He will not answer because he is a coward.  He panders to the polls for popularity and he is a travesty as a veteran.  He is an embarassment to his home state.  \n\nI am glad I moved!
45913
The answer would not be no.
454408
I watched and I assume reporters must be paid by how dumb their questions are.  One asked if he would fire the V.P. (I think it's a great idea but) one would think that a reporter in the national press core would have the smarts to know you can't fire the V.P., impeach yes but fire no.  I'm sure the Pres was not in the best of moods and, as is the way most people would react, he didn't act the best.