why bush won the election

[mrbitterness]

true the statistics do show for themselves. let me get this right 1st before some rightists blast at me.

im aware of that. just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title. kerry wasnt practical enough, he was. but put another carter alongside the bush clan. be amazed by the poll.

perspective from a non-american. dont pay too much attention to this.

freedom of speech, bliss.

Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing.

 

[Shattered]

true the statistics do show for themselves. let me get this right 1st before some rightists blast at me.

im aware of that. just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title. kerry wasnt practical enough, he was. but put another carter alongside the bush clan. be amazed by the poll.

perspective from a non-american. dont pay too much attention to this.

freedom of speech, bliss.

Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing.

Ok.

 

[MtnBiker]

just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title.

It means excately that.

 

[Merlin1047]

true the statistics do show for themselves. let me get this right 1st before some rightists blast at me.

im aware of that. just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title. kerry wasnt practical enough, he was. but put another carter alongside the bush clan. be amazed by the poll.

perspective from a non-american. dont pay too much attention to this.

freedom of speech, bliss.

Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing.

Ah, thank you. Thank you very much. Every so often I wonder if my attitude about Euroweenies is a bit harsh. Then here you come and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Avatar4321]

true the statistics do show for themselves. let me get this right 1st before some rightists blast at me.

im aware of that. just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title. kerry wasnt practical enough, he was. but put another carter alongside the bush clan. be amazed by the poll.

perspective from a non-american. dont pay too much attention to this.

freedom of speech, bliss.

Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing.

What on earth are you talking about? What true statics are showing for themselves? You didnt post any! What does anything in your post have to do with why President Bush won the election?

If President Bush doesnt deserve the title President after being elected President who does? the loser? You seem to imply carter was practical. Holy crap are you in an alternate reality or what. Carter was arguably the worst President of the 21st century. Why do you think he didnt win reelection? Heck i dont think he won more than two states.

One thing you did get right is your suggestion not to pay attention to non american perspective. why exactly should we care what you think of our political decisions? They are ours. not yours.

Anyway if you arent just a hit and run poster you might actually want to try to post something pertaining to the topic of your own thread in your own posts. otherwise the title is kinda deceptive.

 

[winston churchi]

What on earth are you talking about? What true statics are showing for themselves? You didnt post any! What does anything in your post have to do with why President Bush won the election?

If President Bush doesnt deserve the title President after being elected President who does? the loser? You seem to imply carter was practical. Holy crap are you in an alternate reality or what. Carter was arguably the worst President of the 21st century. Why do you think he didnt win reelection? Heck i dont think he won more than two states.

One thing you did get right is your suggestion not to pay attention to non american perspective. why exactly should we care what you think of our political decisions? They are ours. not yours.

Anyway if you arent just a hit and run poster you might actually want to try to post something pertaining to the topic of your own thread in your own posts. otherwise the title is kinda deceptive.

Well history (as per your comment on Carter) is based on the point of view of the author.
Other than that - I am not too sure what your point is at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

true the statistics do show for themselves. let me get this right 1st before some rightists blast at me.

im aware of that. just cos he won, doesnt mean he deserves his title. kerry wasnt practical enough, he was. but put another carter alongside the bush clan. be amazed by the poll.

perspective from a non-american. dont pay too much attention to this.

freedom of speech, bliss.

Vote for the man who promises least; he'll be the least disappointing.

:shocked: Carter! LOL Omigaw! I would love to have a Billion Carters run against a Billion Republican candidates. It would insure no Democrat would ever be elected. The only reason Carter won was Ford had pardoned Nixon.

 

[Trigg]

THE REASON BUSH WON THE ELECTION

Bush won the election because the dems were busy with the MTV "get out the vote" . They mistakingly thought that 18-25 yr olds were to stupid to think for themselves and would vote for whoever MTV told them to. They should have known something was up when Kerry's daughters were booed off the stage.

Don't was anyone thinking this is the only reason, obviously there are many. This is just one example of the dems. thinking they are superior and can tell a group of people what to think and how to vote.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

It might be better to focus your energy on
something you can change and let this election go.
JMO

 

[manu1959]

i thought bush won because more than half the people voted for him and his moral and ethical decission making instead of a self confessed war criminal and traitor that betrayed the military while he was in uniform that defined himself as not Bush.

 

[winston churchi]

THE REASON BUSH WON THE ELECTION

Bush won the election because the dems were busy with the MTV "get out the vote" . They mistakingly thought that 18-25 yr olds were to stupid to think for themselves and would vote for whoever MTV told them to. They should have known something was up when Kerry's daughters were booed off the stage.

Don't was anyone thinking this is the only reason, obviously there are many. This is just one example of the dems. thinking they are superior and can tell a group of people what to think and how to vote.

Don't forget that the dems were soooo sure of themselves - because of supporters like the Great Ben Affleck (soon to be the whatever happened to Ben Affleck) and renting space in (I think it was....) Madison Sq. Garden full of movie stars telling Americans who to vote for because they were voting for this guy...

So much effort - or none at all - was put into the nothingness that Dems stand for - nothing.

At any rate - I was watching the news the other day and some dems were having it out with Kennedy - many of the dems now realize he is one of the reasons why dems keep loosing...Kennedy was bashing the moderate dems and they were bashing him. But I think this may be a sign of the times that dems are realizing they will keep loosing and loosing if they don't change....

So you have Bush of what you know (like it or not) what he stands for or Kerry of whom even folks like Michael Moore are puzzled as to what he stood for (yet promoted him anyway) - hmmm.

 

[winston churchi]

i thought bush won because more than half the people voted for him and his moral and ethical decission making instead of a self confessed war criminal and traitor that betrayed the military while he was in uniform that defined himself as not Bush.

Oh but remember when Clinton ran for president, what he did - or did not do as in his case - didn't matter...because that was sooo long ago. Now here comes JFK using the very war he said didn't matter anymore to promote himself - but only to a degree - the part where he was in Vietnam for three mos...what he did after that was sooo long ago it doesn't matter anymore.
Yes he betrayed the military but that doesn't matter.
Now do you understand? So what matters depends on what political stand you have. Just ask Dan Rather - who is a fine and truthfull news reporter...but the fact that he lied doesn't matter because, although there was no truth or fact to what he reported - he wanted it to be true and that's good enough for me.

 

[dmp]

Not Kid Safe: scroll down.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

there ya go...

 

[speederdoc]

I thought Bush won because of Michael Moore.

Oh, and The Guardian. Can't forget those British idiots telling Ohioans how to vote.

 

['ol Perfessor]

more people voted for him........It is simply the greatest victory in history. Every one that had a mike in front of him or a column to write heaped the most snow I have ever seen heaped against anyone; against GW. Guess there really is a God. God bless George Bush!

 

[obligerant]

I was just starting to like him! His prompt replies, and witty rebuttals kept me so intrigued.

No wait...Let me look back...Never mind!!!

Come on back and defend yourself bitter. What you had to say was so true, and sensible.

No wait...Let me look back...Never mind!!!


AT LEAST YOU DID US THE FAVOR OF WARNING US NOT TO PAY ATTENTION TO YOU

HAPPY BLACK HISTORY MONTH :baby:

 

[Bonnie]

i thought bush won because more than half the people voted for him and his moral and ethical decission making instead of a self confessed war criminal and traitor that betrayed the military while he was in uniform that defined himself as not Bush.

That's what I thought as well.........Gee guess everyone that voted for Bush was wrong then???

 

[padisha emperor]

I saw that somebody spoke of Kerry VN's past....I think it is not the best point for Buish, because he didn't go fight for your flag in Viet Nam.

And for the TV Reps spot who show "Kerry old war comrade" saying that he was a coward...they are not the Kerry war Bros.

Documents prooves that KErry was a good soldiers, instead of his opoonent, who was drunk while Kerry fought against USA 's ennemies.

only to replace the things correctly



Bush won becasue he has more voices, that's it.

But when I read here that the youthes couldn't think by themselves with the dems and MTV....i think that it is exactly the same thing for Fox News and others medias on the Reps side.......everybody wanted to have more voters...





Bush won because the terrorism put USA in a terror and fear athmosphere. Like in Spain. the Terrorists make attempts in Madrid, and it had MAYBE changed the vote of people.Same thing in USA, and then they vote for a man who LOOK LIKE strong against the ennemies...but it was not necessary the best choice.

Why ?

only one side of what I think :

I believe that Kerry wanted to makje stronger the links between France and USA, Europe and USA. It would be a very good thing, because then, the USa would have all their allies on their side, and if France, Germany, Spain.....would be right behind Kerry, they probably would help for a next war...

Here, I meant that the "isolationnism" of Bush ("we don't care about our allies, we 'll make all alone") is not a good thing when a country want to make a war on a such scale !!!



Second point : Bush is strong - his administration is strong - , I mean he wants to kick the terrorists.... It seems to be good. But...

Don't you think that if USA lead wars after wars after wars, the terrorisms would be stronger and bigger, and the ennemies of the USA would be more and more numerous ?
Of course, when USA annihilate a country, and destoy it, it is hard for the terrorists to stay here, but, they do all the same, like in Iraq : fast victory, but after, when people think that all is over, the terrorists are more and more numerous. And this is only in the invaded country.
Because on the other countries, the hate for the country who attack grow up : USA attack muslim countries, some mulsims of other oucntries certainly don't like it, and look at all the people who take the weapons against America, in the Middle-East countries....

The ennemiess number would growing up...so , UAS would have to make again wars...and then.....it gives a vicious cirlce.

The strenght is not always the best solution, specially when it is used against fanatics. when the strenght wants to desuct the fanatism, fanatism is stronger, because the fanatics killed are considered as martyrs, and then more people join tye fanatism...


That's why a bellicose, a pugnacious president is maybe not the best clue.
But i can understand that for the USA inhabitants it can be good for a security feeling, but watch out, it can be also a vicious circle.

 

[obligerant]

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.

 

[CSM]

I saw that somebody spoke of Kerry VN's past....I think it is not the best point for Buish, because he didn't go fight for your flag in Viet Nam.

He served honorably in the National Guard, and volunteered to go. Kerry was given a less than honorable discharge at the end of his "service"

And for the TV Reps spot who show "Kerry old war comrade" saying that he was a coward...they are not the Kerry war Bros.

One or two "old comerads" versus the testimony of hundreds of others. Many of the awards Kerry got were submitted by...himself!

Documents prooves that KErry was a good soldiers, instead of his opoonent, who was drunk while Kerry fought against USA 's ennemies.

Kerry has yet to release his military record because he knows damn well they will show he was not all that great a soldier...good soldiers dont recieve less than honorable discharges. Upgrading his discharge through political cronies doesn't change the facts.

only to replace the things correctly

Bush won becasue he has more voices, that's it.

Its called democracy.

But when I read here that the youthes couldn't think by themselves with the dems and MTV....i think that it is exactly the same thing for Fox News and others medias on the Reps side.......everybody wanted to have more voters...

That's how folks get elected...by having more voters vote for them than the other guy.

Bush won because the terrorism put USA in a terror and fear athmosphere. Like in Spain. the Terrorists make attempts in Madrid, and it had MAYBE changed the vote of people.Same thing in USA, and then they vote for a man who LOOK LIKE strong against the ennemies...but it was not necessary the best choice.

Your opinion...obviously not the opinion of the majority of the Us citizenry. they think Bush is the best choice

Why ?

only one side of what I think :

I believe that Kerry wanted to makje stronger the links between France and USA, Europe and USA. It would be a very good thing, because then, the USa would have all their allies on their side, and if France, Germany, Spain.....would be right behind Kerry, they probably would help for a next war...

Exactly why many did NOT vote for Kerry. He would have sold us out to the UN and the EU.

Here, I meant that the "isolationnism" of Bush ("we don't care about our allies, we 'll make all alone") is not a good thing when a country want to make a war on a such scale !!!

I dunno...I seem to remember Bush asking our "allies" to help us; they chose insted to provide aid and comfort to our enemy.

Second point : Bush is strong - his administration is strong - , I mean he wants to kick the terrorists.... It seems to be good. But...

We agree (except for the "but"; you could have stopped right there)

Don't you think that if USA lead wars after wars after wars, the terrorisms would be stronger and bigger, and the ennemies of the USA would be more and more numerous ?

No I dont think that

Of course, when USA annihilate a country, and destoy it, it is hard for the terrorists to stay here, but, they do all the same, like in Iraq : fast victory, but after, when people think that all is over, the terrorists are more and more numerous. And this is only in the invaded country.

The problem is your first sentence...the US didn't annihilate Iraq and we should have.

Because on the other countries, the hate for the country who attack grow up : USA attack muslim countries, some mulsims of other oucntries certainly don't like it, and look at all the people who take the weapons against America, in the Middle-East countries....

Lets see...the Muslims didn't hate us before Iraq. I suppose flying planes into US buildings is an act of love and peace?

The ennemiess number would growing up...so , UAS would have to make again wars...and then.....it gives a vicious cirlce.

The US doesn't have to be in the viscious circle....eventually we will kill enough ragheads that they will catch on that you shouldn't mess with the USA

The strenght is not always the best solution, specially when it is used against fanatics. when the strenght wants to desuct the fanatism, fanatism is stronger, because the fanatics killed are considered as martyrs, and then more people join tye fanatism...

Yeah weakness always wins; just ask the EU superpower! This is sarcasm in case you dont recognize it.

That's why a bellicose, a pugnacious president is maybe not the best clue.
But i can understand that for the USA inhabitants it can be good for a security feeling, but watch out, it can be also a vicious circle.

Not the best clue for who...Europe? damn right that having a strong President gives the USA a feeling of security! Do you know why that is? What makes it a viscious circle is the back stabbing support our former European allies provide to our enemies!