President Bush
- Thread starter riff
- Start date
MishkarinaSkye
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2001
- Posts
- 388
I didn't vote for Bush, nor did I like him... But, he's our prez and I respect him totally....
God bless everyone!
God bless everyone!
Calamity Jane
Reverend Blue Jeans
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 18,421
MishkarinaSkye said:
You didn't vote for him, don't like him, but you respect him just because he holds a political office?
I try very hard to respect the office of the president... but the person is a whole other story
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
He's got amnesia -
I don't think HE remembers who he was before 9/11. If he wants to drop all that crap, I'm all for it. Or I'll sadly watch him retreat to being a Falwell dupe and excoriate him for it.
I think he likes being popular. And respected. let's see how he reacts to being unfairly and stupidly attacked by the right wing for behaving in a deliberate and sensible way that offers serious prospects for happy results. I'm all for him being a better president. We need one.
I don't think HE remembers who he was before 9/11. If he wants to drop all that crap, I'm all for it. Or I'll sadly watch him retreat to being a Falwell dupe and excoriate him for it.
I think he likes being popular. And respected. let's see how he reacts to being unfairly and stupidly attacked by the right wing for behaving in a deliberate and sensible way that offers serious prospects for happy results. I'm all for him being a better president. We need one.
MishkarinaSkye
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2001
- Posts
- 388
I totally understand where you are coming from pagancowgirl but I haven't seen anything worthy of my disrespect (LOL) since 9/11.. I think he's handled himself and the presidency well since the tragic attacks.. I'm keeping an eye on him though...
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
Regardless of the quality of the current job that is being done or the 90 percent approval rating, I agree that he is worth keeping an eye on.
Amazing that George and Rudy come out as heroes in light of the tragedy, in spite of who they were before the tragedy.
Or perhaps, they are Heroes for Just One Day?
*smirk*
Amazing that George and Rudy come out as heroes in light of the tragedy, in spite of who they were before the tragedy.
Or perhaps, they are Heroes for Just One Day?
*smirk*
Bob Peale
angeli ribelli
- Joined
- Sep 4, 1999
- Posts
- 10,535
riff said:
No one in America is "who he was" before September 11.
That's like saying "remember who he was before his first kiss"
or "the death of a loved one"
or "his last promotion"
As a human being, we are shaped by our experiences. And no matter the rhetoric, a part of you is born or dies with every experience. An asshole is always fundamentally going to be an asshole, but he can become a principled asshole as the result of a life altering experience.
This comment is equivalent to saying that things that Jimmy Carter did were voided by who he was before the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Conservative apologist rhetoric aside, the man is under extraordinary pressure both domestically and abroad, and deserves our support as our president. He will never be all things to all people - no president will, that's the nature of the job - but he deserves the support of the people that are demanding that he take an action (be it passive or aggressive).
Cheyenne
Ms. Smarty Pantsless
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2000
- Posts
- 59,553
riff said:
I DO remember. He is the one who promised in his campaign to lower your taxes, remember? Did you enjoy your island cruise with your refund? Funny, you never did respond to this thread you started...
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18709
G
Guest
Guest
Gore would have binny in a lockbox by now.
G
Guest
Guest
THE MEDIA COVER-UP OF THE GORE VICTORY
By David Podvin
According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate, the Consortium of news organizations that recounted the presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election was shocked to find that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and it is now concealing the news of Gore’s victory from the American people.
The source is a former media executive who previously revealed information that the Bush administration was lying about Clinton staffers having vandalized the White House. That information led me to accuse Karl Rove of manufacturing the “crime”. My accusation appeared in an article that was posted by Buzzflash.com on January 28, 2001, and it was confirmed by a General Accounting Office investigative report several months later.
Having previously established credibility as a well-informed and accurate conduit of information, the executive now claims the Consortium is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner.
Originally, the Consortium believed that there were three potential outcomes of the recount, any of which would have been acceptable to the participating news conglomerates. The first was a Bush win, which would have resolved the issue. The second was a dead heat/inconclusive result, which would have maintained the status quo. The third was a narrow Gore victory, which would have given die hard Democrats a debate point, but would have simply been another photo finish recount that most Americans would have disregarded as being currently irrelevant.
The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory. Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that were “iffy”, Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create “major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out”.
Gore’s victory was large enough that it became apparent he would win prior to the Consortium recount being fully completed. And contrary to a recent claim by the New York Times, the terrorism of September 11 was not the crucial factor that determined whether to release the results to the American people. Prior to that time, the de facto majority shareholders in the publicly traded New York Times Company reportedly intervened on the side of quashing the recount results and convinced the other participants to shelve the story. The executive claims that the most important decisions at the Times are made by the influential money center banks that exercise actual voting control of a majority of stock. These banks are extremely pro-Bush. In addition to their control of the Times, they have substantial financial clout with the Washington Post Company, Dow Jones and Company, and the Tribune Company. As a result, the banks exert tremendous influence on a majority of the Consortium.
The story of Gore’s victory has been spiked at the highest levels of the media conglomerates that are involved, rather than at the cosmetic steering committee level of the recount project. The Consortium reportedly has received intense pressure from members of the Bush inner circle both in and out of government, but has not been lobbied by representatives of Gore.
The huge disparity between the original recount and the Consortium recount stems from the G.O.P. tactics in Florida. Their strategy was to aggressively contest every pro-Gore ballot, even the obviously valid ones. The Republicans then accused the vote counters of being biased because most of the challenges were resolved in favor of Gore. By using this approach, the Bush partisans successfully intimidated the counters into bending over backwards to show “fairness”, resulting in thousands of legitimate Gore votes being disqualified or relegated to a pile of disputed ballots.
“It was the old baseball manager’s trick of crying about every call in order to pressure the umpire to give you more than your fair share,” said the executive. “And it worked in Florida. However, in the relative calm of the Consortium recount - absent the pressure tactics - the Bush total remained basically consistent with the original count, while the Gore total shot way up.”
As for what will happen next, the executive said, “Once the dominant pro-Gore trend became apparent, the Consortium was never going to release the results; the pressure from the big money boys was too great. Terrorism just provided a better excuse for withholding the information than the ‘technical difficulties’ stalling tactic that was otherwise going to be used. The Consortium is determined to make sure that the original results of their recount will never see the light of day.”
By David Podvin
According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate, the Consortium of news organizations that recounted the presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election was shocked to find that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and it is now concealing the news of Gore’s victory from the American people.
The source is a former media executive who previously revealed information that the Bush administration was lying about Clinton staffers having vandalized the White House. That information led me to accuse Karl Rove of manufacturing the “crime”. My accusation appeared in an article that was posted by Buzzflash.com on January 28, 2001, and it was confirmed by a General Accounting Office investigative report several months later.
Having previously established credibility as a well-informed and accurate conduit of information, the executive now claims the Consortium is deliberately hiding the results of its recount because Gore was the indisputable winner.
Originally, the Consortium believed that there were three potential outcomes of the recount, any of which would have been acceptable to the participating news conglomerates. The first was a Bush win, which would have resolved the issue. The second was a dead heat/inconclusive result, which would have maintained the status quo. The third was a narrow Gore victory, which would have given die hard Democrats a debate point, but would have simply been another photo finish recount that most Americans would have disregarded as being currently irrelevant.
The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory. Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that were “iffy”, Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create “major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out”.
Gore’s victory was large enough that it became apparent he would win prior to the Consortium recount being fully completed. And contrary to a recent claim by the New York Times, the terrorism of September 11 was not the crucial factor that determined whether to release the results to the American people. Prior to that time, the de facto majority shareholders in the publicly traded New York Times Company reportedly intervened on the side of quashing the recount results and convinced the other participants to shelve the story. The executive claims that the most important decisions at the Times are made by the influential money center banks that exercise actual voting control of a majority of stock. These banks are extremely pro-Bush. In addition to their control of the Times, they have substantial financial clout with the Washington Post Company, Dow Jones and Company, and the Tribune Company. As a result, the banks exert tremendous influence on a majority of the Consortium.
The story of Gore’s victory has been spiked at the highest levels of the media conglomerates that are involved, rather than at the cosmetic steering committee level of the recount project. The Consortium reportedly has received intense pressure from members of the Bush inner circle both in and out of government, but has not been lobbied by representatives of Gore.
The huge disparity between the original recount and the Consortium recount stems from the G.O.P. tactics in Florida. Their strategy was to aggressively contest every pro-Gore ballot, even the obviously valid ones. The Republicans then accused the vote counters of being biased because most of the challenges were resolved in favor of Gore. By using this approach, the Bush partisans successfully intimidated the counters into bending over backwards to show “fairness”, resulting in thousands of legitimate Gore votes being disqualified or relegated to a pile of disputed ballots.
“It was the old baseball manager’s trick of crying about every call in order to pressure the umpire to give you more than your fair share,” said the executive. “And it worked in Florida. However, in the relative calm of the Consortium recount - absent the pressure tactics - the Bush total remained basically consistent with the original count, while the Gore total shot way up.”
As for what will happen next, the executive said, “Once the dominant pro-Gore trend became apparent, the Consortium was never going to release the results; the pressure from the big money boys was too great. Terrorism just provided a better excuse for withholding the information than the ‘technical difficulties’ stalling tactic that was otherwise going to be used. The Consortium is determined to make sure that the original results of their recount will never see the light of day.”
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
I sure would like to see that Consortium count -
I hope we'll find out a bit later whether or not that article is true. I do know that the NY Times has never carried any details of Ashcroft's heinous terrorism bill, much of which has been removed thanks to some liberals and gun freaks. ABC News got some big details, as did a few web sites. Bur the NY Times just didn't think it was worth mentioning, so I wouldn't put it past them to bury their recount, too.
I hope we'll find out a bit later whether or not that article is true. I do know that the NY Times has never carried any details of Ashcroft's heinous terrorism bill, much of which has been removed thanks to some liberals and gun freaks. ABC News got some big details, as did a few web sites. Bur the NY Times just didn't think it was worth mentioning, so I wouldn't put it past them to bury their recount, too.
cuz cracker
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2001
- Posts
- 386
whatever but right now if i was gore i'd be damn glad i wasn't in office. and sure if your in office when something like 09-11-2001
happens you do the best you can, whoever you are.
but not getting do somthing you wanted to do and than having it turn into a big honking years long fucked up mess with people trying to second guess you for years and years to come and catching hell no mater how it turns out ...well maybe later!
happens you do the best you can, whoever you are.
but not getting do somthing you wanted to do and than having it turn into a big honking years long fucked up mess with people trying to second guess you for years and years to come and catching hell no mater how it turns out ...well maybe later!
p_p_man
The 'Euro' European
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2001
- Posts
- 24,253
Sure it's good to support your President...
in times of danger. But don't support him blindly over the nearest cliff.
Two weeks ago he promised to publish a White Paper proving beyond doubt that bin Laden was responsible for 11 September. I haven't seen it. Have you?
Four days ago Tony Blair, British Prime Minister told us he had seen irrefutable proof that bin Laden was responsible, but that he couldn't tell anyone else because the sources of that proof are sensitive.
Weren't they sensitive two weeks ago?
Two days ago Nato's top military men meeting in Brussels said that they "accept" the proof about bin Laden's compliance with the terrorist attacks.
I still can't see why the rest of us can't be told.
From playing the lead in a second-rate cowboy movie and talking himself into a corner:
"Dead or Alive"
"Smoke him out"
"First war of the 21st Century"
he has taken a back seat to allow the real leaders come forward. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, two men who have the confidence of everyone.
Bush's rating according to the Netscape Poll is dropping and is now down to 63%.
The Florida result is now acknowledged by every country except America as being corrupt. Talk shows in the UK now openly say that he is a President that was never elected.
America has a great team. Others as well as Powell and Cheney have become noticed in Europe. People like your Attorney General. They look, act and speak like men of substance.
Bush sounds as if he's struggling. His body language is becoming more noticeable. His eyes are looking more trapped.
To me Bush hasn't changed a bit. If anything this crisis has made him even more arrogant. He is way out of his depth.
Yes you've got a great team. Just be careful of the man who's meant to be leading it.
in times of danger. But don't support him blindly over the nearest cliff.
Two weeks ago he promised to publish a White Paper proving beyond doubt that bin Laden was responsible for 11 September. I haven't seen it. Have you?
Four days ago Tony Blair, British Prime Minister told us he had seen irrefutable proof that bin Laden was responsible, but that he couldn't tell anyone else because the sources of that proof are sensitive.
Weren't they sensitive two weeks ago?
Two days ago Nato's top military men meeting in Brussels said that they "accept" the proof about bin Laden's compliance with the terrorist attacks.
I still can't see why the rest of us can't be told.
From playing the lead in a second-rate cowboy movie and talking himself into a corner:
"Dead or Alive"
"Smoke him out"
"First war of the 21st Century"
he has taken a back seat to allow the real leaders come forward. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, two men who have the confidence of everyone.
Bush's rating according to the Netscape Poll is dropping and is now down to 63%.
The Florida result is now acknowledged by every country except America as being corrupt. Talk shows in the UK now openly say that he is a President that was never elected.
America has a great team. Others as well as Powell and Cheney have become noticed in Europe. People like your Attorney General. They look, act and speak like men of substance.
Bush sounds as if he's struggling. His body language is becoming more noticeable. His eyes are looking more trapped.
To me Bush hasn't changed a bit. If anything this crisis has made him even more arrogant. He is way out of his depth.
Yes you've got a great team. Just be careful of the man who's meant to be leading it.
M
miles
Guest
PeePee!
A Netscape poll? That's a respected source if there ever was one. Was this poll conducted online?
he has taken a back seat to allow the real leaders come forward. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, two men who have the confidence of everyone.
Where do you get this misinformation from?
A Netscape poll? That's a respected source if there ever was one. Was this poll conducted online?
he has taken a back seat to allow the real leaders come forward. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, two men who have the confidence of everyone.
Where do you get this misinformation from?
G
Guest
Guest
Re: PeePee!
From talk shows in the UK.
miles said:
From talk shows in the UK.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
So what DID that recount say?
??????????
pp - the Netscape poll is not scientific, at all, and seems to be Democratically-oriented. They used to ask every weekend what people thought of Bush's performance, and he would always be well below 50% C or better, and then some Republican figured out how to scam the numbers and suddenly votes were turning around andf he was getting 85% approvals. This was back in July, I think. They dropped those weekend polls.
Dick Cheney's chief of staff wanted to bomb Baghdad right away, per the right wing, and I think this would have blown any substantive cooperation from the Middle East. Powell is the one who has prevailed so far, but we really do have to assume that Bush is CHOOSING to back Powell in some kind of sentient way, and not suddenly becoming his unwitting agent.
The same people who opposed Bush so much are still poised to oppose the policies he was then pressing. In truth, he has moderated a lot of positions and activities since 9/11 - and he has decidedly NOT taken the right wing road on a host of issues. There is no point in not appreciating his posture. If he reverts, we'll be there to contest it.
But are they saying anything in the UK about these rumors that Gore easily won Florida?
??????????
pp - the Netscape poll is not scientific, at all, and seems to be Democratically-oriented. They used to ask every weekend what people thought of Bush's performance, and he would always be well below 50% C or better, and then some Republican figured out how to scam the numbers and suddenly votes were turning around andf he was getting 85% approvals. This was back in July, I think. They dropped those weekend polls.
Dick Cheney's chief of staff wanted to bomb Baghdad right away, per the right wing, and I think this would have blown any substantive cooperation from the Middle East. Powell is the one who has prevailed so far, but we really do have to assume that Bush is CHOOSING to back Powell in some kind of sentient way, and not suddenly becoming his unwitting agent.
The same people who opposed Bush so much are still poised to oppose the policies he was then pressing. In truth, he has moderated a lot of positions and activities since 9/11 - and he has decidedly NOT taken the right wing road on a host of issues. There is no point in not appreciating his posture. If he reverts, we'll be there to contest it.
But are they saying anything in the UK about these rumors that Gore easily won Florida?
tigerjen
The Married Tigress
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
- Posts
- 83,318
I'm not a fan of Dubya but......
I'm not a fan of Dubya but in these times where it does
concern America, we should stand behind our leader.
I did not vote for him----I voted for Gore (who I think
should have won!)----but since W. is in office, we'll have
to bear and grin it.
Also I have heard that W. may not even finish
his term in office due to an "international crisis"....could
this be the international crisis? who knows? Only
time can tell.......
In the meantime, W. better get Bin Laden or else
he is going to look like a creampuff!
Tigerjen
I'm not a fan of Dubya but in these times where it does
concern America, we should stand behind our leader.
I did not vote for him----I voted for Gore (who I think
should have won!)----but since W. is in office, we'll have
to bear and grin it.
Also I have heard that W. may not even finish
his term in office due to an "international crisis"....could
this be the international crisis? who knows? Only
time can tell.......
In the meantime, W. better get Bin Laden or else
he is going to look like a creampuff!
Tigerjen
Young Knave
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2000
- Posts
- 823
Are you saying the media are keeping things from us? You must be one of them conspiracy theorists!
Unregistered said:
Young Knave
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2000
- Posts
- 823
Re: conspiracy!
You've watched too many Oliver Stone movies! Nothing gets past the American press!
tigerjen said:
You've watched too many Oliver Stone movies! Nothing gets past the American press!
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Re: Re: conspiracy!
Another piece of history: Reagan thumbing his nose at the World Court when it was ruled that our mining of Nicaragua's harbors was illegal. Reagan and our new UN Ambassador, John Negroponte, backed the "Freedom Fighter" Contras who wrecked Nicaragua in a speed-fueled terror campaign funded in part by money from the Iranians who had just blown up our Marine barracks in Beirut. Does anyone even remember this?
Not exactly: Check out how the same people who were saying the Taliban had cracked down on poppy crops and heroin exports are now saying that the Taliban is the biggest smack pedddler in the world. All we can do is press the media consortium to release their study; it's disturbing that they're accused of burying the results. This is a pretty serious piece of history.Young Knave said:
You've watched too many Oliver Stone movies! Nothing gets past the American press!
Another piece of history: Reagan thumbing his nose at the World Court when it was ruled that our mining of Nicaragua's harbors was illegal. Reagan and our new UN Ambassador, John Negroponte, backed the "Freedom Fighter" Contras who wrecked Nicaragua in a speed-fueled terror campaign funded in part by money from the Iranians who had just blown up our Marine barracks in Beirut. Does anyone even remember this?
