It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Any Regrets voting for Bush now???

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 10:53 PM
I don't vote....I just jump on the bandwagon...ahahaha...
okay...but honestly...I believe Bush is going to fullfill his destined role and I shall praise him in the mean time.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:01 PM
I feel guilty for having voted for Bush the first time.
I voted for Kerry the second time.
I will be voting straight democrat this election.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Out of interest, what was it about GORE that people didnt like?
He spoke in a monotone voice.

Really!!!!! How shallow can one nation be?????

Not enough expression in his face.

Clearly a man who would have taken this nation and ruined it, huh?

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:33 PM
I'm guilty of some things, but not of that.

Cause I did'nt vote for him.

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:38 PM
Surely those characteristics are of a personal nature.
Compared to the man whom beat him? you actually consider them bad?

I agree, his 'politics' wernt of the highest calibur..
but isnt thats exactly whats needed nowadays?

A Man with faults, a common citizen who doesnt care for the politics and the riches of corporations, someone who's willing to be presneted his flaws, as long as he's got the best interests at heart for MODERN people?

I never saw the elections, i wasnt really at a stage where I was interested in them in 1999.
But in hindsight ( which is great ) Im baffleed as to what characteristics bush had, that made people chose him over gore.

Imagine if the climate issue was present in 1999 as it is now ( katrina, tsunami', rah rah rah ) would people of chosen him then? being he was so globally minded rather than economically minded?

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:45 PM

Dont forget the Diabold machines made sure the elections went to Republicans.

That, coupled with Clintons sexual escapades, was enough to sway an entire huge country such as this towards the conservative, moral, religious, right.

WWIII is honorable, even if masterminded by our wartime president. Sex is NOT tolerated.
And GORE was Clintons VP. of course.
eventhough he was an honorable family man.

He just didnt have the "personality"

[edit on 22-10-2006 by dgtempe]

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 11:58 PM
Thankgod for that,
I mean.. imaging a president that has no personality would be just about the worst scenario a country would have to live with for 8 years.

Far out..

Thankgod the chosen path was the right one, sheesh..

I wonder if clinton could of used bush's techniques...

'' my advisors gave me the best possible information, which I made the best conclusions from, the evidence suggested I didnt have a sexual relationship with that women, ive come to realise that possibly, some of the analysts got it wrong. I will not admit Guilt, I will admit there were flaws in my terminology "

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:03 AM

You do know that Monica Lewinsky, the floosy who tempted Clinton was said to have been planted by the Republicans in order to have the illicit affair, and in turn the whole world would find out and they could oust Clinton?

Its a conspiracy worth looking at.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:51 AM
I don't think kerry would have killed...err I mean allow 3000+ americans to die on 9/11 so he could use the event to mislead the people into a war for profit. No one knows PNAC? duh 9/11 was the "helpful pearl harbour type event". LOL Americans are crazy if they have no regrets for voting for Bush. Maybe after the next "helpful pearl harbour type event", they'll get a clue.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Elijio]

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 04:32 AM
Crooks are crooks and I see little difference between the two major parties.

I wouldn't expect any changes until people start seeing that the US is ran by a corporate kleptocracy morphing into an Orwellian styled global military industrial complex and to start making demands as a whole.

On the political puppet show level, the blame shifting amongst the two parties is designed to avoid accountability, to keep people fighting amongst themselves, and to instill a false sense of hope.

The con is getting voters to think there is a real difference between the two parties and amazingly it still works.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Corporations... Fascism the American Way

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by dgtempe
Monica Lewinsky, the floosy who tempted Clinton was said to have been planted by the Republicans ...

Now that's down right silly. Come on dg .. Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped the entire time he has been married. No one had to plant someone ... Clintons 'radar' was/is always ... um .... alert ... and on the lookout for a quick roll.

And besides, even if she was a plant, (which she wasn't) it was still WRONG for Clinton to commit adultry; lie to the country; lie under oath in a criminal case; wrong to use his position of authority over a young woman (no matter how much she might have wanted it). He was plain wrong and it was of his own making.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:10 AM

Originally posted by rizla
Kerry ... was clearly the more intelligent of the two men.

Based on what? College records? Bush had a C+ avg and Kerry had a C avg.
Based on job performance to that date (2004)? Kerry hardly ever showed up for work in the senate, so there isn't anything to base intelligence on there. Based on income? Kerry married his money.

Edwards would have made the better president.

He's just a kid who doesn't have any experience in anything. Wet behind the ears. He definately is NOT qualified for POTUS. Give him 8 -12 more years and he might be. But definately NOT in 2004.

The only thing I liked about Al Gore was his beard. He grew it after he lost the elections and then he shaved it off again.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 06:46 AM

Would you say my assesment about Gore was correct? Half correct? Maybe?

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Elijio
...No one knows PNAC? duh 9/11 was the "helpful pearl harbour type event". LOL

...Maybe after the next "helpful pearl harbour type event", they'll get a clue.

Your misquoting of PNAC's published paper concerning America's defense structure ("Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" September 2000)results in a skewed view of the quote you here butcher.

One would hope that in the future you would at least see to it that you include within the quotation marks only the text which your claimed source originally provided. IOW, leave out the "helpful."

For your edification, perhaps you should actually read the report as published by PNAC. My guess is that you will be surprised to find that, despite Alex Jones et al., it has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and in fact simply states (in the portion you feebly tried to quote) that short of a Pearl Harbor-type event, rebuilding and remaking the defense structure of America will take decades.

If 9/11 was the galvanizing event that PNAC was talking about, then why are we not cranking out a new aircraft carrier every month like we were after the previous "Pearl Harbor" type event (the actual Pearl Harbor bombings?) It is the speed with which America built up our defense system after Pearl Harbor that PNAC refers to, nothing more.

No, PNAC was making recommendations about rebuilding and readying America's defense structure for the new century (remember their name - People for a New American Century.)

Link? Sure!

PNAC's Report - Rebuilding America's Defenses

Note that it is a .PDF file, you'll need Adobe Acrobat.

Quote? Certainly!
From Chapter 5, "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," pages 50-51:

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational; concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and Allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for
example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt
production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs.
(My emphasis)

This entire paper concerns not some method of creating war in the Middle East or some such crap, but how America should "Transform" it's defense structure to meet the needs of the new century. The "new "Pearl Harbor" quote, taken in context, shows the actual meaning of the phrase is that such a transformation will take a long time, short of some galvanizing event.

I reccomend that everyone read this .PDF and see exactly what they can find in it that they actually disagree with.


posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 11:37 AM
there is a thread already about this....

read here

thanks !

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:20 PM
Harte thanks for pointing out my error I tried to qoute from memory
eveything else that you say I disagree with though
check this
and here

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Elijio]

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 02:36 PM
1. I never said "anyone was better than Kerry". But I'm sure alot of people did because that was the message alot of the media outlets were spewing at the time.
2. I could care less if they are Democrat, Republican, Green, or Socialist as long as they represent the interests of the American people to the best of their ability and do their utmost to lessen international tensions with America.
3. Question does not apply to me.
4. You need to be more specific with this question. If your speaking of George Bush remaining our "commander-in-chief" and the continued occupation of lands across the world, then no.
5. In a twisted way, I might be a little happy knowing that I fortold the future.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 08:51 PM
If I had voted for Bush I would have regreted it. I voted for Kerry, just because I would rather headbutt the sidewalk than vote for Bush.

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 09:02 PM
No regrets whatsoever. Not because he's stellar - but because the alternatives at the time were, IMO, much, much worse...

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:51 PM
i DO BUT THEN I DONT, I think we are safer with him, but his forien policy is a joke, But ya i regret it alot

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in