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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Just my figuring......
Kerry represented the very left, something most people in this country is not. They could have picked another candidate like Lieberman who could very easily beat Bush, but they didn't. This is why I think it happened the way it did:

Kerry was a way for "them" to test the waters, see how many people would vote for a loony left, and they almost got the loony left in office, which was not what they wanted. They wanted Bush in office to continue to do the military campaign through the sovereign area of the Middle East. Those states over there are dangerous, no doubt, but they are also NOT NWO members, to my knowledge. So, this gives Bush time to do the "Protect America" thing while in the process rooting out NWO stumbling blocks. Shoot, maybe we'll even get around to North Korea.

Remember, China basically controls the Panama Canal now. That should be enough evidene to prove that the NWO theories are of substance.
Nothing happens by accident.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Please expand on this. How does china control the panama canal? I would think if any country did, it would be Iberia, as most ships are flagged out of this country.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Nothing happens by accident.


Very True.

That is why I think Bush potentially "stole" the election so as to minimize the criticism of the first term. Remember the controversy around 9/11 and the Iraq War Charade....to change presidents(lower cap intended) would be to provide much fuel to the lefty's of our nation. Bush has 4 more years to layer associations that distract from the bumbling of not only himself, but his administration(remember the astonishing amount of redesignations?)

Just a thought, that and Bush has proven to be a worthy target for the Late Night shows



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Just my figuring......
Kerry represented the very left, something most people in this country is not. They could have picked another candidate like Lieberman who could very easily beat Bush, but they didn't. This is why I think it happened the way it did:

Kerry was a way for "them" to test the waters, see how many people would vote for a loony left, ...


Don't you think our primary system has something to do with it? It's the looney left that usually votes in the Democratic primaries and they're more likely to choose one of their own than a Lieberman type Democrat. The same goes for the Republican party and probably means that liberal Republicans such as Giuliani can't win the Republican nomination.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Kerry represented the very left, something most people in this country is not.


That's sort of the common conception, but personally, I don't think it's really accurate. But I have to credit the Bush campaign in making it seem that this was the case. I'm not saying that Kerry isn't on the left, but I personally am way further to the left than he, as are many others.

And just as the Kerry campaign was injured by charges of "liberalism", they ignored an obvious advantage, i.e., they could have just as easily accused the Bush administration of being far rightists. They didn't capitalize on this, and somehow got stuck with the "extremist" tag from their opponents.

What would actually be sort of funny if not so scary, is that the bulk of Bush supporters cringe at the word "liberal". The reason I find this scary is that "liberal" simply means one whose main concern is individual liberty; that being the case, I'm concerned at the agenda of any political party or organization who would attempt to demonize such a word.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   
well what Masonic light says about the word "liberal" is only ONE dictionary definition. Here are some others:




Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.



Liberal has come to mean, to many voters in America, someone who is generous (with other people's money), a person who is not strict or literal (with the truth); loose or aproximate (morals), as well as being licentious.

If it has become a dirty word, maybe it has something to do with people have carried the moniker; just like "republican" has acquired an odious connotation in your eyes, right?




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


If it has become a dirty word, maybe it has something to do with people have carried the moniker; just like "republican" has acquired an odious connotation in your eyes, right?


Not at all. There are some very good, decent, and honorable Republicans. In fact, if Sen. John McCain had won the Republican nomination in 2000, I would have voted for him. Unfortunately, this gentleman who served his nation in Vietnam, spending years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, was viciously (and falsely) attacked as "un-American" by his Republican opponent in a barrage of TV ads that could only be labeled sewage, and the far right bought it, hook, lime, and sinker.

And the same individual (who himself never served on a battlefield) did the exact same thing to another war hero (this time a Democratic opponent) in the 2004 elections.

Concerning political affiliation, I agree wholeheartedly with Nietzsche: "A man of integrity, intelligence, and character can never be a party man; it's just simply impossible."

Therefore, I'm not concerned at all with what political affiliations a candidate has as to party. My concern is with the issues, and with the personal character of the man or woman who is running for office. Perhaps you may feel differently, but I do not believe that a man who orchestrates the largest deficit in the nation's history, becomes the first president in US history to launch a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation unprovoked, petitions for and grants the largest tax cut in history for the wealthy while middle class jobs disappear at a record rate (along with unemployment compensation), shirks the Geneva Convention's anti-torture legislation, repeals environmental protection at a record rate, then claims to be doing all this for the grace of God, has the proper character or integrity necessary to lead this great country into the future.

I suppose what I consider to be "morality" just differs from that of the 2004 majority electorate.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Well, that's politics for you.

I do not whole-heartedly approve of Bush. But I could not bring myself to vote for a man who, I believe, claimed medals for himself that he did not actually deserve, then renounced the war he claimed to have killed people for, and wrote a book that gave aid and comfort to the enemy while the war was still going on.

Bush provided tax-relief for myself and millions of other middle-class Americans. It's sad that you see that as some sort of abomination. I also disagree with you about the morality of the current war. While the suffering is something we all wish we could alleviate, we could not do so and still protect the our own or the world's interests.

It's hilarious that you say Bush is the first president to launch a pre-emptive invasion. I can tell that you are better-read than that! What about the Mexican American War, Or the Spanish American War, or the "Independence" of Panama from Columbia, or the siezing of the Philippines. Or the US invasion of Guatemala in 1954.

Millions of Somalis have a different recollection of the past decade, as well.

It's odd how liberals laud Kerry for his conduct in a war that they opposed at the time (Vietnam), and yet villify the current president when he is seeking to fight a war with similar Casis Belli, and which Kerry himself voted for!

For all your claims of non-partisanship, your posts on this thread make it sound like bush, or any conservative was doomed in your eyes before they were even sworn in.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Syntaxer - that is very interesting. I will have to research it.


As for the electronic voting machines - ask yourself one question: which company makes them and who do they support? Its a no brainer.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Question to my American friends:

How come the statement "better dead than Red" doesn't apply anymore. I kinda like it as far as the States is concerned!

In Canada, if you're "red" means you're Liberal.

I just think its a funny contrast, don't mind me.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Well, that's politics for you.


That, my firend, is the truth with a capital "T".


I do not whole-heartedly approve of Bush. But I could not bring myself to vote for a man who, I believe, claimed medals for himself that he did not actually deserve, then renounced the war he claimed to have killed people for, and wrote a book that gave aid and comfort to the enemy while the war was still going on.


This is an example of the disinformation campaign I spoke of earlier. Publicly, Bush admitted that Kerry earned his honors. Those who served under him universally backed Kerry, as did his commanding officers. But Bush's friends in Texas launched the Swift Boat ads. This way, the Bush campaign was able to keep their propaganda going, without allowing the finger to be pointed to Bush personally, i.e., through Bush's constant admission that Kerry's honors were deserved. This is almost exactly the same technique used against McCain in 2000.

Secondly, I do not agree that protesting a war constitutes giving aid to an enemy. After all, if our nation is truly founded upon justice, it seems to me that it becomes our duty to protest any action of the government if it is unjust.


Bush provided tax-relief for myself and millions of other middle-class Americans. It's sad that you see that as some sort of abomination.


My problem with the so-called "tax relief" is that it bankrupted our nation, turning a large surplus into a record deficit. The problem with a deficit is that, eventually, somebody's got to pay. It's fairly easy to cut taxes in order to get people to vote for you, which is the short-term effect. But the long term effects can often be disastrous.

This is especially true now that we're at war. This is the only time in history where taxes were actually cut during war time, instead of raised. Therefore, we're spending billions in non-existent money to fund it. And, sooner or later, we're going to have to pay for it.


I also disagree with you about the morality of the current war. While the suffering is something we all wish we could alleviate, we could not do so and still protect the our own or the world's interests.


The "interests" concerning this war was the claim that Iraq had illegal weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to the United States. We know that at one time, Iraq was indeed generating these weapons. We also know that U.N. inspectors were doing their jobs, and reported that such weapons had been scrapped.

Several former Bush aides have indicated that Mr. Bush began immediately after assuming office, looking for reasons to start a war in Iraq. The U.N. inspectors were ignored, and a war was launched under false pretenses.


It's hilarious that you say Bush is the first president to launch a pre-emptive invasion. I can tell that you are better-read than that!


Bush is not the first US President to launch a pre-emptive invasion. But what I actually said was that he is the first to do so unprovoked.


It's odd how liberals laud Kerry for his conduct in a war that they opposed at the time (Vietnam), and yet villify the current president when he is seeking to fight a war with similar Casis Belli, and which Kerry himself voted for!


I disagreed with Kerry's "yes" vote then, and I do so now. But at least Kerry admitted that his vote was a mistake, and wished to take steps to correct this.


For all your claims of non-partisanship, your posts on this thread make it sound like bush, or any conservative was doomed in your eyes before they were even sworn in.


I do not consider Bush a conservative at all. The so-called "neo-conservative" of the right wing is a long, long way from the classical conservatism of Burke. For example, Clinton, a moderate liberal, reduced the size of the federal government by almost a quarter. The size of the federal government has increased almost 40% during the Bush administration. Such a thing is anathema to conservatism, and is the reason that classical conservatives have opposed Bush.

But my major problem with Bush is simply that he, as a man who was able to use his father's influence to get out of war himself, is all too ready to send other people's children to their deaths on foreign soil for make believe reasons. I would oppose such a candidate for office regardless of which political party they belonged to.



[edit on 15-1-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
Question to my American friends:

How come the statement "better dead than Red" doesn't apply anymore. I kinda like it as far as the States is concerned!

In Canada, if you're "red" means you're Liberal.

I just think its a funny contrast, don't mind me.


Eisenhower was pissed that the department of defense was spending money to draft up a strategic plan of surrender to the Russians. Eisenhower had Richard B. Russell draw up an amendment that would not allow any government agency or official to allocate money to the study strategic surrender. It reads as follows.




No part of the funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used to pay (1) any person, firm or corporation, or any combinations of persons, firms, or corporations, to conduct a study or to plan when and how or in what circumstances the Government of the United States should surrender this country and its people to any foreign power, (2) the salary or compensation of any employee or official of the Government of the United States who proposes or contracts or who has entered into contracts for the making of studies or plans for the surrender by the Government of the United States of this country and its people to any foreign power in any event or under circumstances.11


It was passed.
You can read its current language here: US Code Title 50, Chapter 15, Paragraph 407.
fatty.law.cornell.edu...


[edit on 15-1-2005 by wiggy]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
it doesnt matter who americans pick as their president, rome will pull the strings and alienate america from their enemies and in doing so wipe oot the protestant and jews. this is what the vatican wants!



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Hey Wiggy - I get that it had something to do with Communism. I guess what I meant to ask is how long has the republican colour been red and how long have states been referred to as red states or blue states?=? Its just funny to me because of the expression which I know was in use in the 50's. Did it also have something to do with Joseph mcCarthy?

As I mentioned b4, in Canada its the exact opposite blue is for conservative, red for lilberal (and orange is new democratic party...which is the true "left" working man's party here). Although in elections they don't divide provinces/territories up by colour.

Thanks for any clarification, buddy!


[edit on 15/1/05 by AlwaysLearning]

[edit on 15/1/05 by AlwaysLearning]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
ML I have to respectively disagree with your connontation of...


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.


First it makes the assumption that NASCAR fans are illiterate and uneducated....Which is as bad as the attacks we Mason's take about our own fraternity....

What makes the "best class" of people?

I watched an interview with one of Kerry's "handlers". I can't even remember the person's name at the moment, But he stated in the interview that "they had a very poor candidate". He said that he would make a public statement then afterward have to call a number of people just to see if he handled it right.....This is not the steadfast type of person we want leading our country....Granted this is found out after the fact (kind of like Kerry grilling Bush on the lack of WMD's even tho he voted to persue them when he had the same information)...

Ever think that those "Nascar voters" could see through the smokescreen that Kerry couldn't make a decision on his own? (As was later revealed in that interview) And maybe it was the urbanites that were duped?

I'm not saying Bush doesn't have his faults....nobody is perfect....but frankly John Kerry scared me...for a number of reasons.....and this is not the forum to dive into them....



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
speaking of nascar, busch also won the series...
probably just a coincidence, no seriously i actually mean it this time.

my theory: (take at face value = 0)
im going with the theory that the dems wanted to lose (in order to gain ground later during a more key time in 2008-2012), but sold the theory of a kerry prez to the rest of their party by telling them that they could use the SKB connections to reform the intel field to their favor (as opposed to bush who did the same thing) and gain control of the E-voting machines (diebold, this is the main reason for the bones argument). A strategy which backfired (as planned). I think they were supposed to be able to keep diebold in check with their lawfirm Kirk and Ellis (abbreviated) but coincidence has it that those lawfirms are made up of mostly republicans....

in short both sides agreed to implement e-voting, and now the neo cons have the key to it. we can now expect most of our services to become privatized before the dems takeover the president again. who will probably adovcate some sort of globaliztion economic policy to bail us out of a huge financial crisis.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
i honestly feel Bush won because he is better looking then Kerry. Plus he just just looks beter for the job. This is only my opinion



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuTroll
speaking of nascar, busch also won the series...
probably just a coincidence, no seriously i actually mean it this time.

The name of the series is Busch, not sure how they won it.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horsey316
i honestly feel Bush won because he is better looking then Kerry. Plus he just just looks beter for the job. This is only my opinion


lol, Horsey, this statement basically sums up my entire argument, i.e., that the majority of the electorate vote superficially. It was probably said that Stalin was better looking than Trotsky, but that didn't work out well either.


As to Golfie's response to my NASCAR comment:

My first post on the subject indicated the Platonic theory that only philosophers are suited to choose leaders. By "philosopher", I don't necessarily mean someone with a Ph.D., and neither did Plato. Rather, it refers to one who submits everything to reason, and makes decisions thereby.

I used NASCAR as an example because I saw way too many interviews on TV with NASCAR fans at the races, who all claimed they were voting for Bush because of "moral values". But such a claim cannot withstand the test of reason. Regardless of how the Bush campaign marketed it, "morality" does not stand on abortion and gay marriage alone. Indeed, it could easily be seen to be immoral for government to dictate to people what to do with their own bodies, or to deny same-sex couples contractual rights that are freely given to heterosexuals.

But it goes even further. There's nothing moral in masterminding the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Nor is there anything moral about putting money and oil interests over that of people and the natural environment.

As another example, there is a sense of bewilderment among the common people in the US concerning the anger of our allies directed at us concerning the war. But they haven't stopped to consider the fact that the Bush administration has requested the network and cable news shows to bypass showing such things as coffins draped in US flags and Iraqi children with their limbs blown off. "Out of sight, out of mind". But the rest of the world views these images daily, and are incensed at the massacre. And on top of it all, even though practically every news media outlet in the country have caved to the administration's pressure to sugarcoat war tragedies, they're labeled as "liberal media" by the right if they even dare to ask a question concerning it.

In several polls taken just before the election, it was shown that over half of likely voters believed that the war in Iraq had something to do with September 11. The fact that this is not true, and that the real perpetrators of the crime of 9/11 continue to walk freely and that the Iraqi war was started due to false claims concerning WMD's, was wholly lost on them.

If people do not even understand the issues, they are not going to vote wisely.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
well the problem was that you had to pick between a man who choked on a pretzel or a jay leno look-alike


politics is just a waste of time



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join