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.

 

Dear George Dubya...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
We will have an historic high of first time voters, and most will be going against Bush. Can anyone really argue that Bush has mobilized non-voters to his cause, instead of against!!?!?

Somethings that folks need to remember:

1. Bush wins - we are guranteed of having a vocal, motivated and out for blood Congressional elections at the mid term, with some big shifts at this juncture.

2. Kerry wins - if Congress maintains a GOP majority, you'll have a better situation than if the dynamic was under Bush & a Dem Congress, or what we have now.
The Senator can get things done in Congress. There are too many Republicans who felt steam rolled by their own president on too many things. There are very good Republican Reps, but many have been under the temporary insanity of Rove Republicanism, and I think many are due to be voted out.

3. We could see a single party majority in power again - except it will be Dem.

The immediate change with the lion's share of Bush's policies won't be heart surgery; meaning, to stop and/or reverse most of his decisions won't be disasterous.




posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And if Kerry wins well I will feel sorry for the bushes sympathizers.


Hi Marg, yes, all these anti Bush threads are hysterical actually. But you don't have to feel sorry for us Bush supporters if Kerry wins. Then we will just be you and you will just be us (and we don't feel sorry for you now:clown


Nothing will actually change in the end, dontcha know?

Yes, I will vote for Bush, and one of the reasons is because I also feel that Kerry is not Commander-In-Chief material. Quite frankly I've never seen a Democratic candidate I thought was for quite some time. In quieter times, they serve a purpose and maybe even add to the greatness of this country, but they are not good at that these days.

Just out of curiousity, do any of you die hard anti-Bushes actually think things would have been better after 9/11 if Gore had been at the helm? No seriously.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Just out of curiousity, do any of you die hard anti-Bushes actually think things would have been better after 9/11 if Gore had been at the helm? No seriously.


Yes I do. I think Gore wouldn't have squandered the support we had from the rest of the world on his obsession with Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. And unless 3,000 people didn't die, nothing would have been better, it makes no difference who was at the helm. It's what Bush has done since that shows his lack of ability to make a positive difference.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Hmmm, Kerry the magic bullet? No. Not like we would have gone to Iraq for no reason other than WMD's that weren't there and god talking to him.

But people who say Kerry will be no better, how do you know? We all know Bush is a screwup, so maybe Kerry will be better. Of course, Kerry could be better just by say, reading newspapers unlike this president. Or even better a Gorilla with no ties to any party. Sure he will speak better than Bush and the world would respect us more, but what about being a puppet of Cheney and big corporations?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Worst President Ever.

The outing of Agent Plume was sickening and treasonous.

But today, the emperor wears no clothes...


"For reasons not so far satisfactorily explained, the US authorities decided to broadcast specific intelligence material upon which they must have known a vitally important future UK arrest operation would be based," says Charles Shoebridge, a former British counterterrorism intelligence officer now based in London.

"The broadcast would have inevitably compromised that operation and by implication the actual security of the United States itself."

The broadcast was made on August 1 by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, two days before the Britons were arrested. Mr. Ridge said the intelligence from Pakistan indicated that Al Qaeda was targeting several buildings including the IMF and World Bank, Prudential Financial in New Jersey, and Citigroup and the NYSE in New York.


www.csmonitor.com...

Bush/Rove cares not of your safety but that of imperialism. To argue in Bush/Rove's defense, is either ignorance or sadism.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Opening cans of worms isn't always a bad thing. When you do that, you get people riled up - like ZED.


There is your position which is right, and then just everyone else I suppose (which includes me). Well, I am glad your ideas are always so perfect. You should be running with Kerry instead of Edwards. That would be a great ticket.



Thanks ZED, glad you've come around to your senses.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake

I sorta hope Kerry gets in there so we have some fresh complaints, instead of all the same boring Dubya complaints. "He's so stupid", "He's illiterate", "He's a murderer". blah, blah, blah....Come one people. We need a change. Let's get Kerry in there so we have some new stuff to bitch about.


Just so all you Bushies out there know, I will be just as critical with a Kerry administration. The Democratic party is just as corrupt and chickenshyte as the Republicans. (except for the fact that MOST NEO CONS - the biggest problem - are now Republicans and will go back to hell with Bush.) Then there's jilted Joe Lieberman. Why he's a Democrat is completely beyond me.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Relentless,

Yes I do fell sorry, you know why? Because at the end we are all citizens of the same country and when disaster strike we all come together as one regardless of religion politics or races.

And for Gore and 9/11 I tell you my opinion, I think that 9/11 would never had happened if Gore was in the White house.

9/11 is the result of greed revenge and mix hatred at the bushes.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Relentless,

Yes I do fell sorry, you know why? Because at the end we are all citizens of the same country and when disaster strike we all come together as one regardless of religion politics or races.

And for Gore and 9/11 I tell you my opinion, I think that 9/11 would never had happened if Gore was in the White house.

9/11 is the result of greed revenge and mix hatred at the bushes.


Do you really think that? Was it really possible for Bush to cause 9/11 after only being in office for a few months? It's been shown that the planning of 9/11 started years before Bush came into office. That would make 9/11 the result of greed revenge and mix hatred at Clinton right?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Relentless,

Yes I do fell sorry, you know why? Because at the end we are all citizens of the same country and when disaster strike we all come together as one regardless of religion politics or races.


Marg, you're a better person than I.
I find it hard to feel sorry for people who engage in willful ignorance and blinde loyalty.


And for Gore and 9/11 I tell you my opinion, I think that 9/11 would never had happened if Gore was in the White house.


I'm pretty sure 9-11 would've happened anyway. It's highly doubtful that Gore could've been convinced to go off into Iraq, though. Clinton/Gore resisted the PNAC bunch for years. He probly would've told them to crawl back to their think tanks and keep dreaming. Unlike Bush, he's got a brain that can compute for itself.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Perhaps it was in the planning for years but the final drop was when bush won the elections. (or may I say stole the elections)

And that is my oppinion.

And for being a good person, yes I guess I am, just don't get in by bad side because I can scratch like a cat.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Perhaps it was in the planning for years but the final drop was when bush won the elections. (or may I say stole the elections)

And that is my oppinion.

And for being a good person, yes I guess I am, just don't get in by bad side because I can scratch like a cat.


So are you saying that after all the years of planning, they would have abandoned the whole plan if Bush had not become president?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Great article Kukla.

I'm sure the timing of the warning (just after the Dem convention) had nothing to do with it!


The CSM does point to political reasons for the disclosure without linking the timing to the dem convention though.

This is the third great article from CSM I have read in recent days. I had heard that they were a good source but the name always made me think that it is was some kind of religious propaganda. I have added them to my bookmarks and will observe them for a while.

BTW good thread ECK. Keep up to good fight.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
No, they probably would have delayed for a latter day and may have gotten stronger and their success would have been better. After all their targets were wider and diverse. They did plan more attacks but they did not succeed on that.

Just an opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
No, they probably would have delayed for a latter day and may have gotten stronger and their success would have been better. After all their targets were wider and diverse. They did plan more attacks but they did not succeed on that.

Just an opinion.



So, I just don't get it...you are blaming Bush for 9/11 in one breath, then saying that they would have attacked if he hadn't been in office in another breath. At the same time saying that an attack without Bush in office would hae been more widespread with several more to follow it.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

BTW good thread ECK. Keep up to good fight.


Thanks much, Gools. Ya know I will.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Wowie, its fun to hate Bush, isnt it?

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and makes a useless person like me feel important.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
JustAnIllusion,

You are not useless, you know why because you are in here we all of us we are all important and our oppinions good or bad, pro or against, are all good as long as you have something to said you are apreciated.

Mpeak,

hummmmm, you still don't get it. I give up.:shk:



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake

Do you really think that? Was it really possible for Bush to cause 9/11 after only being in office for a few months? It's been shown that the planning of 9/11 started years before Bush came into office. That would make 9/11 the result of greed revenge and mix hatred at Clinton right?


Am I losing my mind? Mpeake requests further clarification of a rather glaring contradiction and all we get is that Mpeake doesn't get it?

I don't get it either. (Though Mpeake is making perfect sense) The statements are so contradictory, what the hey was meant?



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Relentless,

You can go back to the post I made earlier and make your own conclusions on my oppinions if you are really interested.


Your oppinions are welcome as always.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join