Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:22 am Post subject: What good is Bush?
What good is Bush?
1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.
e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.
Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq
Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.
3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.
4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.
To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?
No wonder he is the big joke abroad. George W. Bush is a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards in Canada.
Bush wins fest's top 'stupid award'
But U.S. president loses to Saddam for Just for Laughs' lifetime awards
Nelson Wyatt
The Canadian Press
July 25, 2004
MONTREAL - The November elections may still be ahead of him, but U.S. President George W. Bush has already come out a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards.
Mr. Bush was a dominating presence at the second edition of the awards presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival taking place in Montreal
Mr. Black said the awards "celebrate the pros" and "perfection in idiocy" because real stupidity is hard work.
Bush, with his low IQ, even not dare to face kerry's challenge to debate each week. Yet, media from time to time said Bush is leading over Kerry. Do you believe it?
------------
Unpopular Bush (Bush 2)
Even before Iraq war, the world viewed him a villain already. It was from report of his own State department.
Quote,"Many see Bush as villain, US embassies report
by Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post
Washington - the messages from US embassies around the globe have become urgent and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq President Saddam Hussein....." (S.J.M.N. 2/24/03)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55326-2003Feb23.html
Now many viewed him as war criminal. In Belgium, Bush and Blair had been filed with lawsuit of war crimes. They were banned to Church of Nativity. Bush also had been indicted for war crimes by a group of Japanese lawyers. Of course, you can never see this kind of news from US mainstream media.
Inside group very carefully protect their puppet.
When Bush visited London last November, he met with a large protest from people which turned a state visit to a public humiliation. To save Bush's fame, D.O.J. at the same time threw out Michael Jackson's molesting case to distract.
What about American people? The biggest protest ever to Republican Convention in New York this September says all.
Early this year, more than 60 leading scientists-including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university presidents-issued a statement to protest Bush's scientific policies.
In March, a US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust
In May, some 50 retired US diplomats wrote a letter to Bush urging him to reverse the Mid-east policy.
Professionals, from their own angle, protest Bush's policy. Bush is notorious, either in domestic or abroad.
Even Bush's closest ally Tony Blair keeps distance from him.
Quote, "LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year's Iraq war, a London newspaper has reported.
US President George W. Bush has put huge pressure on his closest ally to pick up the medal in person, which was awarded over a year ago, the Sunday Mirror said, quoting a senior British government source.
Yet, from time to time, name brand media such like CNN, ABC, USA Today, Gallop issued poll result that Bush steadily has the approve rate around 50% and often leads over his Demo rival. What is the base of it?
---------------
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13670
Location: With JRZGRL
Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:37 am Post subject:
Quote:
3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.
The words "Mission Accomplished" never came out of his mouth, they were written on a banner.
Quote:
4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.
You wrote that, after saying...
Quote:
1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.
I think you need to first be able to properly type out "He is too dumb to react to an emergency.", before you laugh at the lack of command others have of the English language.
Here's a good question... What good are you?
Quote:
To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?
I see the keyboard got the better of you, again.
How would you have reacted? Wait, don't bother answering, because I already know you'll say you would have acted the way you think Bush should have, but woulda shoulda coulda, you weren't in that situation, ever in your life, so you have no clue how you have reacted... You're just another Monday morning quarterback, armed with not having to actually be there, and hindsight.
_________________ "You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands, and everybody's fighting for their promised land"
Well, I didn't say I was a perfect man. But there is one thing I am proud of: I have the courage to speak up. Even my English is not so well.
Bush is different. He is the president of US. We have reason to have a man better than him to be on that position. You should look upon upper side of people. Don't compare his English to an immigrant like me.
But if your mission is to defame opponents like "Swift Boat team", that something different.
---------------
Dirty tactic (Bush 5)
Lie, cheating, intimidation, revenge, propaganda.... that's dirty tactics Bush done to stay in presidency.
Of course, the biggest lie is the WMD Bush used to mislead US to the war of Iraq. From the book of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter terrorism adviser Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson we know from beginning Bush determined to have a war with Iraq. WMD was only an excuse. When Wilson reveal it, he was punished. Someone leaked the ID of his wife that she is a CIA agent.
Now WMD lie is broken off. Bush changes the tone, said it was for freedom, world becomes safer. Does world becomes safer? Iraq war may created more terrorists for the world. Do Iraq people feel safer? Since Bush invaded Iraq, tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians died. Bush dares not to declare the casualty of civilians. The reality is US replaces Saddam to be the biggest threat to Iraqi people. The killing is going on.
According to Bush's propaganda, Hitler may become a hero. The tactic Hitler used is followed by Bush. Hitler started his pre-emptive war targeted at Russian. If Bush's justification stands, Hitler would have more reason to say his purpose was to eliminate evil Stalin and made world safer. To start a slaughter (war) based on personal belief, or exactly, for the interest of a little group. Bush is no other than Hitler. He is a war criminal.
Another lie was a report given to people this April that terrorist attack worldwide had declined 45% since 2001, dropping to its lowest level in 34 years. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said it offered "clear evidence " that Bush administration was prevailing in the fight against global terrorism. Later it was proved wrong, because in fact, in 2003, terror attack had risen significantly. News said it was the first time State Department had to rewrite it significantly since they were ordered to issue report 15 years ago. Is it just a mistake? No, April was the month of insurgence of Al Fallujah, as well as the Shiite insurgence in south. Bush's lie -"Iraqis welcome liberty" was broken. To save his fame, they issued another lie to cover up the broken lie.
To smear his rival, Bush camp push out a "Swift boat veteran team". With which it turned a Vietnam war veteran into a lier, coward. The result is you may doubt something wrong with the reward system of US Army. How could Army gave a coward 5 medals? Because they foresaw Kerry would be US president candidate? Or simply US Army is a blinder? Or these Vietnam heroes were actually all cowards? But whatever the media said, there is one thing I know clearly, that is, Bush at that time, escaped Vietnam war duty. With his family relationship, he went to National guard to avoid to a dangerous war field - Vietnam.
Who is coward?
Yet, they made a Vietnam war veteran with 5 medals a coward, a lier. And made a real coward, lier, a Vietnam war deserter a "decisive leader". They can even turn "job lost" into positive. (They said it's good in long term to US to offshore job to overseas) And invent something new such like "jobless recovery" to cover up a bad economy. This is how brand name media such like ABC, CNN, USA Today, Gallup...., under the direct of inside group, to turn white into black. Reversing the truth. Change negative into positive. They maintain a notorious, incompetent, dishonest president a 50% approve rate, and leads over his challenger with reluctant reason. This is a number from their own mouth and can never proved by independent organization. Do you believe it?
----------------------------
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.
Joined: Oct 10, 2001
Posts: 13670
Location: With JRZGRL
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:28 pm Post subject:
For starters, I think Hitler started off by invading Poland, not Russia... And the rulers of Poland were certainly no Saddams.
Second, you have no evidence that the WMD's were a lie, NONE. The Niger intel was not the only intel that Bush had saying Saddam was acquiring WMD, he was going on Russian intel as well and Russia stood by the intel saying it was accurate. He also had the CIA saying that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk. None of this equals a lie, it equals poor intelligence reports.
Third, Bob Woodward was on national tv saying that he didn't believe Bush lied about WMD, and believes Bush was the victim of bad intel.
Fourth, Richard Clark didn't just blame Bush, or say he lied and misled. He claimed the entire government was to blame for 9/11 (As Richard Clark was involved with that, NOT with any WMD investigation like you insinuate), going back even to the Clinton administration right after the first WTC bombing.
As far as Bush lying during the campaign... It's politics! They all smear each other. Don't sit there running down a list of things Bush did... Did you bitch 5 years ago when Clinton shot off some missiles into Iraq, blowing up a suspected WMD factory that turned out to be an aspirin factory? Did you bitch when Clinton, not Bush, made it U.S. policy to remove Saddam from power? Did you bitch when Kerry voted to use force to remove Saddam, after seeing the intel first hand? You still bitching about Bush pushing for the Patriot Act while ignoring the fact that Kerry and very anti-Bush Bob Graham co-wrote some of the more rights violating parts, such as expanding the powers of law enforcement to pry into your life? Are you supporting Kerry even though the term Skull & Bones worries you?
And i'm so sick to death of this bitching about pre-emptive war, as if it is inherently wrong to attack someone pre-emptively. Who's being attacked is more important than who's attacking first... Well I've heard all the bad things about Bush, now how about telling me some of the redeeming qualities fucking Saddam possessed, since Bush was so evil for taking his ass out?
_________________ "You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands, and everybody's fighting for their promised land"
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:03 pm Post subject: Bush was elected not by people but inside group. (11/4)
For starters, we knew geographically Hitler had to take over Poland first as a bridge to attack Russia. Please tell people check the map that Poland lacates between German and Russia.
Your tactic to defend for Bush is the same, from Poland to WMD. You avoid the main point that Hitler's target was Russia, You avoid main point that Bush using WMD as justification to start the Iraq war and the fact there is no WMD.
It doesn't matter what Woodward or Clarke said about if Bush is a lier or not. The point was they revealed Bush from the begining determined to have a war with Iraq. He tried to find an excuse for it. He has motive. And the fact he used WMD as excuse finally which doesn't exist proved he is a lier.
A thief stole neighbor's car. Because he is a celebrity, there are accessories came out to defend that it's not a thieft. That thief misunderstood it was paid in advance. But people knew what it is.
-------------------
Bush was elected not by people but inside group. (11/4)
Bush probably is the worst president in US history. In his first term, civil liberty is seriously eroded; economy is in a mess; the international reputation of America drops to the bottom because the unjust war he activated. Any president commits one offense of the above would have lost hi second term, yet Bush still stays. Why?
Because he is proved an obedient proxy of inside group. And inside group control US politics. How?
Through media and intelligence.
1. Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act". They seldom report the opinions of people all over the world because nothing is positive about Bush. We can only get it from Internet.
Media report "off-shoring jobs to overseas is good in long term to US, and cheered a "jobless recovery". They rarely report the feelings of unemployed people. They never talk about a dark economic future to American people because that will hurt Bush's fame.
Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll. They miraculously maintained Bush's approve rate at about 50%, and led over his rival by sometimes even 12% despite the insurgence in Iraq, rising casualties of US army and Iraqi civilians, scandal of Abu Ghraybu, news of no WMD.
2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.
Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney. It could go to public finally because it has won the award of best film in Cannes Festival. The film became too popular to be censored.
Linda Ronstadt was evicted from the Aladdin in Las Vegas after angering the casino's management with pro-Michael Moore comments during her concert. Celebrities got a treatment like this, not mention the ordinary people.
Former president Clinton got a heart attack after he gave an advice to Demo candidate Kerry. He told Kerry not to focus on Vietnam history but on Iraq war which touched the taboo of inside group.
Constant terror attack warning from D.O.J. and FBI. Though at last they didn't activate any terror bombing they still issued a Bin Laden's tape. Four days before election date.
Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost the election too. It's not a surprise if you still remember he was also the one who received the anthrax letter. He is a dislike of inside group.
Of course the biggest operation was to rig the election. When they told you Bush won Kerry by 51% vs 48%, you have to take it. You have no other way to verify it. You only know the vote you casted.
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.
You entitled to your opinion. Its a free country. But these kinds of opinions come from people with their own agenda and they just don't have a leg to stand on.
Bush is not the worst President in history. What do you base that on? How many Presidents do you know about? Given your use of English I would say less than five. You have no basis for this claim. More than half the US thinks Bush is a good President.
The bad guy always claims he's innocent and the thugs of the world always hate the one that brings them down. Despite what SOME people claim there are a lot fewer bad guys in the world today because the US took them out. All in a day's work.
_________________ "Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis."
Welcome to 1984 citizen!
Your information on the Linda Ronstadt event is in error. She was hired as an entertainer and she chose to turn the event into a political speech. The crowd responded very negatively to this and THAT is why the Hotel's mgmt. booted her out. She got exactly what she deserved.
The paying customers of the hotel did not like their entertainment turning into political hate speech and they had a right to complain.
Besides that, Linda Ronstadt is a total has-been, who cares?
Next.
_________________ "Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis."
Welcome to 1984 citizen!
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:43 am Post subject: Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)
TNuke wrote:
You entitled to your opinion. Its a free country. But these kinds of opinions come from people with their own agenda and they just don't have a leg to stand on.
Bush is not the worst President in history. What do you base that on? How many Presidents do you know about? Given your use of English I would say less than five. You have no basis for this claim. More than half the US thinks Bush is a good President.
You entitled to your opinion. Its a free country.
Name me President worse than Bush.
I said he is the worst because no president had eroded civil right so badly. And no president had start such an unjust war. Name me one.
---------
Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)
People who vote don't decide whom be elected. Those who count the vote do.
Fraud in 2004 election is worse than 2000. Nobody could do that except a large powerful organization which abuse its power.
THE BLOWUP IN FLORIDA
In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.
In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed.
Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.
More visual analysis of the results can be seen at
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.
Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten,"
Joined: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 78
Location: Chattanooga
Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:34 pm Post subject:
Bush is the second worst president. I believe Hoover would have to be first. It took a Democrat to get us out of that mess.
By the way, if you don't agree with someone why resort to making fun of the way they type or use grammar? That isn't a valid argument for the issue at hand. It shows weakness, that your views don't hold water. You resort to personal attacks.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:11 pm Post subject: Re: Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/1
sungkathak wrote:
Name me President worse than Bush.
I am not in the business of identifying the failings of every President. Every President has had detractors. Jimmy Carter was definately worse, as was several early 20th century Presidents.
sungkathak wrote:
I said he is the worst because no president had eroded civil right so badly. And no president had start such an unjust war. Name me one.
Not one civil right has been eroded so this argument is completely nonsense. There haven't been any unjust wars so your second point is not a point at all.
sungkathak wrote:
Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)
People who vote don't decide whom be elected. Those who count the vote do.
You obviously know nothing about the American electoral process. It is not possible for an "inside" group to get someone elected. Not only that, what good would it do any inside group? The powers of the American President are limited. And, the President is elected by the electoral college. How are you going to rig both the elections and the EC? You are are thinking of other countries where they have dictators that have fake elections.
sungkathak wrote:
Fraud in 2004 election is worse than 2000. Nobody could do that except a large powerful organization which abuse its power.
There has not been one shred of proof of any fraud either in 2004 or 2000. How many times does that have to be debunked?
sungkathak wrote:
THE BLOWUP IN FLORIDA
In Baker County, ...
In Dixie County, ...
Franklin County, ...
So thats your evidence? Some statistics? Thats pretty weak. You can find statistical anomolies in every election, they mean nothing other than people who vote their conscience not their political party.
sungkathak wrote:
In Ohio
Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.
The exit polls were faked by the left wing news media. That fraud we know for sure. In fact, other news media found out about it BEFORE the election and told people to expect it.
sungkathak wrote:
So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.
The exit polls only polled the early voters and they were targeted at known Democrat polling locations. Yes, there was a fraud.
sungkathak wrote:
Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten,"
And what about the election machines that showed up at the polls already half full of Kerry ballots? The election hadn't even started.
All of this b.s. about election fraud is rediculous. Its only because the left is losing their ass off that they are engaging in this excessive and immature bickering. You lost! Get over it!
All your whining is not going to change who is President, so why don't you go do something else?!
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:45 am Post subject: Bush was elected not by people but inside group (3) (11/26)
I gave the reason why I think Bush is the worst President of US history. You threw out a Carter with no convincible reason.
You said Patriot Act didn't erode any civil right and there was no fraud in election 2000 and 2004. I have given reason and won't waste time to argue with you. I leave it for other readers.
---------------
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (3) (11/26)
Bush sold his soul to devil
The fraud in 2004 election was vast and wide spreaded. And almost all of them favored Bush and GOP. It was a well planed rig. No other group then intelligence could carry out such an operation.
As a matter of fact, there might have been a long history to manipulate election. Only at that time it was covert and in small scale. It became evident in 2000 election when inside group create a suspending case in Florida. When Clinton left White House, he left for us a historical budget surplus. Demo did good in economy. There was no reason for people to change regime.
But good economy was not the interest of D.O.J.. What they needed was an expanding police power. For that power they had created Oklahoma bombing. They failed to pass a bill similar to Patriot Act after the Oklahoma bombing. They prepared for a bigger one - 9/11. But needed someone to carry it out.
That was why there was a pending case in Florida. The situation gave inside group a base to negotiate a deal with candidate. The merchandise was a terror attack and war, the payment was the seat of Presidency. There was a month long process for the negotiation. Bush won the deal at last. He sold his soul to the devil. He promised to activate Iraq war if he became President. He got it.
In the book "The Price of Loyalty" written by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill which provided about 19,000 pages of documents. It revealed Bush determined to go to war in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack.
That was why we saw Bush behaved so unusual after 9/11.
Re: "On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, according to a newly published memoir, President Bush wandered alone around the Situation Room in a White House emptied by the previous day's calamitous events. Spotting Richard A. Clarke, his counterterrorism coordinator, Bush pulled him and a small group of aides into the dark paneled room.
"Go back over everything, everything," Bush said, according to Clarke's account. "See if Saddam did this."
"But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," Clarke replied.
"I know, I know, but . . . see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."
Reminded that the CIA, FBI and White House staffs had sought and found no such link before, Clarke said, Bush spoke "testily." As he left the room, Bush said a third time, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."
At last, Bush using a fake "WMD" to start the Iraq war. He fulfiled the deal and proved he is a royal puppet. That was probably why he was chosen again in election 2004.
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:40 am Post subject: Ohio plays the same role of Florida
Ohio plays the same role of Florida
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7)
Tasted the sweet of advantage of a pending competition, Inside group created another one in election of 2004. It is in Ohio.
The media created a situation that the country was divided by red and blue. And the result of election depended on some undecided states. It was a psychological gimmick. They manipulate the public to focus on a few states but neglect the others. Did the state real vote red and blue as they said? Not necessarily. It only made the rigging work easier for Feds. It made covert job easier in fixed states because people believe it was colored by red and blue. Feds could concentrate their resource in the key state.
The key state was Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Feds created a situation that the output of the key state decided the result of US election.
This year people found serious election fraud in Florida and Ohio. Florida was the key state in 2000, but not the planned one this year. The manipulation would be too obvious if Feds set the same state in controversial focus for consecutive two elections. It was because people were alarmed by 2000 election so they had a tight observation on Florida. They found unusual phenomenon. But the suspicion was eliminated quickly by Feds. It's not their plan. Their plan is in Ohio.
Then we can see vote controversy in Ohio. Media reported vote challenges in Ohio continue. Jassie Jackson; third party candidates, Democrtics.... request a re-count. All these build up a pressure on Bush. It is a warning, "if you do not obey, then anytime we can overturn the result of election."
What is the ransom D.O.J. wants this time? Likely the control of the whole intelligence force of USA. D.O.J. not only control FBI, DEA, they want to control CIA too. And with it the fat budget of military intelligence.
The bill of re-organization of intelligence has been blocked in House. Bush worked hard, even pushed his GOP collegue to pass through it. Once it is passed, Americans will face a terrible intelligence monster. And you can expect the freedom and civil right are threatened.
Feds build up a pending case in election. (Though Ohio is more covert one than Florida of 2000) At the purpose to squeeze most from candidate. Americans are naive to think they have a democratic system. Their mind, as well as the election, are manipulated by Inside Group through media and intelligence.
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: Cover up rigging election (12/17)
Cover up rigging election (12/17)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (5)
On 11/28 there was an article in San Jose Mercury News to justify the Florida 2004 election.
"New vote count confirms Bush's north Florida win"
"How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?
Last week, the Miami Herald went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through north Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy-theory profile - staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting - two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.
The conclusion: No conspiracy."
The whole story is like this. Teacher accused student cheating in final exam that he copied the answer from the book. A judge was assigned for the case. He came checking the exam paper. and found the answer was right. The conclusion: No cheating.
The judge only repeated what the teacher had done - Found the answer was all right. He didn't check the accusation that the answer was a copied one. He didn't answer the question. How did the student who had no knowledge of the content of test could have a perfect exam result.
Some media said because it was Bush's morale value which moved voters.
What made people register as a Demo or Rep? Their moral value. People generally vote to their morale value in election if there is nothing particularly happened. What made them switch vote to the candidate of the other party? When the party he registered to did some thing disappointed him. e.g. if the candidate did bad in economy which hurt voter's pocket, then they switched to the other one. That's not for moral value because otherwise he wouldn't register as a Demo or Rep.
But what good has Bush done in his first term? Economy is bad. Civil right eroded. The war is a opposed by most people. People lost so much in his administration. There is strong reason to have a regime change. .
Media justify Bush's victory by moral value. That's a gimmick. Moral value is why people registered to a party. If people voted on moral value, Bush would should lost heavily in Florida. . "How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?"
The answer is simple. Intelligence switched the votes to their favor. This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by media propaganda. Even if the result contradicts strongly to the reality.
