Originally posted by PVS
bush made it clear that osama was no longer a priority to him.
the man who murdered 3000 was no longer a priority.
and you're fine with this?after 911 all people had to hold on to was the suposed fact that
he would be brought to justice. after all his tough cowboy talk of
'dead or alive' and 'smoke him out' he just turned around and said forget it, and you think thats just fine?as i said, bush supporters think he justs pisses rainbows and shits sunshine.
Hey PVS I agree with you 100%.
Did you know the Bin Laden & Bush family goes way back? They have done business together for years?
The Bush-Bin Laden
Cartel & The NWO
Chronology Of The Seduction Of America
http://www.rense.com/general30/cart.htm
Bush & 911 Foreknowledge
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/bushkn.html
And for those that think America is a Godly Nation think Again.
Are you tired of hearing people claim that our nation was founded on a belief in God?
They claim that, "That is why it's on our money and Pledge of Allegiance."
Read Up and Enjoy.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/in_god_we_trust.html
Originally posted by WindDancer
Have you ever consider that maybe statistics are wrong? If Democrats by average outnumber the Republicans then why did the disputed state of Florida was won by Republicans this year? Would made more sense if Democrats won that state...but obviously they didn't.
um... because not everyone votes, republicans and democrats alike.
Err....I don't think so! Check this:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041103/nyw121_1.html
If the studies you were speaking of about Democrats outnumber Republicans are true then there is one simple solution to why Kerry lost the election. And that is Democrats were either lazy to vote or they were overconfident that Kerry was going to win.
In Florida Bush won with 3,911,825. Kerry only won 3,534,609. Now take a look at my state California (which btw-elected a Republican movie star as a Governor) Kerry won with 5,427,055. Bush lost with 4,403,495. See what's going on? Is not about which party outweights the other is about the current decision voters face during elections. California is fairly Democratic yet they chose a Republican as a Governor. But they didn't elect a Republican for President. You would think that with all the controversy that happen in 2000 Democratic voters in Florida would show up and vote by the masses. Why they didn't show up? Or they did show up but were not enough to outnumber the Bush voters?
I live in South Florida and the reason Bush won the state is because Kerry didn't inspire many undecided or even some democrats to vote for him. Stats show that Bush won most of the Hispanic votes in the state, hell I even saw a "viva bush" sign the other day. Also, the state's population is about 1/3rd Catholic faith, which is bad news for Kerry since he is for gay marriage and pro-choice. It isn't as simple as saying there are more republicans than democrats or that democrats are lazy, it has to do personally with the candidates and the country's issues.
Originally posted by WindDancer
(which btw-elected a Republican movie star as a Governor)
We Californians elected Schwarzenegger because he's a movie star... and because he is liberal on every major social issue and conservative where it counts. He supports a woman's right to choose, supports major stem-cell research, and is "sometimes" quite moderate when it comes to gay marriage. The only thing conservative about him is aspects of his economic policies, and after our state was screwed by the energy companies, we needed someone to help to restore our economy.
Not all republicans are Bible-thumping gay bashers and not all democrats are tree-hugging vegans. California did not elect a "Richard Perle."
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that there are more democrats and would-be democrats in the US. This isn't to say that being the majority is necessarily a good thing, but rather to counter those who brazenly declare that "this election proves that this country is more republican than democrat."
Election turnout determines who voted, not who exists. On election day, about 59% of Eligible voters went to the polls, but that other 41% of Eligible voters still counts when determining the political makeup of the country.
Originally posted by Darth Surgent
We Californians elected Schwarzenegger because he's a movie star... and because he is liberal on every major social issue and conservative where it counts. He supports a woman's right to choose, supports major stem-cell research, and is "sometimes" quite moderate when it comes to gay marriage. The only thing conservative about him is aspects of his economic policies, and after our state was screwed by the energy companies, we needed someone to help to restore our economy.
We Californians elected Arnie because we were sick and tired of Grey Davis lying and making excuses for the crappy mess in the state. It was sooo bad for the guy that not even his fellow Democrat buddies back him up. Looking back Arnie got elected thanks to his large campaign on "making changes in California" but of course that just a smoke screen for his true agenda.
Originally posted by Darth Surgent
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that there are more democrats and would-be democrats in the US. This isn't to say that being the majority is necessarily a good thing, but rather to counter those who brazenly declare that "this election proves that this country is more republican than democrat."
Those that declare that this country is republican owned are just clueless! If the U.S. was Republican then what happen in 90's? We had a Democrat President serving 2 terms and nearly got Gore in the white house in 2000. So, does that mean that Democrats are always in charged? Heck no.
Please use this thread: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t313185.html