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 is George W. Bush really the President?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
For anyone who is brand new to the issue of how the 2004 election came to be corrupt and fraudulent in the electoral process itself (quite separately from the machinery of lies and diversions and terrorism from the Bush administration), this article from yesterday is useful:

www.inthesetimes.com...

February 15, 2005
A Corrupted Election
Despite what you may have heard, the exit polls were right
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf



Recall the Election Day exit polls that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory? The media readily dismissed those polls and little has been heard about them since.

Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official, tallied vote count, exit polls had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy between the election night exit polls and the official count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags...

(The explanations are in some depth and the " 20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA" are priceless.)

The standard responses to questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process from ATS members who are not hear to question, are partisan things like "You lost. Get over it." and "51% of Americans voted for Bush so Bush is right". In other words, it's all very circular and only a few people want to get a grip on the issues.

There have been dozens of topics about election fraud and voting machine fraud and the orchestration of fraud through intimidation and dismissal of legitimate voters, too, at ATS. U2U if you want MA's recommendations of some to check out.








They didn't poll everyone that voted, so there is no way that they were going to be very accurate.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

would you make sure that the right people were in place to deal with it? I know I would.


Yep, I'd sure choose a drunk-driving, coc aine snorting, borderline deserter, c-student who only made it through college due to daddy's money, and can't even string together a coherent sentence, guy to be the leader of the free world....

Yep, that'd be my choice alright! [/sarcasm]

Actually, given the lackluster (being kind) performance of the CIA in the past few years, I'd say you may actually have something there....



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto

They didn't poll everyone that voted, so there is no way that they were going to be very accurate.



You show that:

(1) You did not read the article
(2) You have no understanding of scientific polling at all.

Never mind, ATS is a free-for-all, and we can upon choosing to do so, filter the informed from the uninformed.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
George W. Bush Is President Because A Majority Of Americans Voted For Him



Actually, dead wrong. About half a million more voted for Al Gore.


He got the electoral points necessary, not the majority.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Thanks for pointing that out, halo_aura. My main focus of this post was primarily focused on the 2000 election. Even though, in the 2004 election, the Bush Administration had a back up plan in case Kerry had run away with the vote. Ohio. This is only speculation on my part.

Election 2000

Gore gets a half million more votes than Bush in the popular vote.

Bush loses the popular vote only to win with the electoral vote months later after Tom, Dick and Harry pull every string in the book.

You have to admit that the 2000 Election was a fiasco.

It’s almost like someone said, “I don’t care what the consequences are or how far you have to go. You just get Bush elected and I’ll deal with the ramifications later.”

Please keep in mind. I am a Bush supporter but I just question his rise to power.


[edit on 15-2-2005 by Event Horizon]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Friend, Gore lost; get over it. On top of that, it was not the first time the electoral college decided the winner. There is also evidence that Gore was not the popular winner, had all the votes been counted properly. Many states (California, for example) stop counting once a winner has been chosen. Regardless, the election was razor-close, and we were losers either way.

Speaking of being losers either way, the Democrats pick the idiot with the most left-wing congressional voting record and more commy skeletons in his closet than Carter has pills. Why? The communists do not represent mainstream America, so what was Kerry and his loony wife all about? I think it was to make sure that Shrub maintained control of the White House.

Why is Bush needed? Because the left has worked its arse off the last few decades to destroy the moral fabric of this nation, and has been successful, but they aren't worth a crap militarily. Now, we can have our military stationed in other parts of the world to enforce "peace" and other nations will have to come and help us when something else tragic occurs.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
George W. Bush Is President Because A Majority Of Americans Voted For Him

That's it.

So far, I haven't seen anything credible to suggest otherwise, just a lot of unsubstantiated innuendo supported only by hand-waving and insults directed at anyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid.

Entertain whatever fantasies you want, Bush is president because Americans elected him.


Only partially true, remember those anti bush rallies before 9-11? If i remember correctly, everyone complained before 9-11 that gore should have won. Strangely enough, after 9-11, bush was jesus reborn, the leader of america against the so called "terrorists", and were the hell are these "terroists"? The first time he was elected out of a mistake, the second time he was elected because people wanted him in. Hehehehe, i personally like having no work or money
.

[edit on 19-3-2005 by malakiem]



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Right Idea, Wrong Election


Originally posted by halo_aura
Actually, dead wrong. About half a million more voted for Al Gore. :

I will stand corrected on the electoral college point, but you're referring to the wrong election.

George W. Bush is not the president today because of the 2000 elections. Presidential terms last four years, Bush is beginning his second term, and a majority of Americans did vote for Bush this time.

A point rebutted a month later, but still worth making.

Put Up Or Shut Up


Originally posted by malakiem
Only partially true, remember those anti bush rallies before 9-11?

If my post is “only partially true”, which is the part that's not true?

If I'm posting something that is not true, I don't mind having it pointed out. However, I do expect you to be specific if you're going to accuse me of posting partial truths.

So let's see your proof, or your retraction of your claim.

Either is fine with me, but only one or the other. Vague, unsupported accusations are not fine with me.



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Right Idea, Wrong Election


Originally posted by halo_aura
Actually, dead wrong. About half a million more voted for Al Gore. :

I will stand corrected on the electoral college point, but you're referring to the wrong election.

George W. Bush is not the president today because of the 2000 elections. Presidential terms last four years, Bush is beginning his second term, and a majority of Americans did vote for Bush this time.

A point rebutted a month later, but still worth making.

Put Up Or Shut Up


Originally posted by malakiem
Only partially true, remember those anti bush rallies before 9-11?

If my post is “only partially true”, which is the part that's not true?

If I'm posting something that is not true, I don't mind having it pointed out. However, I do expect you to be specific if you're going to accuse me of posting partial truths.

So let's see your proof, or your retraction of your claim.

Either is fine with me, but only one or the other. Vague, unsupported accusations are not fine with me.


Magic, i was referring to your statement about "because the people voted for him". You didn't state which election it was, either 2000 or 2004? And you don't remember all those anti bush rallies before the attacks? I'm starting to wonder if being defensive is more of a lifestyle then state of mind.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Can someone confirm this but wasn’t George Bush Senior the head (or a significant member) of the CIA when the MK-ULTRA/NOOM experiments were be administered? If so than this may back up your claim a little.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Former President George Bush was Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977.

www.cia.gov...


This just goes to show that GHWB may have had some interest and motivation in this when he came into the CIA as the Director. Seems GHWB did a little house cleaning for his pop, Vannevar Bush.



In March 1943, approved a Richard's plan to perform secret "medical" experimentation on prisoners at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute Indiana.

The CIA, 2 years later in 1977, found itself again before the Senate and key men were questioned concerning their role in conducting these and other tortuous and mind killing "experiments". In 1975-1976 however George H.W. Bush was appointed director of the CIA, and senate hearings have revealed that a massive amount of paperwork concerning Mk ultra projects has been destroyed. It should be noted that the official story claimed that the majority of the paperwork was destroyed in 1972. US interest in mind control and manipulation can be traced back to Dr. A. Newton Richards in 1941. This was the year that the Chemical Warfare Service merged with the Committee on Medical Research. Richards was the progressive liberal director who had concluded there was a necessity to progress certain studies to the human level of experimentation.

www.mindcontrolforums.com...



[edit on 20-3-2005 by Event Horizon]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Restating The Not-So-Obvious


Originally posted by malakiem
Magic, i was referring to your statement about "because the people voted for him".

So what part of my statement isn't true?

I would really like to know, and so far, you have failed to explain what you mean by saying my statement is “only partially true”.

Is my question really that hard for you to answer?

Time Warp


Originally posted by malakiem
You didn't state which election it was, either 2000 or 2004?

I made that statement in the present tense on February 15, 2005, about three weeks into President Bush's second -- and current -- term in office.

The election that determined his current presidency, his presidency at the time this thread was started, and his presidency at the time of my statement -- all the same thing, as it turns out -- occurred in 2004.

That's what the meaning of “is” is.

If Bush would have lost the 2004 election, then John Kerry would most likely be president. I had assumed this fact was obvious, but I guess not everyone keeps up on U.S. politics.

The 2000 election does not determine this year's president any more than the 1996 election, 1992 election, or any prior election, for that matter. That's why Bill Clinton isn't president anymore, or Bush's dad, or Jimmy Carter.

In the United States, presidents are only elected for four year terms.

Why does this confuse you?

Topical Anesthesia


Originally posted by malakiem
And you don't remember all those anti bush rallies before the attacks?

Yes, I do remember them. I remember a lot of things, far more than you can probably imagine.

I'm not talking about anti-Bush rallies. I'm talking about why George W. Bush is really the president, just like the topic asks.

It's a question. I gave my answer, and I am confident that I expressed it clearly.

Again, why does this confuse you?

Attorney For The Defense


Originally posted by malakiem
I'm starting to wonder if being defensive is more of a lifestyle then state of mind.

You are accusing me of posting a “partially true” statement.

I am committed to posting honestly, so I take such accusations very seriously, just as any conscientious member of ATS should.

I'm seeking your explanation for a statement you made that concerns me.

Please feel free to post that explanation -- and without the irrelevant insinuations about my lifestyle or state of mind.

All I'm asking you for is the truth.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
All I'm asking you for is the truth.



Why? Is George W. Bush really the President?



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Speaking of being losers either way, the Democrats pick the idiot with the most left-wing congressional voting record and more commy skeletons in his closet than Carter has pills. Why? The communists do not represent mainstream America, so what was Kerry and his loony wife all about? I think it was to make sure that Shrub maintained control of the White House.

Why is Bush needed? Because the left has worked its arse off the last few decades to destroy the moral fabric of this nation, and has been successful, but they aren't worth a crap militarily. Now, we can have our military stationed in other parts of the world to enforce "peace" and other nations will have to come and help us when something else tragic occurs.



Ah, I see you are from Alabama. That explains the idiotic statements you just made.

John Kerry a communist, liberals destroying the moral fabric of america...let's see about 40 years ago where was this "moral fabric" when plenty of people in your state still called black people ni**ers?

[edit on 20-3-2005 by SethJaneRob]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Restating The Not-So-Obvious


Originally posted by malakiem
Magic, i was referring to your statement about "because the people voted for him".

So what part of my statement isn't true?

I would really like to know, and so far, you have failed to explain what you mean by saying my statement is “only partially true”.

Is my question really that hard for you to answer?

I stated "partially true" because in my view you said that "people voted for him" but the first time around it wasn't so. Gore was about to win, but bush stole that from him. That's what i was referring to, not the second time around, in which i do agree with you. The people did vote for him this time, and sadly he won.
Time Warp


Originally posted by malakiem
You didn't state which election it was, either 2000 or 2004?

I made that statement in the present tense on February 15, 2005, about three weeks into President Bush's second -- and current -- term in office.

The election that determined his current presidency, his presidency at the time this thread was started, and his presidency at the time of my statement -- all the same thing, as it turns out -- occurred in 2004.

That's what the meaning of “is” is.

If Bush would have lost the 2004 election, then John Kerry would most likely be president. I had assumed this fact was obvious, but I guess not everyone keeps up on U.S. politics.

No, I personally don't hold up on american politics, and i'm american. Sadly i think it's useless and there's nothing like 60 year old's bickering at each other, that's why i don't keep up on current affairs. Besides, kinda get's boring when all you hear is "johny got shot in the heart" "kimmie was stabbed in the neck" topics in the news. This i didn't get, now i do, i apoligize for that.

The 2000 election does not determine this year's president any more than the 1996 election, 1992 election, or any prior election, for that matter. That's why Bill Clinton isn't president anymore, or Bush's dad, or Jimmy Carter.

In the United States, presidents are only elected for four year terms.

Why does this confuse you?

This doesn't confuse me at all, i wonder why in the hell did bush even get elected in the first time, i wish gore was president more then kerry.

Topical Anesthesia


Originally posted by malakiem
And you don't remember all those anti bush rallies before the attacks?

Yes, I do remember them. I remember a lot of things, far more than you can probably imagine.

I'm not talking about anti-Bush rallies. I'm talking about why George W. Bush is really the president, just like the topic asks.

It's a question. I gave my answer, and I am confident that I expressed it clearly.

Again, why does this confuse you?

no, it doesn't exactly confuse me, no excuses, i made a simple mistake os saying your post was a "half truth" and by that i was referring to when you said bush was elected, but i didn't see the part that you were the 2004 election.

Attorney For The Defense


Originally posted by malakiem
I'm starting to wonder if being defensive is more of a lifestyle then state of mind.

You are accusing me of posting a “partially true” statement.

I am committed to posting honestly, so I take such accusations very seriously, just as any conscientious member of ATS should.

I'm seeking your explanation for a statement you made that concerns me.

Please feel free to post that explanation -- and without the irrelevant insinuations about my lifestyle or state of mind.

All I'm asking you for is the truth.


And by damn majic! You shall have the truth, hopefully my explanation clears some things up. If you are still confused, just u2u me, i can better explain it one on one if you'd like.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by malakiem]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
.....both Republicans & Democrats , the powerbrokers who run the parties & thus the country, are corrupt.





posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ah, There We Go


Originally posted by malakiem
And by damn majic! You shall have the truth, hopefully my explanation clears some things up. If you are still confused, just u2u me, i can better explain it one on one if you'd like.

Thanks for the clarifications -- although you may want to check the balances on your quoting -- they can be a bit confusing as to who said what when they are unbalanced.

Also, ATS policy discourages complete quotes. It's okay to just snip out the parts you're specifically answering. The staff prefers this to avoid database bloat and to keep posts readable and reasonably concise.

Finally, I know my tone can come off a bit pompous or whatnot, but actually, I just try to be as clear as possible with my words.

I know my opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's, and that I am very often wrong and mistaken about many things.

If I have given a different impression about that here or anywhere else, the fault is mine.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
How To Post Like An Idiot In One Easy Step


Originally posted by SethJaneRob
Ah, I see you are from Alabama. That explains the idiotic statements you just made.

So what explains your obvious and shameful display of bigotry?

Your assumption that where people live has anything to do with their intelligence says nothing about Alabamans, and everything about you.

My advice is to abandon the dead-end road of bigotry, which makes only you look like an idiot, and open your mind to a larger world that your prejudices has blinded you to.

In that world, you can evaluate a person's opinions on their own merits, rather than your backwards and fallacious stereotypes. In doing that, you may come to recognize truth when you see it.

Or you can continue to Embrace Ignorance, as you are doing here. The choice is yours.

Choose wisely.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Because at the last minute, humans beings SAW he was the lesser of two evils.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Blinded By My Red Cheeks?


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Why? Is George W. Bush really the President?

With all my self-righteous indignation, finger-pointing, pomposity and puffery in this thread, I overlooked this gem of yours at first, only to have (thankfully) just discovered it.

As usual, you are in top form, MA.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join