Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Why Bush Won.

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Bayou
    Posts
    3,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by asuusa[/i]@Nov 12 2004, 11:55 PM
    [b] God said, you murder someone, you forfeit your life. Sounds logical to me.

    But comparing a guilty murderer's life with the life of an unborn baby is asinine! [/b][/quote]
    So, you mean to tell me that you believe every single person that has been put to death has been guilty?

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Nov 13 2004, 12:43 PM
    [b]
    While I have no solid proof Bush cheated in Florida, you have to be insane or a Bush suporter to believe he didnt, I mean Bush won by 5% of the votes? Are you kidding me? There is NO possible way Bush could have won by 5%, ALL the polls were indictating either Kerry would win, or it would be a dead heat like 2000, it is just impossible that Bush could have won by 5% in Florida, I really believe they gave him a few extra million votes just so they wouldnt investigate, I mean if it was another few hundred or few thousand vote win, they would probably investigate right? If its a few million, most people think its a landslide....



    Like I said, I really have no SOLID proof, all I have is suspicion, and sometimes when we suspect something, we look into it, we find out we are right, like I said, I really believe the 5 Percent win was a way to throw off doubters, and hope no one would investigate, I mean if there were suspicions of Voter fraud in Florida, who the hell would know? Jeb freakin Bush is the leader of that state! [/b][/quote]
    Stupidity in action.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [img]http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/21304kerry.jpg[/img][img]http://www.rocklyrix.com/Images/Albums/Aerosmith_-_Draw_The_Line.jpg[/img]

    Good Riddance
    What a pathetic vessel in which to have placed liberalism's hopes!

    BY MARTY PERETZ
    Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

    The American people have plumb busted the hearts of the country's liberal elites, and the sentiments evoked among these elites are not dolorous but actually quite nasty. So much so that they reminded me of a poem by the communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, sardonic and rare in its anticommunist sensibility. On June 17, 1953, workers in the Russian Zone of East Berlin had risen up against the regime, and one of its top apparatchiks distributed a leaflet,


    Stating that the people
    Had forfeited the confidence of the government
    And could win it back only
    By redoubled efforts.
    About which Brecht observed,

    . . . Would it not be easier
    In that case for the government
    To dissolve the people
    And choose itself another?
    It is surely what America's cultural top drawer would like to do themselves.
    Reading of the contempt this haughty and self-anointed elect has for the misbehaving populace as a whole (and feeling it in my hometown of Cambridge, Mass., and in New York, where it is also altogether common), I am struck by the intellectual paradox with which these people live. As liberals, they are champions of popular sovereignty. It is they who pioneered, in our time, the getting of "good outcomes" through plebiscitarian democracy: nuclear-free zones, sanctuary for illegal immigrants, mostly misleading and largely symbolic. But referendums and direct initiatives have not turned out to be reliably predictive. Quite to the contrary, as this past Election Day made clear. (And maybe this will end the liberal infatuation with single-issue politics as a surefire mobilizer of the tolerant and the just.)

    So the majoritarians have over the years built the contradictory case for law established through the courts, and the courts in various jurisdictions have obliged them. Such contradiction in the weighing of principle against anticipated consequence is not limited to liberals. Conservatives who want to constrain the rule of courts, and especially the federal courts, certainly celebrated the Supreme Court's far-reaching and partisan ruling in Bush v. Gore. The politics of results comes first in the public arena, not the quality or character of the deliberation.


    Still, the extreme and bitter judgments against the citizenry after this election are especially tendentious. For what the electorate did on Nov. 2 was essentially (or maybe just merely) turn down John Kerry, a candidate who until very late in the Democratic primaries was almost no one's choice as the nominee, the party's last option because it could rally around no one else. What a pathetic vessel in which to have placed liberalism's hopes! A senator for two decades who had stood for nothing, really nothing.
    Oh yes, he helped to re-establish America's relationship with Vietnam. A good thing, but not exactly an issue that affects people's lives or expresses their hopes. In fact, Mr. Kerry's repetitive recitation of this achievement (really shared with John McCain) foretold the narcissism of autobiography in his presidential campaign: A man who came into public life on the infamy of the Vietnam War aspired to crown it by deploying for political purposes his service "in defense of country," the very proposition that he had, after all, denied and sullied for decades. But no one--save Mr. Kerry himself and his immediate circle--wanted to revisit Vietnam. It was the country's great nightmare, divisive, tormenting, politically paralyzing. This was the first of his great mistakes, the defining one.

    Then quickly followed a whole procession of other tactical--and symptomatic--mirages. Even toward the end of the campaign, Mr. Kerry never had a day when the polls predicted his election. But there quickly sprung up an explanation for why support for Mr. Kerry was being underreported. It was oh, so obvious: Many Kerry supporters, and especially younger ones, used cell phones which, since they're not listed, aren't called by pollsters. I can't remember how many sages uttered this wisdom over dinner.

    Here are others. That with an endless series of rock concerts you would mobilize the youth vote, which of course would largely go for Mr. Kerry. It turned out not to be so, neither the increase in the raw vote nor its disposition towards Mr. Kerry. That with increased unemployment in states like Ohio, and double the election expenditures this year over 2000 by organized labor, unionized workers would turn out big-time for Mr. Kerry. Actually, his union vote was less than Al Gore's. As was his proportional women's vote and Hispanic vote and black vote and Jewish vote. (The Jewish vote for George Bush rose nationally from 18% to at least 25%. But, in Florida's critical Broward and Palm Beach Counties and Ohio's defining Cuyahoga County, the president's Jewish total was much higher. And exit polls of Jewish voters are notoriously unreliable: Some Jews are still embarrassed to admit voting GOP. S'iz a shande far di goyim, as my cousin would say. "It's a disgrace before the gentiles.")

    There was hardly a slice of the population among which Mr. Kerry performed anywhere near expectations. In the end, as David Brooks pointed out on the New York Times op-ed page, Mr. Bush outpolled himself over the four years in 45 out of the 50 states. Neither the Kerry enthusiasm (and the Bush hatred) of Eminem (himself given to vile homophobic and racist ranting) nor of Paris Hilton, of Sean Combs (with his "Vote or Die" campaign) or Whoopi Goldberg amounted to anything except publicity for themselves. And then there was the cinema thug Michael Moore, fabulist and fibster.

    But the campaign's reliance on such degrading and frivolous figures actually speaks to what many now believe was John Kerry's Achilles' heel: No one knew for what he really stood. He was for the Iraq war and against it. He was against gay marriage but for it, at least in contrast to George W. Bush, whose position actually was identical to Mr. Kerry's. He killed a goose on a hunting expedition in Ohio. But did he really? From the solemn to the trivial, a similar confusion. But the people did know that he was embarrassed by a certain muscular patriotism, by the historic place of Nature's God in the wider American community, by the simple and unadorned lives that most families live, from which his own new and unimaginably lavish lifestyle sets him apart.

    Still, it wasn't Teresa Heinz Kerry's version of Tourette's syndrome (has she ever had an unexpressed thought?) that made him seem so remote from ordinary folk with ordinary existences. It was Mr. Kerry's own enchantment with the trashy celebrities who provided the energy of his campaign. Many Democrats seem to understand this in some vague way, and once again some of them are exhorting their party to retrieve the old-fashioned values of God and flag and family from the Republicans. Even Bill Clinton has gotten into this act. "If you let people believe that your party doesn't believe in faith or family . . . that's our fault." What do you mean by "our," kemosabe?

    But the problem is that many Democrats have a downright hostile attitude to the flag, to patriotism itself, which is thought by some in the party to be a retrograde sentiment. And they have, at best, a queasy disposition towards religion. To tell the truth, it gives many of them the creeps. You can't really do much with that, can you?


    Had you noticed, by the way, that money in politics ceased to be an issue for the Democrats? There's no mystery why this is so. They and those 527s that circled around the Kerry effort collected much more money than they could spend usefully, which is why there were so many inane ads aimed unnecessarily at New York voters in the New York Times. The problem of money in politics, it turns out, was actually just Republican money. But all the Democratic money that was raised--nearly $100 million from George Soros, University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, and the imperious chairman of the Progressive Corporation, Peter Lewis, alone--accomplished, let's face it, nothing.
    If, however, Mr. Kerry had won, there was a chance, insiders say, that Mr. Soros would have been made secretary of state or of the Treasury. Imagine Mr. Soros at his first meetings with the ministers of finance of allied countries whose currencies he'd once trashed. Perhaps he would lecture them on the virtues of multilateralism.

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles+Nov 13 2004, 02:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (JetsMetsIsles @ Nov 13 2004, 02:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by The Gun Of Bavaria@Nov 13 2004, 10:43 AM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Nov 12 2004, 03:47 PM
    [b] There is no god, Bush won because he cheated, end of conversation....... [/b][/quote]
    That&#39;s the spirit.

    It has nothing to do with the fact the Democratic Party scraping the bottom of the barrell.

    Bush obviously cheated. That has to explain it.

    Another liberal poster making wild accusations without substance to back it up. [/b][/quote]
    While I have no solid proof Bush cheated in Florida, you have to be insane or a Bush suporter to believe he didnt, I mean Bush won by 5% of the votes? Are you kidding me? There is NO possible way Bush could have won by 5%, ALL the polls were indictating either Kerry would win, or it would be a dead heat like 2000, it is just impossible that Bush could have won by 5% in Florida, I really believe they gave him a few extra million votes just so they wouldnt investigate, I mean if it was another few hundred or few thousand vote win, they would probably investigate right? If its a few million, most people think its a landslide....

    Here is a link of a hacked vote in 2002, when Jeb Bush was running against Janet Reno
    [url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm]Hacked Votes[/url]

    And here is some Voter Fraud discovered in Ohio, gee I wonder how this glitch gave Bush an extra 3,893 votes

    [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/]Ohio Fraud[/url]


    Like I said, I really have no SOLID proof, all I have is suspicion, and sometimes when we suspect something, we look into it, we find out we are right, like I said, I really believe the 5 Percent win was a way to throw off doubters, and hope no one would investigate, I mean if there were suspicions of Voter fraud in Florida, who the hell would know? Jeb freakin Bush is the leader of that state&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Bush was on the grassy knoll, too. Right?
    It&#39;s a conspiracy, damn it&#33;

  5. #25
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]It&#39;s a conspiracy, damn it&#33; [/b][/quote]

    Really? :blink: :wacko:

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 15 2004, 06:19 PM
    [b] [quote][b]It&#39;s a conspiracy, damn it&#33; [/b][/quote]

    Really? :blink: :wacko: [/b][/quote]
    no. not really. lol

  7. #27
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Liberals aren&#39;t afraid that Bush will inject God into governance. What they are really afraid of is the ultimate dismantlement of the entitlement programs from which liberal politicians get their power. What happens when people work instead of depending on welfare? What happens when a whole generation of people are able to invest their social security withholding into private accounts?

    The answer: POWER TO THE PEOPLE. LESS POWER FOR LIBERAL POLITICIANS&#33;

    thank god for that&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us