It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why pick Bush instead of Kerry?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I've been wondering something for a long time. Why do you think Skull and Bones or the Illuminati decided to pick Bush over Kerry in this election considerinng they are both member of Skull and Bones?




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Because they knew it would make people paranoid and therefore people would choose to elect Kerry instead of Bush. Just like Al'Queda's endorsement of Bush. You think they really supported Bush over Kerry?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I really believe that Bush is better manipulated that Kerry ever would be, that is why he is the president the people behind Bush re-election when through lots of trouble to get him where he is at.

And I am not taking about the regular American citizens either.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Uh, what makes you think they 'picked' Bush through the election? What are you talking about?

The Bonesmen picked Kerry to run against Bush because he was the lamest duck they had. Who would vote for that guy? Gunning down Vietnamese people from a fast boat dosn't make me admire him. Ron Kovic is far more heroic than John Kerry.

The voting public picked Bush (ostensibly).

The US election process is akin to a coin turning over in mid air. All the US is hypnotized by it and they are arguing, "Heads is better!" and "No way, TAILS is where it's at!"

Some of these folks see the coin and they say, "Man, BOTH sides look bad." but they still pick a side to like less and vote for the other.

I voted Green because all the people told me not to. I dcided after 9/11 to give the system the finger. If there's no earth, there's no life worth living. While the Green party is full of shills and idiots, the philosophy of less corporate destruction and pollution makes me happier.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I voted Green because all the people told me not to. I dcided after 9/11 to give the system the finger. If there's no earth, there's no life worth living. While the Green party is full of shills and idiots, the philosophy of less corporate destruction and pollution makes me happier.


I live in Illinois. We weren't even given the option to vote green. I very much believe we need more major political parties in this country (so you're not picking the lesser of two evils but rather the candidate that best reflects what you believe. No more vote for or against the incumbant), and living in Illinois my vote for Bush wouldn't have done much, so I'd have voted for Nader. But alas, never got the opportunity.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Eversince the electronic was install...Bush had already won (stole) the election...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I believe "they", gave John Kerry enough power/wealth when they assasinated his secret lover Teresa Heinz's husband Senator John Heinz. I know some kind of love triangle took place between the two because after Heinz's mysterious death (91) the two were introduced in Brazil during a ballroom party hosted by George H.W Bush (92). Although the main objective in having John Heinz snuffed was to curb his intentions when he was about to blow the lid on the contra/iran issue.

I have a feeling George H.W Bush because he's so old is right up there in ranks. Chances are Kerry was simply to throw the election or just sit there and let the electronic fabricating vote machines give the presidence to little Dubya.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
i believe kerry was a stooge, and bush has the family connection, btw....



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Truth is current and past members of Skull & Bones didnt care who was picked. Either way they were getting a member in, it was a win win situation.

If there is a Illuminati its anyone guess who they wanted if anyone

[edit on 14-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The NWO plan is more believeable coming from him. If Kerry was trying to act out the script of the coming "dark years," No one would believe he could be such an idiot.

With Bush, it seems possible that such screw-ups were unintentional

The coservative Christian hippocrits will stand by their boy no matter what, because he has the blessings of God on him. So they will sign on to a One World Govt.

But Kerry's supporters would ditch him if he started grabbing police powers, and the nascar vote already hated him.

They did the same thing during the civil war. The republicans were sold on Lincoln, no matter what. And he had every Democrat in Maryland arrested and held without trial for the duration of the civil war.

See, republicans have a long history of eusurping our rights.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I really believe that Bush is better manipulated that Kerry ever would be, that is why he is the president the people behind Bush re-election when through lots of trouble to get him where he is at.

And I am not taking about the regular American citizens either.


Sorry marge, have to disagree with you there. If you'll remember, it was Kerry that claimed that following bad advice (manipulation by his handlers) on the Swift Boat ads during the campaign cost him the election. Also Kerry's brilliant solution on foreign policy would be to go to the U.N. for permission to conduct our foreign policy. Talk about being open to manipulation! On the other hand, one thing Bush isn't is pushed around. Sometimes wrongly, he makes up his mind and just pushes off in that direction and keeps going that way even of others would have thought about it a little more. Wishy-washy or manipulated, Bush isn't.

[edit on 1/14/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwen
Eversince the electronic was install...Bush had already won (stole) the election...



Um...did someone say prove it? Oh yeah I said that to myself as i read that.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Sorry marge, have to disagree with you there. If you'll remember, it was Kerry that claimed that following bad advice (manipulation by his handlers) on the Swift Boat ads during the campaign cost him the election.


Yes I agree that the swift boats adds cost him the election.



Also Kerry's brilliant solution on foreign policy would be to go to the U.N. for permission to conduct our foreign policy. Talk about being open to manipulation! On the other hand, one thing Bush isn't is pushed around.


Now his is right on this one, but what he said was misinterpreted by political gain as many other things.

Now lets remember that having support from the UN was what it make the first gulf war a success.

You can see what a mess we have now because the lack of UN and other allies in Iraq, and also the ones that supported us during the first part of the invasion has moved out of Iraq since the problems started in Iraq with the targeting an killing of foreign troops.




Sometimes wrongly, he makes up his mind and just pushes off in that direction and keeps going that way even of others would have thought about it a little more. Wishy-washy or manipulated, Bush isn't.


Now I don't agree with that either mind you, the reason is that we are in Iraq is because Mr. Bush was easily manipulated into believing on Saddam having MWDs, by at the time his advisers, Mr. Allawi and Mr. Chalabi. Ignoring his own Intel. Both of these man wanted power in Iraq, and as you can see Allawi was the victor.

It was no hurry to invade and take Saddam, he was not going anywhere and we already got our revenge on the tali ban and AL-queda in Afghanistan Mr. Bush forgot about getting Bin-Ladden in his pursue of Iraq. The results of the invasion, the poor planning and the lack of support from other countries is why we are in a mess in Iraq.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now I don't agree with that either mind you, the reason is that we are in Iraq is because Mr. Bush was easily manipulated into believing on Saddam having MWDs, by at the time his advisers, Mr. Allawi and Mr. Chalabi. Ignoring his own Intel. Both of these man wanted power in Iraq, and as you can see Allawi was the victor.


But perhaps Bush wasn't manipulated. It's just as easy to see this scenario happening: Bush decides to attack Iraq and then looks for supporting reasons. He then decides to use the WMD issue to justify his decision (to the rest of us) before it's proven to be true. Hey, this sounds familiar - just like Rathergate. Who's manipulating who?

Also, Kerry made it a central theme of his campaign that he would go to the U.N. for 'approval' on foreign policy. Wouldn't that also mean the U.N. would have de facto command of our armed forces? Who would trust the U.N. to look out for us?

[edit on 1/14/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
I've been wondering something for a long time. Why do you think Skull and Bones or the Illuminati decided to pick Bush over Kerry in this election considerinng they are both member of Skull and Bones?


It was the American voters who picked Bush; and for the most part, I would hardly call the electorate "illuminated."

As for members of Skull and Bones, I'm sure the Democrats there voted for Kerry, and the Republican members voted for Bush, just like everywhere else.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Exit polling showed Kerry won by 6%....

Just google for 2004 election fraud....



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Exit polling showed Kerry won by 6%....

Just google for 2004 election fraud....


Exit polling should not be used as factual evidence. Most people just said " its not any of your business".



[edit on 14-1-2005 by wiggy]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

But perhaps Bush wasn't manipulated. It's just as easy to see this scenario happening: Bush decides to attack Iraq and then looks for supporting reasons. He then decides to use the WMD issue to justify his decision (to the rest of us) before it's proven to be true. Hey, this sounds familiar - just like Rathergate. Who's manipulating who?


Perhaps you are right also and is more to the story, of invade and conquer.

I tell you what I think that all the countries need to be united to protect each other that is a plus.

But the problems with UN are problems that can be fix, after all US companies were involved in the scandal also.




[edit on 14-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Exit polling showed Kerry won by 6%....


That's true, but that is a statistcal method that is liable to error, even outside the standard deviation they refer to as the "margin of error". It's extremely rare that the margin of error is broken, but it can happen: the most famous case is the presidential race between Truman and Dewey, where exit polls showed a Dewey victory of over 8%.

There does indeed appear to have been cases of error, especially in Ohio. Whether or not this constituted actual intentional fraud can't be said for sure. I was a Kerry supporter, and still get emails from his campaign. The last one I received, from about a week ago, commented on the campaign's concern over what happened in Ohio, but conceded that the errors would not have made up enough votes for Kerry to have carried the state.

In the end, although I certainly wouldn't put it past practically any politician to actively engage in fraud, I think Bush was able to attain victory this time due to his campaign's ability to provide a smokescreen, pulling the wool over the eyes of a majority of voters who know practically nothing about the issues, and deep down don't really care. The majority of Bush's supporters were working class families, who tend to vote against their own interests anytime the right wing can make "morals" an issue. Granted, the right wing's "morality" is just rhetoric, but unfortunately, most of our fellow Americans these days aren't deep thinkers, and are easily duped by rhetoric.

It won't be until Americans truly begin to take the issues seriously that we will see a change for the better. In a democracy, it's not necessarily the best man who will win (in fact, the famous Masonic author and philosopher Albert Pike claimed that in a democracy, it's almost always the worst man who will win). These probably comes from Plato, who said pretty much the same thing, i.e., in a democracy, it's the court of public opinion that rules, and public opinion is rarely correct on any issue.

Plato recommended a society of philosophers to correct this, but we're currently a long way from that. Instead, the NASCAR vote won out; maybe not the best class suitable to determining to the future course of a nation, but the most populous, which gives them that power.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Exit polling showed Kerry won by 6%....

Just google for 2004 election fraud....



You people want to replace the electoral college with exit polls - because it's the only way you can win an election - even with the machine you have in place to steal/manufacture votes.

I just have to ask you this. So, if I went to 5 different polling places and only voted at one, but came out and told an exit poll how I voted at all 5 places that should count as 5 'votes'
I guess in your world.


[edit on 1/14/2005 by centurion1211]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join