And if you say he rigged it, why aren't you liberals smart enough to:
1) Prove he rigged it and bring the case to trial.
2) Prevent the rigging in the first place.
Seriously, if you call Bush stupid, and he outfoxes you at every turn...what does that say about the mental capacity of the liberal?
2007-04-12 05:50:09 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They don't care about facts or truths. If Liberals lie enough times they start to believe it.
2007-04-12 05:54:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 13⤋
Ask the 2 in Ohio just found guilty of rigging it. Give us some more time, and we'll up some more rocks and lock more of your republican buddies up.
if you don't have the stomach to watch CSPAN hearings and the Gonzo gate, watch some documentaries ex) HBO Hacking Democracy
Read some newspapers, which detail other dirty methods with robot calls, caging. etc
Read some periodicals...Time, Newsweek, Harpers..just read something, please.
He didn't outsmart me because I didn't vote for him.
He is outsmarting you and the likes who think that
1. An authoritarian dictator actually cares about you and country
2.He will provide a moral direction
3.the economy is just great.
4. Bush had a propaganda budget recall about 1.6 million, which GPO documents.
Finally, no child left behind was underfunded, and thus, people like you are so totally unprepared for critical thinking. Jeeze, how do you function in real life?
We can separate the honorable intention of our military to do good in a country and to liberate the oppressed; from the dishonorable reason (oil?) they were put there. Vicky, what you say helps me do what I can to stop this. Hope all home soon.
2007-04-12 06:12:31 · answer #2 · answered by dan b 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A majority did not elect Bush the 1st time. Gore gained over 4 hundred,000 extra votes than Bush so stupid, the place replaced into your so talked approximately as majority on that one? Conservatives are laughable. enable see, values, morals? The Republicans have extra divorces, intercourse scandals with boys, corruption in place of work than something the Democrates had. a minimum of Clinton had intercourse with a consenting grownup. the conceitedness of your stupidity is astounding, not the democrats.
2016-10-21 23:13:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If an election were to be rigged, would it be the candidate who did the dirty work?
The candidate can have the IQ of a carp but have intelligent people around them.
Why is that cons like to forget that Bush actually lost the popular vote in 2000?
2007-04-12 06:10:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
He isn't the only one involved. His campaign and elections were controlled by much smarter and sneaky people. The 2000 election was going to go to an official recount as stated by law (any election within .5% I believe) but the Florida Supreme Court stopped it (despite the legal right for the recount). So basically the system didn't follow the law, so you can't use the system to bring the case to trial.
2007-04-12 06:00:39 · answer #5 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He 'outsmarted' the Dems because he is a master at 'outsmarting'.
The problem came when he had to 'govern',
i.e. make decisions. You cannot base 'decisions' on 'outsmarting' others. That's not very 'smart', is it?
And destroying your party with your 'smartness' is not very 'smart', is it?
You can 'outsmart' some of the people some of the time, but you cannot 'outsmart' all of the people all of the time.
Hence, a less than 30% approval rating.
Last point. Sweet revenge in '08!
2007-04-12 06:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
First, I don't think Bush is stupid; I think Bush is evil. If he were stupid he wouldn't have been able to trick the Congress into approving our involvement in a pointless and now intractible war.
Second, Bush did not win the popular vote in the first election. That is indisputable. However, the electoral vote results are still a little shady...
2007-04-12 05:57:43 · answer #7 · answered by Bryan H 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
through the proper application of fear, terrorism, propaganda and mudslinging he beguiled enough of America into voting for him. I was most impressed with how, in 04, he didn't parade his achievements as reason to re-elect him but rather tried to show how bad a choice Kerry would be. I'd say that for a man who's Military record showed that he had been disciplined for failing to follow an order and his little AWOL stint, he had a lot of guts challenging someone who was given a combat command in a war zone and was decorated.
2007-04-12 06:08:08 · answer #8 · answered by Alan S 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
2000 "activists judges," Kathleen Harris, Jed Bush, Karl Rove, hanging chad, purging voting rolls and host other schemes.
2007-04-12 07:07:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He worked on our pride and patriotism.Many of us already had sons in the military and were proud they had signed up to fight Bin Laden.When the call came for Iraq we were skeptical but yet hoped for our kids sake it was just.Nothing scars a soldier more than having to fight in a war they feel is senseless.When I saw him looking under couches etc.and making fun of the war in Iraq while my 2 sons butts were on the line I lost all respect for the man.Call me names call me unpatriotic but no one better get my sons killed and make a joke of it.
2007-04-12 06:02:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have read some answers about money. John Kerry is the richest man to have run for president and Edwards is one of the richest men to run for vice president. The 7 richest senators in the US Senate are all liberal Democrats, millionaires many times over. Bush has always thrived in having people underestimate him and think he's stupid. it has nothing to do with money. He was the poorest of the 4 people who ran for President and Vice-President in 2004.
2007-04-12 06:03:58 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋