NationStates Jolt Archive

An American in exile in Britania

You can also view BBC reports on the 2000 & 2004 elections.

http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency



BBC goes out throughout the world,
so soon after everyone knew how Bush was chosen
in 2000.

Then we've got Jim Crow in cyber space 2004
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=306&row=2

:rolleyes: It is only theft if your guy doesn't win.

Get over it. He won both elections, fair and square.

:rolleyes: It is only theft if your guy doesn't win.

Get over it. He won both elections, fair and square.




You don't even know,


who I voted for, if anybody.

You don't even know,


who I voted for, if anybody.

If you did vote then it does matter. If you voted for a candidate that lost, then that just means that more people voted for the guy that won. Really, who in their right mind would vote for Al Gore? I've got some issues with Bush but Gore is a certifiable moron in my book and I couldn't even figure out what Kerry stood for because he kept changing his stance on everything depending on how the question was worded. Bush is far from perfect but was definitely the best choice both times, or at least the lesser of two evils (depending on how you look at it). Democracy doesn't mean what YOU think goes, it means what MOST people think goes (with protection of dissenters' rights, including your right to whine like a baby here).

If you didn't vote and you are a US citizen then you have absolutely no reason to complain. Bitch about "the system" as much as you want, but every eligible voter (including, apparently, you) is part of that system. The "system" is willing to accept your participation. If you want to cry like a baby because nobody else aagrees with you and the "take your ball and go home" then don't complain about who won; you had a chance to play and didn't so it obviously doesn't concern you. If this is the case then shut up.

Regardless, he won. Twice. Get over it. No future can be secured when one is still dwelling on the past, and if you're just whining and accusing "theft of presidential elections" then you obviously don't care about what's going on now. So why should we listen to you?

Get over it. He won both elections, fair and square.

You know what...NO.

I will certainly NOT "get over it", and neither will millions of other Americans who are tired of the overwhelming ineptness of the current administration.

I can guarantee you that had Kerry won the election, Republicans would most certainly NOT be "over it".

So why don't you get over it...because people are going to keep making legitimate arguments regarding the amazing cavalcade of fuckups this administration has presided over, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter.

You know what...NO.

I will certainly NOT "get over it", and neither will millions of other Americans who are tired of the overwhelming ineptness of the current administration.

I can guarantee you that had Kerry won the election, Republicans would most certainly NOT be "over it".

So why don't you get over it...because people are going to keep making legitimate arguments regarding the amazing cavalcade of fuckups this administration has presided over, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter.

Yes get over it because your candidate lost. Ineptness? Oh please. Ineptness not. Your candidate lost. If Kerry would of won I would of got over it a long time ago.

You are full of partisan nonsense. Get over it.

If you didn't vote and you are a US citizen then you have absolutely no reason to complain. Bitch about "the system" as much as you want, but every eligible voter (including, apparently, you) is part of that system. The "system" is willing to accept your participation. If you want to cry like a baby because nobody else aagrees with you and the "take your ball and go home" then don't complain about who won; you had a chance to play and didn't so it obviously doesn't concern you. If this is the case then shut up.

Actually, what's a better way to protest a corrupt system, to continue using it, or to abandon it? If the system is flawed (i.e. two impossibly large parties controlling everything since the dawn of time - well, since the first election) you shouldn't use it, because the flaw prevents you from doing anything that will fix it. Refusing to vote and ruining the system by altering the voting demographic enough to force the system to be rethought could change things.

Or you could be dumb and content with your magical two identical choices.

If you did vote then it does matter. If you voted for a candidate that lost, then that just means that more people voted for the guy that won. Really, who in their right mind would vote for Al Gore? I've got some issues with Bush but Gore is a certifiable moron in my book and I couldn't even figure out what Kerry stood for because he kept changing his stance on everything depending on how the question was worded. Bush is far from perfect but was definitely the best choice both times, or at least the lesser of two evils (depending on how you look at it). Democracy doesn't mean what YOU think goes, it means what MOST people think goes (with protection of dissenters' rights, including your right to whine like a baby here).

Hmm, where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, from a thousand fanatics throwing flip-flops at me because they were so into democracy. Afterall, "Democracy doesn't mean what YOU think goes, it means what MOST people think goes (with protection of dissenters' rights...)." Conceited bastards.

Conceited? For believing in rule by majority? Perhaps we should just make you king and everything will be perfect and farts will smell like a fresh spring breeze? Get over yourself. When is the last time you were actually denied a constitutional right?

Yes get over it because your candidate lost.

LMAO..."My" candidate. The only reason I voted for that idiot was that it was the only way to help get the other idiot out of office.

Ineptness? Oh please. Ineptness not.

And thus, with a single negative statement, any and all arguments that run contrary to your position are rendered meaningless. :rolleyes:

Your candidate lost.

I'm completely over Kerry losing...I am NOT over Bush winning.

Your the one who seems to be all over the fact that Kerry lost. Why don't you get over it?

If Kerry would of won I would of got over it a long time ago.

Maybe you would have, but how many Republicans would be howling for blood over Kerrys two Supreme Court appointments? (Among other things...)

You are full of partisan nonsense. Get over it.

Oh no...I'm "partisan"! :eek: :rolleyes:

Look in a mirror.

And thus, with a single negative statement, any and all arguments that run contrary to your position are rendered meaningless. :rolleyes:

You haven't formulated an argument and I'm losing my patience very quickly.

I'm completely over Kerry losing...I am NOT over Bush winning.

Your the one who seems to be all over the fact that Kerry lost. Why don't you get over it?

No why don't you get it? GET OVER IT. GET OVER BUSH WINNING.

Oh no...I'm "partisan"! :eek: :rolleyes:

Look in a mirror.

No. I'm a moderate. You are... well so far to the left.

Maybe you would have, but how many Republicans would be howling for blood over Kerrys two Supreme Court appointments? (Among other things...)

If Kerry won, O'Connor would still be serving. You can bet on that.

That's all I'm going to say: any positive, centrist input on these comments would be lost in the partisan bickering.

You haven't formulated an argument and I'm losing my patience very quickly.

I've seen you post in a number of threads over the last few days, and I know it's pointless to bother with you if your set on your opinion.

The arguments are all over this forum...I'm sure you can find some.

No why don't you get it? GET OVER IT. GET OVER BUSH WINNING.

As I said before...NO.

Stop telling me how to respond to current politics in this country...I'm losing my patience very quickly.

No. I'm a moderate. You are... well so far to the left.

I'm sorry...but I believe in the death penalty, am against abortion in principle, believe in a strong military, gun rights, and low taxation.

But apparently, since I think Bush is a terrible president, I'm "so far to the left." :rolleyes:

If Kerry won, O'Connor would still be serving. You can bet on that.

Really? I think O'Connor was going to retire either way.

Stop telling me how to respond to current politics in this country...I'm losing my patience very quickly.

So we should just let YOU tell US how things should be and accept it? So far everything you've posted in this thread can be summed up as "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so, and I refuse to explain myself because I don't have to."

If you want to complain then at least have a complaint. You're just whining about people not agreeing on you about everything. Imagine that, people disagreeing. What is this world coming to.

In the words of Eric Cartman, "Quitcher bitchin!"

If Kerry won, O'Connor would still be serving. You can bet on that.

That's all I'm going to say: any positive, centrist input on these comments would be lost in the partisan bickering.


....O'Connor retired because her husband is ill and she wants to spend as much time with him as possible. Next you'll say Bush killed Rehnquest.

So we should just let YOU tell US how things should be and accept it?

Of course not, I would appreciate it very much if you could point out where I made such a statement.

So far everything you've posted in this thread can be summed up as "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so, and I refuse to explain myself because I don't have to."

I have not ONCE in this entire thread said that I am right, nor that anybody else is wrong.

I responded to Mesatecala's statement that we "get over" Bush's reelection with the simple fact that those of us who are still angry about it are not going to stop criticizing the president just because some people are sick of hearing the complaints.

Since then, I've responded to numerous accusations and generalizations about my own opinions, all of which I have responded to with sarcasm, rather than counter-accusations.

If you want to complain then at least have a complaint.

I rarely voice my complaints about the administration on this board. There are plenty of people with more time and more eloquence than I who can do that.

I do notice that there are MANY more threads that criticize the president and his policies than threads that laud them. That's partly beacuse of the disproportionate amount of left-leaning people on this forum...but then again, it could also be that Bush supporters simply don't have much to say about Bush that is positive.

You're just whining about people not agreeing on you about everything.

No, I was responding to Mesatecala's whining about people not agreeing with him about everything.

He wants people to stop complaining about the current state of the executive branch, and I pointed out that just because he's sick of people complaining does not mean that I or anyone else is going to listen to him.

Imagine that, people disagreeing. What is this world coming to.

Imagine that. :)

In the words of Eric Cartman, "Quitcher bitchin!"

"No kitty, that's a BAD KITTY!!!" :p

"Theft of last 2 US presidential elections"

Awww! Didn't like the outcome of the last two elections? It be a real shame you don't have some sort of "national mommie" to run crying to, ain't it!

"Mommie! Mommie! That mean ole Georgie Bush stole my election!"

"Theft of last 2 US presidential elections"

Awww! Didn't like the outcome of the last two elections? It be a real shame you don't have some sort of "national mommie" to run crying to, ain't it!

"Mommie! Mommie! That mean ole Georgie Bush stole my election!"Did you read the original post?

Oh c'mon, as if it matters... a 2 party dictatorship is just a hair above a single party dictatorship. What would've changed with Kerry in office? Different heads, different faces, same bullcrap flying low.

Is anyone here capable of keeping a straight face and telling me the TRUE difference between Democrats and Republicans? Two huge parties keeping an outdated voting model in effect to ensure that nobody but them can gain power.

Quite seriously, I do pity the US. Voting there must seem like having the choice between hanging and drowning.

:rolleyes: It is only theft if your guy doesn't win.

Get over it. He won both elections, fair and square.

Probably true. Much sadder is that he and Kerry were apparantly the best two things the US could find... :(

Is anyone here capable of keeping a straight face and telling me the TRUE difference between Democrats and Republicans? Two huge parties keeping an outdated voting model in effect to ensure that nobody but them can gain power.

If I understand correctly American politics is far more about persons than about parties. In local elections people vote for persons they agree with first, party second. In Europe this tends to be opposite: party first, person second.

That is probably why the two American parties are so immensely broad without any real party-wide stances, while European parties tend to be smaller and focussed. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

If you think Bush stole the elections, well then good for you. I like to think that people voted for him and the electoral system of the United States worked, as it has for 229 years. Granted there are occasional hiccups, but whenever a problem is found, it's dealt with. It isn't a perfect system, but we'll improve it as the years go along.

If you think Bush is a horrible President, then complain and complain, criticize and criticize away. If you want to make a sugestion or two somewhere in there then that'd be great too, but to each their own. I personally think that when someone complains or criticizes without offering any suggestions, then they really aren't helping anyone out, and it just sounds like constant nagging or bitterness. That's just my opinion though.

Good things about President Bush: supports privatization, tax cuts, patient, understanding, can see the big picture, principled, moral, bilingual, looks to be a good father, his daughters are mildly hot, his wife is great (even though she has this plastered on smile and strange wave), strong leader, has a good idea about what Europe is all about, didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, had lots of crap thrown in his lap and knew it came with the job and didn't complain about it once, knows what needs to be done, hates making public speaches, but still does it, listens to other opinions, proud, has the greatest characteristics (that smile and laugh are priceless), suports Free Trade and NAFTA (I think), understands where the US is historically and where it needs to go, believs the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, takes the blame when it's his to take, hopeful, idealistic, charming, inherited a country that didn't think he was competent to do the job, a dady's boy, hired the best people around him to make him look good, a cynical country, a recession, a country that never gave him a chance and tries to bring him down at every opportunity -- and after all that he still goes on, most human and honest of recent Presidents, tells the worst jokes, but you just have to laugh at them, optimistic, doesn't bend to presure, understands business (only President with a business degree, I think), and doesn't like 'yes' people. That's of course my opinion from the outside, haven't talked to the guy, or met him, but that's just what I see and like.

Bad things about President Bush: can come off a little arrogant, narrowminded, or pushy, supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage, can be a little slow to react, isn't doing much about illegal immigration and he was Govenor of Texas for goodness sake, doesn't light a big enough fire under some people's asses, can be the most unelloquent of people, but I don't hold that against him too much, isn't out more in the public, but who would be when wherever you go people call you the most fowl and vulgar of things, and spends a bit too much time in Texas, but I think it's because he hates the way Washington is and want's to get away from it when he can (I know people think he vacations there, but how many people go on vacation and have world leaders visit to discuss policy, discuss domestic and international policies, or communicate with the home office every day -- sounds like a crapy vacation to me).

So, admitedly, I have a slight bias because I like George W. Bush and think he's a great President. He is far from perfect, has his flaws, but who doesn't? Last time I checked, being perfect wasn't a requirement of being the President. Now, if the people of the US set the highest of standards for that office that no human being can ever reach, and each time they feel let down, then perhaps its time for the American people to rethink themselves. There is a difference between having realistic expectations and setting the highest of expectations that you can't even reach yourself, nonetheless another human being.

Feel free to tear this post to threads (no pun intended), I might respond if you have resonable questions, but if you're just looking to criticize everything I belive, go right ahead, but I probably won't notice.

Quite seriously, I do pity the US. Voting there must seem like having the choice between hanging and drowning.

No...more like the choice between being locked in a small room with a wolverine that's high on PCP....and being locked in a small room with a steroid-laden bobcat who hasn't eaten in three days. :p

I helped Dubya steal the election. He gave me Rhode Island.
( I might rent it out to the Bill Gates though.)

Since I've been criticized for not making arguments, I'll respond to this one, since it's very concise. Good post by the way. :)

Good things about President Bush:

supports privatization

I agree with privatization for the most part, but I simply can't stand behind his Social Security plan. Not when it's going to cost as much as Kerrys health-plan was projected to...I didn't like either idea. I don't have a better idea for either SS or health care, but the arguments I've heard against the programs (Bush's and Kerry's) made more sense than those that were for.

tax cuts

The way we're spending, I can't see tax cuts as anything but bad news...but that's just me.

patient

Obviously. :)

Understanding.

Not so much...given his pro-religious, anti-gay stance.

Can see the big picture

Didn't seem to do so in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, but that remains to be seen.

principled

For the most part.

moral

The definition of which is an entire thread (hell, a whole forum), but I'll buy it.

bilingual

Didn't know that, I assume spanish?

looks to be a good father

Seems that way.

his daughters are mildly hot

Always a plus. :)

his wife is great (even though she has this plastered on smile and strange wave)

I completely agree.

strong leader

To a point...

has a good idea about what Europe is all about

Eastern Europe, maybe. Western Europe...well, I can't say the same.

didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol

Well, to me this is a bad thing, but I understand the reasons why he didn't

had lots of crap thrown in his lap and knew it came with the job and didn't complain about it once

I'm pretty sure he did NOT anticipate some of the things that have landed in his lap, but otherwise I agree.

knows what needs to be done

I guess so... :p

hates making public speaches, but still does it

I would think that very few politicians actually like making public speeches.

listens to other opinions

For the most part, but I've rarely seen him modify his own opnions based on the ideas and criticisim (constructive or otherwise) of others.

proud

Perhaps too much so.

has the greatest characteristics (that smile and laugh are priceless)

The smile isn't that bad, the laugh annoys me to no end. :p

suports Free Trade and NAFTA (I think)

I'm really split on the issue, and I honestly don't know Bush's full stance...so this gets a "meh".

understands where the US is historically and where it needs to go

I'll buy that.

believs the Constitution should be strictly interpreted

I favor "common law" over "code law" myself, but as long as he's consistent...

takes the blame when it's his to take

I won't comment on that, but a principle argument that is made against him is that he does not do so. (Hurricane Katrina being a recent exception)

hopeful, idealistic

I agree

charming

Not so much... :p

inherited a country that didn't think he was competent to do the job

No argument there.

a dady's boy

I suppose that could be considered a good thing.

hired the best people around him to make him look good

Like our previous FEMA director?

and doesn't like 'yes' people

Again, another argument against him is that he hires "yes" people.

a cynical country

A good thing?

a recession

He rode it out pretty well, but I don't see much that he did that any other Republican president wouldn't some Dems too.

a country that never gave him a chance and tries to bring him down at every opportunity and after all that he still goes on

I gave him a chance...No Child Left Behind basically killed it. Iraq didn't help either.

most human and honest of recent Presidents

A matter of opinion, but a widely held one.

tells the worst jokes, but you just have to laugh at them

LOL...no I don't :p

optimistic

Almost to a fault.

doesn't bend to presure

Both a good and a bad thing.

understands business (only President with a business degree, I think)

He didn't seem to have much luck as a buisnessman before his Presidency, but then again buisness is a ruthless field, so...another "meh"

Bad things about President Bush:

can come off a little arrogant, narrowminded, or pushy

He sure can.

supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage

A horrible idea, and I actually respect Cheney for disagreeing with the idea.

can be a little slow to react

Indeed.

isn't doing much about illegal immigration and he was Govenor of Texas for goodness sake

I certainly agree he isn't addressing the issue enough.

doesn't light a big enough fire under some people's asses

True...specifically the DHS.

can be the most unelloquent of people, but I don't hold that against him too much

Which of course is well documented...and neither do I. :)

isn't out more in the public but who would be when wherever you go people call you the most fowl and vulgar of things

True, but all presidents get called foul and vulgar things.

and spends a bit too much time in Texas, but I think it's because he hates the way Washington is and want's to get away from it when he can (I know people think he vacations there, but how many people go on vacation and have world leaders visit to discuss policy, discuss domestic and international policies, or communicate with the home office every day -- sounds like a crapy vacation to me).

True, but he could go to Camp David...closer to D.C. in times of crisis, well protected, just as wired as Crawford (more so), and then it wouldn't be sitting there unused sucking up taxpayer dollars.

---

A few more arguments against...

Favors development of offensive-use nuclear weapons.
Has a horrible environmental record (and not just Kyoto)

And my principle argument...

Proceeded in a nation-state building project in not one but TWO nations. Building one nation into a stable and functioning democracy takes decades and billions of dollars, and there is no guarantee it will work.

We should have finished the job in Afghanistan before doing anything else. And I mean FINISHED, as in...we have no need whatsoever to have any military personnell in Afghanistan, and the nation has a functioning democracy that has proven to be somewhat stable...

...as I said, a matter of decades, but the example to the rest of the Middle East would have been profound.

Bush certainly knew this before going into Afghanistan, and then Iraq, but never levelled with the American people because he knew such a committment would be unlikely to win broad popular support.

I would have supported such a measure in Afghanistan, but overextending into Iraq was just about the dumbest thing this country could have done.

But again...that's my opinion. :)

Who I voted for, is nobody's business.
It is a secret ballot for a reason.

I'll just say it's probably not be who you think it was,
in either election.



AND
the idea that "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain",
I completely reject that line of thinking.

voting, is but one way to participate.
If we were pushed into voting being the only way
to express our view or participate...
we might as well live in the old Soviet Union,
because guess what?
S.U. had elections too,
granted it was for only one party, but they still had "voting".

In fact their elections were more democratic
than ours.
Afterall, they could vote for "none of the above".

:rolleyes: It is only theft if your guy doesn't win.

Get over it. He won both elections, fair and square.
He may have actually won the second election, but the first was clearly stolen. Look at the facts. Black people were prevented from voting by mistakenly adding them to the convicted felon list. Blacks routinely vote Democrat. Many Cuban felons were "accidentally" omitted from the list. Cuban-Americans traditionally vote Republican. Florida, the state where these shenanigans went on, was the key to the electoral "victory".

It really looks to me like Bush stole the 2000 election with help from his brother Jeb, and in a democratic nation that is trying to be an inspiration for non-democratic states that's not something you just get over.

So why don't you get over it...because people are going to keep making legitimate arguments regarding the amazing cavalcade of fuckups this administration has presided over, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter.

They might have fucked up a lot, but that has no relevancy to saying that Bush stole the elections.

This nation has had many presidents before Bush who the people didn't like: some better, some worse. This nation has also had a president before Bush who didn't win the popular vote. Bush is nothing new!!!

You know what...NO.

I will certainly NOT "get over it", and neither will millions of other Americans who are tired of the overwhelming ineptness of the current administration.

I can guarantee you that had Kerry won the election, Republicans would most certainly NOT be "over it".

And h ere's the attitude that will continue to dog the Democratic Party. If they don't get over it, they won't win in 2006 nor in 2008.

So why don't you get over it...because people are going to keep making legitimate arguments regarding the amazing cavalcade of fuckups this administration has presided over, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter.

Problem here is, that there really is no legit arguement to make.

Why don't we just let this drop since it was 5 years ago as well as last year. Lets focus on 2006.

LMAO..."My" candidate. The only reason I voted for that idiot was that it was the only way to help get the other idiot out of office.

And yet more proof why Bush won. You don't vote for someone you don't like. If you didn't like Kerry then why did you vote for him? Give me one good reason why other than he's better than Bush since apparently, he wasn't.

I'm completely over Kerry losing...I am NOT over Bush winning.

Then get over Bush winning.

Your the one who seems to be all over the fact that Kerry lost. Why don't you get over it?

Because people don't seem to get it through their skulls that Bush won. When they get over that, we'll stop mentioning that Kerry lost.

Maybe you would have, but how many Republicans would be howling for blood over Kerrys two Supreme Court appointments? (Among other things...)

Not me!

He may have actually won the second election, but the first was clearly stolen. Look at the facts. Black people were prevented from voting by mistakenly adding them to the convicted felon list. Blacks routinely vote Democrat. Many Cuban felons were "accidentally" omitted from the list. Cuban-Americans traditionally vote Republican. Florida, the state where these shenanigans went on, was the key to the electoral "victory".

It really looks to me like Bush stole the 2000 election with help from his brother Jeb, and in a democratic nation that is trying to be an inspiration for non-democratic states that's not something you just get over.

Actually no! Bush didn't steal the 2000 election either. Every recount ever done showed that Bush was the winner and that was using some of the most lenient of standards.

Actually no! Bush didn't steal the 2000 election either. Every recount ever done showed that Bush was the winner and that was using some of the most lenient of standards.

Not to defend Bush bashers but I believe he was making reference to certain groups of people not being allowed to vote.

Actually no! Bush didn't steal the 2000 election either. Every recount ever done showed that Bush was the winner and that was using some of the most lenient of standards.
You can't count the votes of people who were illegally prevented from voting. Read my post. Blacks, who consistently vote democrat, were prevented from voting by placing innocent black people on lists of convicted felons who aren't allowed to vote. Cubans, who consistently vote republican, were permitted to vote whether they were convicted felons or not.

Not to defend Bush bashers but I believe he was making reference to certain groups of people not being allowed to vote.

You referring to Cons that can't vote?

How about the Democrats disqualifying MILITARY ABSENTEE votes. We can do the point the finger game all you like but the fact remains that nothing ever came of it. If nothing ever came of it, then apparently there wasn't any cheating.

Things were investigated by nothing came from those investigations.

You can't count the votes of people who were illegally prevented from voting. Read my post. Blacks, who consistently vote democrat, were prevented from voting by placing innocent black people on lists of convicted felons who aren't allowed to vote. Cubans, who consistently vote republican, were permitted to vote whether they were convicted felons or not.

And the Democrats tried to disqualify military absentee ballots. The military votes republican. That's disenfrancisement.

You referring to Cons that can't vote?

How about the Democrats disqualifying MILITARY ABSENTEE votes. We can do the point the finger game all you like but the fact remains that nothing ever came of it. If nothing ever came of it, then apparently there wasn't any cheating.

Things were investigated by nothing came from those investigations.
Actually we're refering to black people who were never convicted of a felony who were illegally added to the list of convicted felons who aren't allowed to vote.

And the Democrats tried to disqualify military absentee ballots. The military votes republican. That's disenfrancisement.
Were there reasons for the votes to be disqualified? Or was it "accidental" like the black voters who were "mistakenly" labeled felons?

I don't know about anyone else, but I think our nation has become to partied-based to hold any sort of valid election. Not to mention the fact that either party can make any sort of claim nowadays. We need to scrap the outdated Constitution and the outdated voting method and find new ones that work.

Were there reasons for the votes to be disqualified? Or was it "accidental" like the black voters who were "mistakenly" labeled felons?

Absolutely no reason at all.

Let me put it to you this way. How about both sides are guilty?

Absolutely no reason at all.

Let me put it to you this way. How about both sides are guilty?
If there was no reason to disqualify the military ballots then both sides really are guilty.

And here's the attitude that will continue to dog the Democratic Party. If they don't get over it, they won't win in 2006 nor in 2008.

"Get over it" obviously has different meanings for different people. Some would define it, in this instance, as merely accepting the fact that Bush won. This I have already done.

What I deem "getting over it" in this instance, would consist of no longer questioning the mistakes the administration has made and is making, and not raising my voice when the Republican majority proposes ideas that I don't find plausable.

Theres a difference there

Problem here is, that there really is no legit arguement to make.

Why don't we just let this drop since it was 5 years ago as well as last year. Lets focus on 2006.

Well, there's legitimate arguments to make...just not in this thread :p
I'll drop it. Mesatecala got my goat, and I ran with it to blow off steam. My bad. :)

And yet more proof why Bush won. You don't vote for someone you don't like. If you didn't like Kerry then why did you vote for him? Give me one good reason why other than he's better than Bush since apparently, he wasn't.

Kerry had a plan to provide comprehensive scholarships to those who've served active/front-line duty. A damn good idea.

Would he have actually implemented it? He had a lot of "plans". He hasn't put it foward in the Senate that I know of...but it was more than anything Bush had in that regard on his agenda.

Because people don't seem to get it through their skulls that Bush won. When they get over that, we'll stop mentioning that Kerry lost.

I know Bush won...doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

And with that...I leave the thread...sorry for the hijack. :)

No. I'm a moderate. You are... well so far to the left.

so far to the left? this is coming from a nation which despises a national health service because its communist. yet it works "brilliantly" here in the uk.

to be quite frank you are almost accusing him of being a communist and due to the virulent reactions i have seen from you sofar, you are far from moderate yourself.

to be fair we have had nothing but amusement from america in terms of its politics.

you have two parties, you get to choose between duck with peking sauce or duck with hoi sin sauce.

the content is essentially the same, but the garnish is a little different.

and in an FPTP system like the american one it is a base lie that you are elected with a majority, or mandate 47% of the people voted FOR you, but 53% DID NOT, rule of the majority my arse.

george bush in both elections looks highly shady, and worse still is the fact that jed controls florida, the key state which has swung both elections.

to top it off, 90,000 people being denied their democratic right is downright treasonable. does not your constitutioin state "we the people" not "me george bush"

to be honest, im happy with my communistic ideals, whats wrong with brothers and comrades working together for the greater good?

and in defence of my communistic ideals - yes the great soviet experiment failed - but that is because it was not a communist state but an autocratic dictatorship.

also - "happiness is found in the love of brothership" - unknown
whereas you wouldnt be happy if your m8 stole your job from you because he was slightly better :P

sick of this rant, to be honest i hope katrina was a wake up call to possibly the most imbecilic nation on the planet, love americans (some of you) hate america.

If you think Bush stole the elections, well then good for you. I like to think that people voted for him and the electoral system of the United States worked, as it has for 229 years. Granted there are occasional hiccups, but whenever a problem is found, it's dealt with. It isn't a perfect system, but we'll improve it as the years go along.

If you think Bush is a horrible President, then complain and complain, criticize and criticize away. If you want to make a sugestion or two somewhere in there then that'd be great too, but to each their own. I personally think that when someone complains or criticizes without offering any suggestions, then they really aren't helping anyone out, and it just sounds like constant nagging or bitterness. That's just my opinion though.

Good things about President Bush: supports privatization, tax cuts, patient, understanding, can see the big picture, principled, moral, bilingual, looks to be a good father, his daughters are mildly hot, his wife is great (even though she has this plastered on smile and strange wave), strong leader, has a good idea about what Europe is all about, didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, had lots of crap thrown in his lap and knew it came with the job and didn't complain about it once, knows what needs to be done, hates making public speaches, but still does it, listens to other opinions, proud, has the greatest characteristics (that smile and laugh are priceless), suports Free Trade and NAFTA (I think), understands where the US is historically and where it needs to go, believs the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, takes the blame when it's his to take, hopeful, idealistic, charming, inherited a country that didn't think he was competent to do the job, a dady's boy, hired the best people around him to make him look good, a cynical country, a recession, a country that never gave him a chance and tries to bring him down at every opportunity -- and after all that he still goes on, most human and honest of recent Presidents, tells the worst jokes, but you just have to laugh at them, optimistic, doesn't bend to presure, understands business (only President with a business degree, I think), and doesn't like 'yes' people. That's of course my opinion from the outside, haven't talked to the guy, or met him, but that's just what I see and like.

Bad things about President Bush: can come off a little arrogant, narrowminded, or pushy, supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage, can be a little slow to react, isn't doing much about illegal immigration and he was Govenor of Texas for goodness sake, doesn't light a big enough fire under some people's asses, can be the most unelloquent of people, but I don't hold that against him too much, isn't out more in the public, but who would be when wherever you go people call you the most fowl and vulgar of things, and spends a bit too much time in Texas, but I think it's because he hates the way Washington is and want's to get away from it when he can (I know people think he vacations there, but how many people go on vacation and have world leaders visit to discuss policy, discuss domestic and international policies, or communicate with the home office every day -- sounds like a crapy vacation to me).

So, admitedly, I have a slight bias because I like George W. Bush and think he's a great President. He is far from perfect, has his flaws, but who doesn't? Last time I checked, being perfect wasn't a requirement of being the President. Now, if the people of the US set the highest of standards for that office that no human being can ever reach, and each time they feel let down, then perhaps its time for the American people to rethink themselves. There is a difference between having realistic expectations and setting the highest of expectations that you can't even reach yourself, nonetheless another human being.

Feel free to tear this post to threads (no pun intended), I might respond if you have resonable questions, but if you're just looking to criticize everything I belive, go right ahead, but I probably won't notice.
Although I heartily applaud your efforts, you are making a totally unwarranted assumtion that facts and logic will have even a minimal impact on those determined to cling to their much preferred illogic, innuendo, and outright lies. It's analogous to the Biblical "casting pearls before swine!" :D

Maybe Bush should've shared some of his votes with Kerry.

Socialists would be all over that.

I really can't believe that this thread has come back. But liberals will always be liberals.

As far as the 2000 elelctions goes, there were shenanigans executed on both sides of the aisle. But the NY Times and Washington Post and almost every other major outlet of the print and electronic media did thorough recounts and investigations into so called election tampering and came up with NOTHING!!!! It's not true. This has been proven time and time again. Oh and as far as Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court, that is the way it's supposed to work. That's how it was designed.

2004 - Bush won - Kerry lost. Period. Oh the democrats tried to pull that "he stole the election' line again, but it didn't take like it did in the 2000 election.

For the record I really don't like Bush. I think that he has screwed up in so many areas such as border protection, No Child Left Behind, BORDER SECURITY, DHS, TSA, oh and did I mention BORDER SECURITY?

We are at war and we have not sealed our borders? Isn't that a no brainer? No Child Left Behind? Give me a break. I've never read any amendment to the Constitution that gave the federal government responsibility over the education of our children. That is a parent responsibility at best and a local government issue at worst. Bush has expanded our federal government more than any other President in history and that is just sad.

What has he done well? After a decade of our troops and assets being blown up, he has finally taken a stance of doing something about it and going and destroying the terrorist organizations that have declared war on us. Unlike our previous administration. And many other things.

Well, have to cut this short, but just wanted to mention one thing about the tax cuts. When JFK slashed taxes the result was an INCREASE in the federal treasury. When Reagan cut taxes the same thing happened. And guess what? When Bush did it, the same thing happened again. Do you liberals see a pattern here? When taxes get cut, more money goes to the government. That's the way it always works.

What has he done well? After a decade of our troops and assets being blown up, he has finally taken a stance of doing something about it and going and destroying the terrorist organizations that have declared war on us. Unlike our previous administration. And many other things.

Well, have to cut this short, but just wanted to mention one thing about the tax cuts. When JFK slashed taxes the result was an INCREASE in the federal treasury. When Reagan cut taxes the same thing happened. And guess what? When Bush did it, the same thing happened again. Do you liberals see a pattern here? When taxes get cut, more money goes to the government. That's the way it always works.
Snipped original post


Clinton actually did bomb Al Quaeda training camps in Afghanistan, and the Clinton administration did warn the Bush administration that Al Quaeda was the biggest security threat they would have to deal with. Bush put it on the back burner untill 9/11. Don't give Bush too much credit for keeping the US safe.

Tax cuts will stimulate the economy under certain conditions. If the people are too highly taxed, it will free up money for private sector growth, in a recession it can spur recovery a little bit faster, but if the net effect of the tax cuts are to reduce the ability of the government to build and maintain the transportation and communications infrastructure that the private sector depends on or to cut social services that give a ghetto kid the opportunity to go to college and become a productive worker or inventor then tax cuts are like eating the seed corn. It'll fill you up today, but tomorrow you starve. Bush's tax cut will make us all very hungry in years to come. It will kill our economy if made permanent.

He won both elections, fair and square.riiigth...and FOX is "Fair and Balanced"

You know what...NO.

I will certainly NOT "get over it", and neither will millions of other Americans who are tired of the overwhelming ineptness of the current administration.

I can guarantee you that had Kerry won the election, Republicans would most certainly NOT be "over it".

So why don't you get over it...because people are going to keep making legitimate arguments regarding the amazing cavalcade of fuckups this administration has presided over, regardless of your own thoughts on the matter.

Had Kerry won, you can bet that most republicans would have at least had the dignity to show far more class than the whining democrats have shown...

Florida law mandated how long counties were able to count ballots... Bush won Florida, and was upheld by Florida statutes. Gore wanted to keep counting and re-counting his votes until he'd manufactured a win in those counties. Simply put, Gore tried to steal Florida out from under the nose of legislature-passed election laws. Shameless.

in 2004... it wasn't even that close. but unlike Gore, at least Kerry went out with class.

riiigth...and FOX is "Fair and Balanced"
Yeah....... somehow I think sarcasm is needed when you read that particular phrase when associated with that television station. And now correct me if I am wrong, but didn't FOX call the 2000 election in favour of Bush, even though the other stations and even your Election control people said the Gore won? And wasn't it later shown that the Republicans had disenfranchised certain people in several states?
Something tells me that certain aspects, of the first election at least, were illegal or at least highly questionable.

secondly, Delator, give me a list of the administration's fuck-ups...

really...

Iraq? - Took down Saddam, and are in the process of helping Iraq have a democratically elected government.

Afghanistan? - Took down the Taliban... still fighting the pesky Taliban, but they are out of power at least.

Katrina? - while Bush failed to invent a giant vacuum cleaner to suck up all that water, if you want to blame someone, BLAME NAGIN FIRST. He had the resources to get most of those people out of NO (school buses) but decided to ask for Grayhounds. lol

9/11? - Yeah, totally Bush's fault. Aside from the fact that Clinton had Usama cornered at least once during his administration, Bush was just asking for 9/11 to happen.

Stock market going down? - Tech-related stocks were inflated during the 1990s, and it was only a matter of time before the boom became a bust. It started really happening in late spring of 2000 (if memory serves). And anyway, a president can't control the buying/selling decisions of millions of American stockholders.

Our economy is fine, Katrina notwithstanding. the Dow is pretty stable above 10,000 points and should continue to rise gradually after Katrina's effects abate. Anyway, the economy depends far more on consumers and investors like you and me than it does on any president.

Tax cuts for everyone? - Well the lazy among us aren't getting as much welfare probably, which pisses them off no doubt... but for those who use money to buy things and invest in companies, tax cuts cannot hurt.

so what are these actions you deem reprehensible?

so far to the left? this is coming from a nation which despises a national health service because its communist. yet it works "brilliantly" here in the uk.


Doesn't work for all countries.

Look at Canada.

Florida law mandated how long counties were able to count ballots... Bush won Florida, and was upheld by Florida statutes. Gore wanted to keep counting and re-counting his votes until he'd manufactured a win in those counties. Simply put, Gore tried to steal Florida out from under the nose of legislature-passed election laws. Shameless.
But it was later proved that Gore should have won Florida, I seem to remember being in the US at the time and watching a program on one of your television stations which went into it and showed that Gore had several thousand more votes than Bush... Or is winning fairly something unheared of in Florida?

Canada City']Doesn't work for all countries.

Look at Canada.

There are always exceptions to the rule... Mind you I would rather be subject to the Canadian health service anyday over the American... Hell I would take the Cuban health system over the American (I am carefully ignoring the fact that the Cuban health system is actually one of the best in the world).

Several times throughout this thread, negative comments have been made concerning our two-party system. While I agree that a tri-party system would be better (preferably the Libritarians). I want to make it known, however, that the GOP and Dems were not the two original parties. Actually, there have been several third parties to take over (both the Dems and GOP were at one time third parties).

Several times throughout this thread, negative comments have been made concerning our two-party system. While I agree that a tri-party system would be better (preferably the Libritarians). I want to make it known, however, that the GOP and Dems were not the two original parties. Actually, there have been several third parties to take over (both the Dems and GOP were at one time third parties).

But there has never been a serious election with three distinct main parties (some of you might hype on about the Republican/Democrat/Bull Moose split in 1912, but honestly, what's the difference between Republicans and Bull Moose? Nothing except who they chose to run for office.) What we need is a good solid three or four parties - Republicans, Democrats (a bit farther left than they are now, though), Social Democrats and Liberitarians (sp?), maybe with a Neo-Con minority.

Conceited? For believing in rule by majority?

But what if the majority is wrong?

No I didnt vote in the US election, I am British. Nor did I vote in the General Election over here, I wasnt 18 until the month afterwards, but I would have done.

Now, back to my point. Supposing everyone in your country voted to rape your sister. Voted to abolish the laws that protected her and for the right to line up and have a go? Would that be RIGHT? It most certainly would not.

But, Seeing as how you believe that the majority should have its way, surely you should accept this as "what is right", even though it is not?



(P.S If your sister has been raped then sorry, if you dont have a sister then dont point it out, you get the point)