Why people will vote for Bush

I think I'm going to add this one to my signature. It's a stunningly perfect snapshot of why Bush will win this election; because our country is chock-full of people like this who "think they heard" about something and taking it as fact. I'll stop short of calling you a moron. That's keholmes' territory.



Thanks for this. In return allow me to present you with a couple of links. Who knows for sure? It seems that the Bush Administration might...

9/11 commission says "No credible evidence"
www.cnn.com...

Bush himself:
news.bbc.co.uk...

But hey, there MUST have been a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, right? I mean, they're all Arabs, right?

Um, no. Actually Saddam ran one of the only SECULAR regimes in the middle east and was considered an infidel by religious fundamentalists that support islamic terrorism. Saddam and Osama were natural (if not obvious) enemies.

www.commondreams.org...

Please educate yourself. There is nothing in this country more dangerous than the uninformed voter.

So, your point is when people are wrong they are evil?



Lets start by you telling me exactly what lies has Bush told? Then we can go from there.



Were there some people that thought it was impossible to have a "democratic form of government in Iraq?" Yes there were, and it is possible they were right, but as i have shown in other threads even the previous administration was already working on ousting Saddam by force if he didn't agree to let the weapons inspectors unrestricted access.




Moore's lies, ok lets start by naming a few of them. This is what i remember at this moment.

First, according to him Iraq was a happy place before the war, which if you read reports from the UN and other organizations it was a lie and hundreds of thousands of people have died under Saddam's rule, including his own people. Tie to this that he never mentions that in iraq 500,000 children under the age of 5 died because of the UN sanctions against Iraq which would have happened again if we had not gone to war with Iraq and more sanctions would most probably have been put in place by the UN.

Second, he mentioned that those people who died in the 2001 flights were all cowards, "scarely cats" he obviously did not know that in flight 93 people fought the terrorists and it was why it went down. Not only that but you have to be a moron to give fault, accuse and insult innocent people who died because of terrorists.

Third, Moore said that Bush was the one who gave the green light to the Bin Laden family to leave the US, which according to Clark this was not so, since it was Clark himself who told the Bin Ladens it was better if they left the country and he made all the arragements.

Fourth, he says he is looking out for the working people, yet he has bashed and insulted the working class, as an example in Britain he did this because he wasn't getting enough money for his speech..and not to mention he labels all Americans as "stupid and ignorants" among other things obviously not knowing there is diversity in America and different levels of education.

Fifth in "Bowling for Columbine" Moore makes the public believe that in a certain bank in the states 9can't recall the name of state or bank from memory) you can come out of the bank with a gun if you open an account with them, which is an outright lie as you have to go through the background check as if you were going to buy a gun.

About the other sources you mentioned, you have to be specific, with links, and point to the information they are giving, then we can take it from there.




I have already posted the proof for this in other threads, quoting democrats including the former democratic president Clinton. Let me give you those links again, and at the same time, since you want more, let me make some more quotes in here....

Link. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Excerpt from above link.



Excerpted from.
www.cnn.com...




Excerpted from.
www.iraqwatch.org...




Let me give you some quotes from democrats.



Excerpted from.
clinton.senate.gov...

If you need more quotes let me know.

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

I really dont know what to say....
I'm just depressed about the whole thing.
Bush will win despite everything...
Doesent mean Im not going to vote for Kerry though.
I mean where there's life there's hope right?
I just don't see whats so special about bush that makes him the only choice to fight terrorism. I don't see how any of the policies he has enacted have increased my safety.
By the way my opinion was not "spoonfed" to me by the "libera', "hollywood" media. I don't see how withdrawing from an international environmental treaty and replacing it's guidelines with a more business friendly Clear Skies initiative helps me at all. I don't see how ignoring scientific opinion and consensus isa good thing.
I don't believe in "trickle down" economics and find its whole premise rather dubious.
I don't see how invading Iraq when we still havent finished with Afghanistan has helped America at all couldnt we "take the fight to the terrorists" there?
Finally if you must use 911 and New York as a backdrop in your campaign it would be nice if you wouldnt be so stingy with the rebuilding money and anti-terror funding.

Oppodeldoc,

Thanks for the reply. And this is a stunningly perfect snapshot of why Kerry won’t win. And I will also stop short of calling YOU a moron as well as you had obviously misread my post. Like I said in my last post “who knows for sure” meaning I do not and just because I heard of documents does not mean I think they are factual, else I would of stated that. Also, I just want to clarify that I don’t think Saddam had part in the 9/11 attacks as you generously provide links supporting this and as you obviously “thought” I said something I didn’t. Nowhere did I say that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks. I think it is possible that he has or his administration at least has had connections with Bin Laden and his group. I simply said I think I heard of documents connecting these two groups and at the time I was writing my post I didn’t have sources, which being new to this forum I see I better come well equipped with information, but since you inquired about my “thinking I heard” something, which I did, here are some links that support what “I thought I heard” (there are many more). And don’t think I by any means think of these as cold hard facts, but as I analyze articles like these, I come closer to the conclusion that there is a high probability that there has been talks between Saddam and his people and Bin Laden and his.

So I will end as you…. Please educate yourself. There is nothing in this country more dangerous than the uninformed voter….
I would like to add something to that statement that is equally as dangerous, people misreading or twisting words into something that was never said…..
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

www.cbc.ca...

www.tennessean.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Bush stands by his word, which is something Kerry does not seem to understand. How can people trust someone that won't state their opinion but changes it according to the crowd he is in?



Excerpted from.
slate.msn.com...

Kerry's stance on the Patriot Act.



Excerpted from.
www.senate.gov...



Excerpted from.
www.nationalreview.com...

In the above link you can find more on Kerry's chance of mind in policies.

He has also stated things like if he was president he wouldn't send our troops without supplies and ammunition, yet he voted against sending funds to help our trooops in Iraq get ammunition and other needed supplies.




The environmental issue is one of the topics I don't agree with the Bush administration, but at least i know that we can voice our opinions and "if enough people did so properly, this administration would have to change the policies dealing with the environment.



I don't understand completely what you are saying in the above quote...we did take the fight to the terrorists/radicals' turf.

You would also have to be more specific with the; "you wouldn't be so stingy with the rebuilding money and anti-terror funding."

---edited to correct spelling error---

[edit on 22-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Sorry it was so hard for you to understand….I will type slower for you next time so that you don’t get lost. Or was it the big words thrown in like “cheerio.” maybe you can ask your mommy to transfer you into that school in the trailer park.

The following excerpts come from the "Kerry On Iraq Documentary," an interview done by Don Imus, a Radio Host.



The following is the written interview



Excerpted from.
www.kerryoniraq.com...

You can find the audio file of the above interview at the above link, or you can Click Here


[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Let's see what Kerry's stance is on the environment and what he has done to help it.



Excerpted from.
www.usnews.com...

What I mean is why was it necessary to open up another unneccessary front to "take the fight to the terrorists" when we alrkeady had a perfectly good one. Now instead of one third world country to rebuild we have two...

Why is it that Bismarck North Dakota is entitled to the same amount of ffunding for antiterrorism as New York city?

Plus defence of marriage is not as important as defence of america in my opinion.

Thanks m8, I was wondering if they would add the choice that

(8) He is the best damn candidate for the job!
(9) He means what he says and says what he means
(10) He does not lead by reading what the polls say when he takes his morning dump!
(11) He wife is much more "acceptable" as a first lady.
(12) Because the folks IN tyhe military support him by a 7-1 ratio!
(13) Because is you liberal folks when, we are in for a bad decade maybe more

Quoteppodeldoc
"But hey, there MUST have been a link between al Qaeda and Saddam, right? I mean, they're all Arabs, right?

Um, no. Actually Saddam ran one of the only SECULAR regimes in the middle east and was considered an infidel by religious fundamentalists that support islamic terrorism. Saddam and Osama were natural (if not obvious) enemies."

XxaudioholicxX:"I think you are the one who should educate yourself. I present to you in return for your comments above this":

Quote from: www.cnn.com...
"Putin's comments come two days after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was "no collaborative" relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, have strongly disputed suggestions that the commission's conclusions contradict statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam's regime. He said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible." (Full story)

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday.

The president said that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said. (Full story)

In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

In a October 2002 speech he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

CNN Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty contributed to this report."

Statement:

"The enemy of your enemy is your friend"

Has anyone asked themselves what Bush and the CIA and the Russians etc etc etc know? Why can they NOT go public with it? It is because the "source" is killed.

Saddam and Osama did not like each other, Saddam was NOT a religous man at all, very secular indeed. BUT he hated ths the US and so did Osama.


Why would they cooperate? Isnt it obvious? What did Saddam have to loose? he thought the US would not attack, he knew the French and Germans had his back......it is a dangerous game folks.

XxaudioholicxX,

Some good points. The Taliban mihgt not have been the sole authority for 9-11, but they definately had an understanding that Bin Laden was up to something and had to give some approval knowing that their "government" was on the line. Because of this we should have kept our eye on the ball and killed them all.

By doing this we would have tore up their communications infrastucture, intelligence apparatus, etc. With these objectives being completed more thoroughly, I would like to think this would make Iraq less able to support terrorism. With no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq this would be even harder.

If this is a true war on on terrorism we should have gone after the country that fundamental islamicist began in. Iran. This country now has the capability to produce nukes and I believe they already have missles that can reach Isreal. They are also thumbing their nose at us and the U.N. (big joke), but because of our troops spread out all over the place we would have a somewhat limited response if they did anything.

As far as Powell goes, his testimony in the U.N. was trying to get help. His experience in military matters is beyond reproach. With Rummy forsaking the "Powell Doctrine" he has left more terrorists in Iraq than before the war.

I love this link. It is the smoking gun! Putin said Saddam was planning terrorist attacks, so OF COURSE we should have invaded him! Funny how we never heard this from Powell or Rumsfield or Bush as justification for going to war. Even if we had, where is there any evidence of this? I guess you're going to take one corrupt leader's word for it, just as you'll take OUR corrupt leader's word for anything. Look what else Putin said (did you read this link or just copy it from holmes' signature?)



So we're back where we started. I ask you for your "educated" opinion on this point. How was Saddam going to carry out these attacks? With his Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe he was going to sponsor terrorist attacks by flying airplanes into buildings. Maybe he was going to T.P. the White House!

You seem to think that, simply because Putin says so, Iraq had it in for us, but this is common knowledge. In actuality, you can look all over the Middle East and find regimes who hate America. Any one of these nations (which we don't have sanctions on and which actually have armies and WMD) could be planning attacks right now. Maybe the real debate is whether invading Iraq has increased their resolve to do so. As you so eloquently put it, "Who knows for sure?" We'll find out one of these days, I fear.

By the way, I like this link. It says the Bush administration appeared "Surprised" when that report came out. I wonder why? Here are some suggestions...





And here, the Administration just sounds totally out of touch (surprise):


Whole story:

www.sptimes.ru...

Also, from the NYT, a little education about Al Qaeda-Iraq ties and the credibility of who you've been listening to. This Administration really thinks that if you say it enough times, everyone will believe it regardless of lack of proof. Seems to be working on you.

keholmes,
I've been reading the pro's and con's of people's choices for Commander in Chief and your reply to oppodeldoc has got me rolling in the floor
Keep it up! C-H-E-E-R-I-OMy sides are splitting!

[edit on 22/9/04 by Intelearthling]

No, my point is that people such as you have the obedient non-questioning wide-eyed opinion of your president that calls to mind the way a 3 year old thinks of his/her parents. "Mommy wouldn't lie to me." Then when they do, and you ADMITTED as much, you don't hold them accountable because you don't want to believe they are evil. Fine. I'm done trying to convince you. You know what I wrote.



I'll just allow you to continue thinking Bush hasn't lied. About anything. I actually can't think of a single major issue that he HASN'T lied about, from the reasons for War in Iraq (he now lies and says we went to liberate the Iraqi people) to the cost of the war, repeatedly, to withholding information about his energy task force, to his national guard service, to... What's the point of this? If you really think he hasn't lied about anything you are proving my point (see above).



And he actually did allow them unrestricted access. They ran all over the country. Your president kicked them out despite pleas from the entire international community to allow them to keep working. I was all for invading if he didn't allow the inspectors access. But he did, and Bush invaded anyway without approval from the U.N. Again, see my first point.

But wait, this part of your response is my favorite:


Since I'm pretty certain you never saw the movie, I'll let you have a pass on this one. He never claimed any such thing, but many conservatives have pointed to a minute or so montage in which he shows people playing and living their lives normally in Bagdad hours before the bombing started. He didn't comment on the footage or claim anything in the movie, he simply contrasted the life people were living before the bombing started with the Shock and Awe of the following evening. It was very effective, but not a lie. The footage wasn't faked. Watch the movie, it might teach you a couple things. Funny how you haven't said any of the allegations against Bush in that movie were a lie. Hmmm...



How is this a lie? Moore is definitely way left and a manipulative filmmaker, but he didn't present us with facts that aren't true. He didn't distort the facts of the war, and in fact you haven't yet pointed out anything he did that was a lie. Let's see, what about this:



You really need to do some research. First, even if he said this at a press conference, it isn't a lie. He didn't LIE, he would have been expressing an opinion. Second, he said this ON STAGE during a SATIRE he was performing. Like Bush's "Looking for WMDs in the Oval Office" piece. Funny stuff, right?



Again, watch the movie. He only says that someone high up had to have authorized it. If you don't think Bush or Cheney had anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself. (see point number one)


Have you seen "Roger and Me?" Moore really sticks it to the working people in that one. Also, none of what you claim he said are LIES. Please point out to me how any of his tirades, whether they happened or not, are LIES. (Also, your claim that he yelled at the British people comes from one woman's report that he was on stage, performing a SATIRE that was SOLD OUT and he called the 9/11 victims "scaredy cats" and berated them for not paying him enough. Do you really think he was serious? You've been had. He was ON STAGE.



Actually, he did go through a background check in that movie. Watch it again.




Nope. You did an excellent job of proving my original beef with the entire war, which was that regardless of any threat to us that Bush amplified and distorted, all of what you quote is very specific about allowing the UN to have a shot first. They didn't get it. That is a fact. Bush himself told them to leave before their work was done. Hans Blix, the lead inspector, knew a lot more about Iraqi weapons capability than the entire United States intelligence community, but they pulled him out early (he protested loudly and daily) and that is why Bush's actions are criminal. Even to the U.N.

You sound as if you're having doubts, and you're running out of Fox News propaganda to support your pitiful assertions. Just admit that you're wrong, and I promise that those of us who tell the truth will welcome you with open arms. We won't even say "I told you so."

I have one for ya OPPODELDOC,
Why did Moore, after he showed how many murders there are in the U.S. per year compared to other countries, go to Charlton Heston's house and give him a hard time, when he just got done saying that Canada has as many guns per person as the U.S. with one of the lowest counts of murders per year in the world?

Not sure if I understand the point of this question, but here's what I think...

"Columbine" was a really amazing documentary, and for what it's worth, I actually think it's pretty ambiguous what you're supposed to get out of it so this is just my opinion. To answer your question, the entire comparison to Canada was there to show that even though Canadians actually have more guns per person or household (can't remember which one at the moment) than Americans, they don't use their guns to commit crimes the way we do.

Now, it's up to the viewer to figure out why that might be, but the Charlton Heston piece was, I thought, a great little suggestion of what this is all about. After all, the documentary is about American gun control or lack thereof. After showing that many Canadians actually leave their front doors unlocked all the time, he goes to Charlton Heston's compound to meet with him. He's the President of the NRA and the focus of a horrible moment in that organization's history, when he led a rally very near the site of the recent death of a young girl because of careless gun use. So, I thought it was very effective to see Heston with his guard down, without his gun buddies cheering for him and without a gun in his hand completely unable to answer Moore's questions. He just gets up and walks away.

Was it manipulative on Moore's part? Of course. That's his gig. I actually wish the left had more guys like him, since the conservatives have been manipulating public opinion more effectively for decades. But the reason conservatives hate Moore is because he DOESN'T lie and they are seriously afraid that he's right. They take potshots at him and manufacture stories about him calling 9/11 victims scaredy cats because they can't attack his work. I haven't seen a single person of any political background come up with any solid evidence to discredit anything that Michael Moore has done other than to point out minor flaws in his execution (he's a filmmaker, and he's not perfect). They simply call him a liar and without even seeing his movie, the Bushies go "YEAH! HE'S A LIAR!" Where are all these lies?

Thanks for answering. Although I'm going to disagree with you. He had no business at Charlton Heston's, the problem isn't the NRA, which he was too stupid to realize he proved when he mentioned Canada's stats. It's not that I think Moore is lying, I just think he know's not what he does. I would have answered his question this way:
America is where dreams come true, it's also where they die or are never an option for many people at all, not Canada, not Germany, not Russia, etc... This, of course, depends on what you may believe is a dream. Here, you're a loser in most peoples eyes if you work at McDonalds, where as in Canada you're not judged that way so harshly. Here, if you're not beautiful, you're not wanted by most. I can go on and on. People lose hope here or never have a chance to even have it. Some people lose everything. When that happens, people nut up, people don't care, people lose hope, people sometimes kill. This has nothing to do with the NRA. He should address the root of the problems he's talking about.

You demonstrate a lot of intelligence in your assertion here (and following) but I honestly think you've misconstrued Moore's intent with "Columbine." See below...



I actually agree with you 100 percent. This is one of the most intelligent viewings of that movie that I've heard. I'm glad you got that out of it.



I haven't seen the movie in months, but I seem to remember thinking that Moore's point (this is my opinion, of course) was that America's problem ISN'T with the NRA (he's a member!), with gun control, violent video games, etc. I think he was saying our problem is that we live in a society of fear, of losing all the things you point to above. The Charlton Heston thing was more of an aside because I think he wanted to get back at him, but I think that Moore aknowledges several times that our problem is not with special interests or gun nuts. It is almost an affirmation that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." People like Charlton Heston, that is.

I guess we're pretty off topic, but it is nice to get a well thought-out reply that isn't just a lame attempt to insult me. I was beginning to get a little skeptical about the folks on this site...