English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

is it a mistake or the counting of votes fraud?

2006-08-12 13:40:12 · 32 answers · asked by caramoanboy 2 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

32 answers

because they are dumb, they fell under his spell.

2006-08-12 13:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by Arts 6 · 0 3

You bring up an interesting fact of history, though, of course you have given it your own 'spin.' I can still remember news articles where Osama Bin Laden was considered a 'hero and freedom fighter' against the Soviet Union occupying Afganistan. There are even pictures of a smiling Osama brandishing the weapons our government had supplied him with to fight the Communists! LOL. Well, we ought to have known he had an agenda, even then. In those days, 'any enemy of the Soviets was a friend' of ours, regardless of how deplorable or radical they were. We are reaping the harvest we sowed back then. It illustrates the lack of effectiveness to "dollar diplomacy," instead of real diplomacy. Of course, you have to have real Statesmen as Ambassadors, rather than people collecting the favors Presidents owe them!

I voted for Bush because I agreed with the war in Iraq and a few other points in his platform. There was no voter fraud, and citizens were not 'disenfranchised' in Florida. The Democratic Candidate was simply a sore loser. So he wanted to keep recounting ad infinitum. He's fortunate the electors hadn't decided to re-hold the election. He would have lost by a landslide, as people came to realize exactly what kind of man he was. There was no real reason for us to 'change horses in midstream,' as the political rhetoric had it. Bush was and is doing a good job. The Democratic candidate revealed his true character in his refusal to concede the election. Such polarization is now the 'norm' for politics in the US today. And that is the issue that we really ought to address.

Politics in the US is like the "Republic" in 'Star Wars.' No one cares for the common good. All have their own agenda and are both confrontational and uncompromising on it. Thus, there is no longer a middle ground which meets the needs of both sides (or the common good). The politicians have made an 'all or nothing' stand having all black and white, with no 'gray' middle ground. So, in elections, there are no longer any 'moderate' candidates who represent all constituants, but rather one extreme or the other. Most people do not belong to either extreme 'liberalism' or radical 'conservatism,' but most people fall somewhere in between! However, I voted for Bush because he has real backbone. His opponent's 'backbone' appears rather filled with Jelly and seems to be somewhat lacking.

2006-08-12 14:28:30 · answer #2 · answered by vodor1 2 · 1 0

As we should all realize and except the FACT that our government has invested many years documenting human thought processes,this is true,'' this is a very useful tool to point you in the direction in which they would prefer you vote, they promote TV adds triggering a targeted thought in each income group, knowing how certain groups of people will respond,to different info is key in advertising just look at wal-mart/sears /block buster/home depot- all realize a little propaganda can go a long way in getting you to their stores to spend your cash, even small things like how high a certain product is setting on a shelf will effect whether a man or a woman will by it,this is true,age groups as well as many more little marketing tricks,all come from the information research and firms that understand human thinking and response habits,the government spends money to learn this as well as big company's looking to sell their goods, so you better believe it that how you voted didn't just come from within your own mind it was simply added to your thinking day after day until election time, so the next time you Vote you better stop and have your self a moment to think what could really be going on in this election,propaganda or truth, its up to you and i to be smarter than poodles.

2006-08-17 17:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by JALISCO 2 · 0 0

I would have to say YES to both questions.

The BUSH family have long been business partners with Osamma's family. In fact Bush Sr was with one of Osamma's relatives the morning of the attack.

Of course, Bush could not attack the Saudis who bailed him out of the last 2 business he bankrupted. So he invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and so created another Islamic Theocracy.

Interesting historical point, Prescott Bush, W's grandfather was a major financier for Hitler and the Nazis. That is where the family money came from. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

2006-08-19 10:38:52 · answer #4 · answered by Ed M 4 · 0 1

more bush bashing... I guess because the democrats had no plan and still really doesn't have a plan to deal with international affairs. still can't get over the fact Dem's lost in 2000, and 2004. maybe if gore had invented the Internet (lol) a little earlier they could have gone onto Y!A and found a platform. the Bin Laden thing, are you up past your bed time young one.

2006-08-19 17:43:41 · answer #5 · answered by Work In Progress 3 · 0 0

It appears you are somewhere other than in "facts land"... Americas association with Osama was long before Bush was even governor of Texas. At least he wasn't proven, in court; to be amoral, illegal and unconstitutional in his activies in Florida. Like someone else I could name. Give it up.. Feel fortunate that Kerry isn't in office!

2006-08-19 16:13:57 · answer #6 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0 0

All these commie Libs fail to admit that it was Clinton that set all this crap up with the terrorists and selling China nuclear secrets, and ignoring Osama when our allies had him captured. And just want to run around saying Bush is responsible for everything from cancer to their burning themselves with hot coffee. I cant wait untill all these 60's and 70's era commie, socialist, hippies are gone from society.

2006-08-12 14:30:39 · answer #7 · answered by snare3011 3 · 1 1

George Bush is so endearing. He's like Alfred E. Newman with money and power. What's not to like about George W. Bush?

How many people did NOT vote, when they COULD have?

2006-08-19 12:59:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The most mentally diminished of the population are the ones that voted for Bush the first time. I cannot imagine how dumb a person would have to be to vote for him the second time. But the dumbest of all, are the ones that still support him. They voted for a coke snorting, alcoholic that has failed at every job that he has ever done. He told them he was pro life so what does he do but bomb Iraq killing many, many innocent men, woman and yes babies. He said he was moral and yet he passed a tax cut for the richest 1% leaving the rest of the country behind. Now we are paying over $3 a gallon due to his policy's and the oil company's are showing record profits. He does nothing to stop them. Yes the dumbest people on earth still support him.

2006-08-12 13:49:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

Bush did not win Ohio, Kerry won Ohio. That is fact. Bush was appointed by the high court. When the court ruled they ruled against States rights. That is fact. Bush was not elected.

2006-08-12 14:55:09 · answer #10 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1 1

You have a strange mind. When was Bush and ally with Osama? Now Bill Clinton was. He set the idiot free.

2006-08-12 13:42:49 · answer #11 · answered by Mags 3 · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers