why bush won the election

[Hobbit]

Coherant, well thought out, and not obviously biased. Work on the spelling, and you could turn out to be a very good poster. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the two candidates.

Kerry - Kerry served in Vietnam and for that I respect him. I'm not going to get too upset and split hairs about the video camera, hit purple hearts, or why he came home so early. That's all far into the past when he was a stupid kid. What mattered to me was his senate record, which showed him to be a stupider adult (couldn't resist, sorry).

Bush - I'll admit, Bush was once a bad, bad man with some unsavory habits. He did drugs, drank, and many other rebellious things. However, so did my dad, but both of them turned their backs on these things and cleaned up, becoming great, Christian men. What mattered to me about Bush was his past four years in office, and the only glaring issue was a weak immigration stance.

As for why Bush won, it's just this simple. Bush recieved more electoral votes than Kerry. That's it.

 

[CSM]

Coherant, well thought out, and not obviously biased. Work on the spelling, and you could turn out to be a very good poster. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the two candidates.

Kerry - Kerry served in Vietnam and for that I respect him. I'm not going to get too upset and split hairs about the video camera, hit purple hearts, or why he came home so early. That's all far into the past when he was a stupid kid. What mattered to me was his senate record, which showed him to be a stupider adult (couldn't resist, sorry).

Bush - I'll admit, Bush was once a bad, bad man with some unsavory habits. He did drugs, drank, and many other rebellious things. However, so did my dad, but both of them turned their backs on these things and cleaned up, becoming great, Christian men. What mattered to me about Bush was his past four years in office, and the only glaring issue was a weak immigration stance.

As for why Bush won, it's just this simple. Bush recieved more electoral votes than Kerry. That's it.

Not obviusly biased???? I suppose in this one instance if examined alone you could be right. Knowing PE's view from past postings however makes this one as glaringly biased as the rest. Just my opinion.

 

[padisha emperor]

Thank you Hobbit
i'll try to be better for english language


CSM, when I said annihiliate, it was not in reference for some of my previous posts, only to say that a country where people think that the situation is now quite peaceful because the ennemy has been defeated, can hide lot of terrorism. that's it.


Ibn what I said, no sarcasm or attack against USA. For this time, I was only exposing facts, and didn't want to make a polemic post. So don't react like that

Why did you speak of weakness ? You have to admit that the strength is the worst weapon against the fanatism. except in some cases, like if you can annihilate all the fanatics, or shock them enough - like the US nuke boms on Japan in 1945, it shock them enough - but it is not often. And here the fanaticsz all all over the middle east, in all the countries, so, hard to kill them all in one shoot or the affraid them enough.
if you want to kill them but don't succes at it, and if fanatics survive, tyhey would be more fanatic, and the fanatics number would grow up.
So, the war will continue, and it has no end. a never ending war.
look at the religion's wars in France : officially, from 1562 too 1598. but in fact, afetr, the protestants were alaways against the king power, and just for one example, the king and Richelieu had to take La Rochelle from the protestants' hands in 1628. So, people thought sit was ove in 1598, but in fact not at all. And these french protestants were not fanatics, at least less than the terrorists of today.


i never meant that before iraq USA have only friends in muslim countries, of course, they had a lot, like other occidental countries, but I meant that if USA follow the agression, it would not arrange the situation, and UAS would have MORE ennemies than BEFORE.

And if you're still for a war, instaed of making it on all the fronts, try to make it progressivly, one fronts afetr one fronts. for the moment, it is USA against the middle east, y to have best relations with some States, then these States would be nicer with USA, and have maybe best anti-terror policies, so, the local terrorists would have to quit this country.....and make it with other countries, the terrorists would be cutted from their main bases...and it would be easy for USA.

That's my opinion, don't know if it possible, i study the laws, not the geopolicy, but i think it is the better way, better than wars, because each drop of terrorist blood will fertilize new terrorists, more fanatic, more crazy, so more dangerous.

 

[CSM]

Thank you Hobbit
i'll try to be better for english language


CSM, when I said annihiliate, it was not in reference for some of my previous posts, only to say that a country where people think that the situation is now quite peaceful because the ennemy has been defeated, can hide lot of terrorism. that's it.


Ibn what I said, no sarcasm or attack against USA. For this time, I was only exposing facts, and didn't want to make a polemic post. So don't react like that

Why did you speak of weakness ? You have to admit that the strength is the worst weapon against the fanatism. except in some cases, like if you can annihilate all the fanatics, or shock them enough - like the US nuke boms on Japan in 1945, it shock them enough - but it is not often. And here the fanaticsz all all over the middle east, in all the countries, so, hard to kill them all in one shoot or the affraid them enough.
if you want to kill them but don't succes at it, and if fanatics survive, tyhey would be more fanatic, and the fanatics number would grow up.
So, the war will continue, and it has no end. a never ending war.
look at the religion's wars in France : officially, from 1562 too 1598. but in fact, afetr, the protestants were alaways against the king power, and just for one example, the king and Richelieu had to take La Rochelle from the protestants' hands in 1628. So, people thought sit was ove in 1598, but in fact not at all. And these french protestants were not fanatics, at least less than the terrorists of today.


i never meant that before iraq USA have only friends in muslim countries, of course, they had a lot, like other occidental countries, but I meant that if USA follow the agression, it would not arrange the situation, and UAS would have MORE ennemies than BEFORE.

And if you're still for a war, instaed of making it on all the fronts, try to make it progressivly, one fronts afetr one fronts. for the moment, it is USA against the middle east, y to have best relations with some States, then these States would be nicer with USA, and have maybe best anti-terror policies, so, the local terrorists would have to quit this country.....and make it with other countries, the terrorists would be cutted from their main bases...and it would be easy for USA.

That's my opinion, don't know if it possible, i study the laws, not the geopolicy, but i think it is the better way, better than wars, because each drop of terrorist blood will fertilize new terrorists, more fanatic, more crazy, so more dangerous.

I disagree that strength is inappropriate in fighting terrorism. It is BECAUSE the US has appeared weak in the past that we have suffered terrorist attacks. DO you think that if the Taliban KNEW they would be rousted from power they would have aided and abetted the terrorists? They never expected the US to do what we did. they thought we were weak so did everything they could to help those terrorists attack the US.

The US has tried to be nice and all we got was more trouble for it...North Korea is a good example. Even in aiding the tsunami victims, we got nothing but criticism from the global community with some even suggesting the US CAUSED the disaster. Screw being nice...it doesn't pay.

 

[padisha emperor]

I agree, US put down the Talibans...but the terrorists are stil active...


I didn't speak of politicval regime, but of terrorists organisations, not ruling a country.

Look, the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop the terrorists' attacks.
And there is more terrorists now than before, they want to be killed as martyr. That's the problem with the Fanatics, I only show it to you.

 

[CSM]

I agree, US put down the Talibans...but the terrorists are stil active...


I didn't speak of politicval regime, but of terrorists organisations, not ruling a country.

Look, the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't stop the terrorists' attacks.
And there is more terrorists now than before, they want to be killed as martyr. That's the problem with the Fanatics, I only show it to you.

There has not been a terrorist attack in the US since we sent the taliban packing. Yes the terrorists are still active, but WHERE are they active? They are busy blowing up mosques in Iraq. You will notice that the number of attacks on US troops is way down, even in Iraq. The terrorists have taken to attacking the Iraqi people and foriegn civilians (many of whom were being "nice" and trying to actually HELP the Muslims!!!). Why do you suppose they attack those unfortunates? It sure as heck isn't because they are strong!

 

[padisha emperor]

The US are not attacked, fortunatly.


The attempts against US troops are less numerous these days, fortunatly.
But since some time, the iarqi terrorists were also quite quiet, and after they made big big attemptse against US troops. I believe than in few days USA lost 90 soldiers during these attempts. So, the tranquility of today can alos be considered as preparation of attempts. Of course I do'nt wish it, but it can be so.

watch out the sleeping water...


The terrorists attack Iraqi citizens because they are more weak than US marines, but the terrorists consider that they make collaboration with the US troops. The job of US troops is to make the area quiet, and when there is an attempt, this job fail. It is indirect attack against USA's authority in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

Coherant, well thought out, and not obviously biased. Work on the spelling, and you could turn out to be a very good poster. Anyway, here's my thoughts on the two candidates.

Kerry - Kerry served in Vietnam and for that I respect him. I'm not going to get too upset and split hairs about the video camera, hit purple hearts, or why he came home so early. That's all far into the past when he was a stupid kid. What mattered to me was his senate record, which showed him to be a stupider adult (couldn't resist, sorry).

Bush - I'll admit, Bush was once a bad, bad man with some unsavory habits. He did drugs, drank, and many other rebellious things. However, so did my dad, but both of them turned their backs on these things and cleaned up, becoming great, Christian men. What mattered to me about Bush was his past four years in office, and the only glaring issue was a weak immigration stance.

As for why Bush won, it's just this simple. Bush recieved more electoral votes than Kerry. That's it.

Not going to give you bad rep, but sorry what's up with this? Kerry you forgive, GW has to live with his past? Granted you address rehab, but where did Kerry rehab?

I know that the conclusion we agree upon, but your way of getting there???

 

[Hobbit]

Not obviusly biased???? I suppose in this one instance if examined alone you could be right. Knowing PE's view from past postings however makes this one as glaringly biased as the rest. Just my opinion.

Actually, I was referring to obligerant. Obviously, he didn't take my advice, seeing as how it says "banned" under his name now. I was referring to this post.

What you did not bother to post here is the part where Kerry came home, and started screaming how the American soldiers were war criminals ( including himself mind you)! Thus endangering the lives of many soldiers who were held in captivity at the time.

It has been said by captives that the voice of Kerry would ring over loud speakers while they were being tortured. While the Vietnamese tried to get them to admit to war crimes. (true? I do not know, but it sounds logical to me)

So no matter how brave he was while he was there, this does not change the fact that he was not using his head when he arrived back home.

Does this make him unfit to be President??? I do not know. Did Bush skipping out on national guard duty, and doing cocaine make him unfit??? I do not know.

You have to understand that ( well you don't have to) when you are choosing to replace a politician, you are doing so with a politician.

We made the right choice considering our options.

Here, he's taking a logical stance. It's the stance that a) both candidates had less than outstanding pasts but that b) what matters is what they're like now.

 

[padisha emperor]

Sir Evil, exactly what i said....kill a fanatic, you would create a martyr, and encourage other people to join the fanatic forces....

Look the Kamikazes : the US soldiers could kill all the kamikazes they wanted, there would be again, and ever new kalmikazes..same thing for fanatic terrorists.

So, kill them, and watch out for the reaction...

 

[Comrade]

Sir Evil, exactly what i said....kill a fanatic, you would create a martyr, and encourage other people to join the fanatic forces....

No doubt the French mentality of surrender is part and parcel to this statement.

Is it some kind of genetic trait of the French to believe that if you fight and kill an enemy you only make it stronger? Is that the kind of defeatest drivel your media proposes to the French today?

Look the Kamikazes : the US soldiers could kill all the kamikazes they wanted, there would be again, and ever new kalmikazes..same thing for fanatic terrorists.

This is such a crude assessment of WWII reality that I can only stare in wonder at your simplistic knowledge of Western history, which you must have learned in one of those rarified French institutions of greater learning.

So, kill them, and watch out for the reaction...

Let me guess... since they're dead, they might twitch a few times but after that you might as well bury them.

But in your enlightened European society, the terrorists are like the Gremlims in the 80s, which you Padisha must be too young to remember. Ok, how about those hell-beasts from the Hellboy movie instead.

Rational people know the Islamists are merely human beings with very twisted ideas of enlightenment. They are mortal, and can be killed. They can also be hunted down, cut off, and discredited. And certainly they have.

Your kind has assured us from the first days after 9-11 that any action on our part to attack the 'percieved enemy' of Islamism was a future gesture which would inevitably backfire as the masses sided with the 'martyrs'.

That you would claim such an asinine statement for so long now, without much to show for it as proof of being bourne out, amazes even the most news deviod among us. There's been no attack in America, no doomsday scenario in Afganistan or Iraq, and now both democracies and at war with the Islamic terrorirsts alongside us.

No, you've clung to this tar baby argument against fighting terror far too long for any rational person to consider it as either original or logical. Are merely being annoying, Padisha?

 

[padisha emperor]

No doubt the French mentality of surrender is part and parcel to this statement.

Is it some kind of genetic trait of the French to believe that if you fight and kill an enemy you only make it stronger? Is that the kind of defeatest drivel your media proposes to the French today?

Do you think that a fanatic who 's WAITING FOR death is a normal ennemy ?
Did the maasacre by US troops change the things ? no, still terror.

What the fuck about "french defeat spirit"
you can only say that for may 1940, and only for a part of the population.
You certainly know nothing about the France History, so, read, and then come, i'll be waiting you.

This is such a crude assessment of WWII reality that I can only stare in wonder at your simplistic knowledge of Western history, which you must have learned in one of those rarified French institutions of greater learning

Who has a simplistic knowledge ? Come on, you would be unable to give me 5 napoleonic battles without watching into book. (I take this example because therer is maybe about 50 battles)

The silple fact that you mean france is a defeat nation prrove that you know nothing about the european and western history.
Did you never wonder how France had been the mightiest nation of the wordl, if this is a nation of weak and coward ?

Go read, and come on later.

 

[j07950]

Looks interesting in here!!! Same old same...

 

[padisha emperor]

Same old same, yes...

if our Friend comrade didn't expose his "ideas" about France, we wouldn't be here....


Why can't you understand that a fanatic has a different psychology than yours ? that the strenght will reinforce their conviction and their forces, their number ?

 

[Merlin1047]

I think it was a poodle that taught the french to roll over and play dead.

 

[Comrade]

Do you think that a fanatic who 's WAITING FOR death is a normal ennemy ?

Well, a dead enemy is no enemy at all. But what does this have to do with your assertation that the more we kill the more will come?

Did the maasacre by US troops change the things ? no, still terror.

You mean, did a massacre by Al-Qauda and Saddam loyalists against the civilians and police of Iraq over the last few years change anything? No, still democracy.

What the fuck about "french defeat spirit"

Your words, not mine. You say its impossible to fight terror by fighting, capturing, or killing the terrorists, and offer no other strategy in its place. That's a loser strategy if I ever heard one. And its typical of your countrymen to hold such a view.

If you ask me, your country has allowed its Anti-American sentiment to get in the way of common sense.

you can only say that for may 1940, and only for a part of the population.
You certainly know nothing about the France History, so, read, and then come, i'll be waiting you.

Oh, I know plenty. Do you?

Who has a simplistic knowledge ? Come on, you would be unable to give me 5 napoleonic battles without watching into book. (I take this example because therer is maybe about 50 battles)

Your country has changed since the grand old days of empire. Ancient history has nothing to do with the chicken little attitude your people have, so safe and secure feeling in thier fantasy world of socialist utopia.

The silple fact that you mean france is a defeat nation prrove that you know nothing about the european and western history.

You must have missed my countless posts on history on this board.

Did you never wonder how France had been the mightiest nation of the wordl, if this is a nation of weak and coward ?

The once mighty have fallen, no?

 

[padisha emperor]

Oh, I know plenty. Do you?

proove it.

what did happen the 11/27/1942 ?

wuithout google or internet, or books....

if you know it so well...

You mean you now, but if you know you wouldn't be like this.

Ancient history has nothing to do with the chicken little attitude your people have, so safe and secure feeling in thier fantasy world of socialist utopia.

You can undertsna dthe modern world only if you know the previous history.
example : you can't undertsnad Pearl harbor if you don't know the war against Russia 1904/05, against Germany during the WWI, against China....and the US attitutde during these facts.


You can't nuderstand the revendications of the palestinians wihtout the Bible, the antiquity history.

You must have missed my countless posts on history on this board

A man who think that France is a coward nation show that he know not so well as he think. I would say the same thing if you'ld think the same for UK.

 

[Comrade]

proove it.

what did happen the 11/27/1942 ?

wuithout google or internet, or books....

if you know it so well...

Easy, that was the day Jimmy Hendrix was born. Next question?

You can undertsna dthe modern world only if you know the previous history.
example : you can't undertsnad Pearl harbor if you don't know the war against Russia 1904/05, against Germany during the WWI, against China....and the US attitutde during these facts.

What the SAM HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

You can't nuderstand the revendications of the palestinians wihtout the Bible, the antiquity history.

Whoa!

So this whole thread is suddenly all about the Palestinians, who suddenly have a claim on Jerusalem which traces all the way back to biblical times? Or was that the Jews?

Well of course it was the Jews. The Palestians, A.K.A. Jordyptians, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the biblical verses.

What the hell are you thinking, Padisha?

A man who think that France is a coward nation show that he know not so well as he think. I would say the same thing if you'ld think the same for UK.

Heh.

The Brits' opinion of you Frenchmen is actually held to a standard that is far below the esteem that any American would grant you! :cof:

 

[Annie]

Yeah, Taff already had a giggle fit!

 

[padisha emperor]

What the SAM HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

oooops, sorry, i forgot the main word : JAPAN.


Japanese victories against Russia, Germany, China...before P-H

sorry again.