|
|||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Bookmark & Share ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the problem with THIS particular conspiracy theory. Jen is postulating that Bush purposefully sat on the Bin Laden tape until right before the election and THEN released it, in order to affect the 2004 presidential election (which was him versus Kerry)... ...Yet the ENORMOUS HOLE in that theory is that the tape was released to the world media at the same time. And so THEY all reported on it TOO. So what? Are conspiracists now going to claim that BOTH the White House AND the entire world media -- including arab outlets such as Al Jazeera, which has always been sympathetic to Bin Laden -- worked in cahoots to ALL suppress the tape? I mean, come on. It's one thing to talk politics...it one thing to not like Bush...but let's not go completely nutty here. Here's the bottom line truth and history completely bears this out... The whole REASON that Bin Laden released a new tape only 3 days from the November 2004 election is because he was hoping to SCARE Americans into voting one way...he was actually trying to shift the electorate AGAINST Bush...by purposefully trying to bring up the spectre of what had happened EARLIER THAT SAME YEAR....back in March, 2004...with the Madrid, Spain, train bombings. For those who have already forgotten their history, that was the incident where Islamic terrorists blew up four passenger trains in Spain and killed 191 people and wounded nearly 2,000 others. The Madrid train bombings occurred 3 days (gee, notice a similarity?) before THEIR presidential election. Basically, with the bombings, the terrorists openly warned the Spanish people that IF they didn't vote a certain way -- that is, if they didn't vote to oust incumbent President Jose Maria Anzar, who actively supported Bush's anti-terrorist views and tactics-- there would be hell to pay and more people would be killed. More civilian sites would be targeted. The result? The Spanish DID shift their votes just enough...out of pure fear...to oust Anzar. For months afterward...as we raced towards our own presidential election...there was constant tension and talk that Islamic terrorists would try the same trick here. Both Republicans AND Democrats openly worried that as we got closer to the election there would be SOME kind of attack on American soil, in an attempt to sway voters the same way they had successfully nudged the Spanish in a different direction. In fact, if you'll jar a few memory cells and think back to the 2004 election, maybe you'll start to remember how THAT was even a big campaign issue that was being argued on TV. The question was constantly being posed that IF there was an attack on American soil, WOULD you let it sway your vote and WOULD you vote out of fear (the same way many felt Spain had done)? So, when Bin Laden released a new tape only a few days out from the election, anyone and everyone with a brain realized he was trying to duplicate the success they had achieved in Spain. The problem was it ultimately BACKFIRED. As news media outlets drew the comparison to Spain, more and more Americans entrenched themselves...got really pissed off...and said two things: 1) If Bin Laden is trying to scare me into voting for Kerry, then that must mean KERRY is the actual pussy that Bin Laden feels he can push around once he's in office. 2) Well, if that's how you think, then FUCK YOU, BIN LADEN! If you're THAT scared of Bush and if you're trying to make me vote the other way, now I'm DEFINITELY voting for Bush just to FUCK YOU RIGHT UP THE ASS, YOU ISLAMIC PIECE OF SHIT! And sure enough, on election day, Bush not only won the electoral college, but as much as democrats like to conveniently forget this little FACT -- Bush ALSO won the POPULAR vote as well, by well over 3 MILLION votes. And yes, one of the things he definitely trumped Kerry in...in all the exit polls...was the key question "Who do you think will keep you safer for the next four years?" And love him or hate him, you have to give one thing to Bush. He DID keep you safe for the next 4 years. So now let's see how Barry O. does with things on HIS watch... Last edited by CreativeMind; 08-21-2009 at 04:51 PM. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
S w kept us safe BS he got lucky and nothing more the boarders are still wide open W did nothing , The mighty W my ass he got F n lucky, GEORGE W BUSH was the biggest diaster ever to hit the USA he should have been impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Jerseygirl Jen
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Financial Times reports that the U.S. government "is sitting on a paper profit of almost $11bn on its 34 percent shareholding in Citigroup (NYSE: C), its only direct stake in a large financial institution."
How'd that happen? The Treasury Department converted $25 billion worth of preferred stock into common equity at the end of July. Over the past four weeks, shares of Citi are up a mind-blowing 70%. According to The Wall Street Journal, it was that conversion that led to the run-up: "Ironically, it is the exchange that made Citi a buy. In short, it solved the bank's chief weakness, a dearth of tangible common equity. Banks lacking TCE are risky stock investments because shareholders stand to be diluted by the capital raises needed to boost equity." Well, perhaps the bailout was not all that stupid. Lets hope other Gov. investments turn out that well.
__________________
"Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." R.N. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Lets see Obama was born in 61 or 62 making him way to young to fight or enlist for Nam and by the time he was 18 the draft was done away with Now W was of the draft age during Nam but he didn't get drafted because his daddy pulled string to keep him out of Nam by getting one of the coverted spots in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and the slap in the face is W couldn't even do that as he went AWOL.
Agian you are giving Reagan way to much credit, When Carter was in the white house there was a bad taste about anything miltary with the youth at the time when Reagan started his second term the attitude started to change and a lot of young adults started to rethink about a career in the miltary and Reagan had little to do with that if anything at all. Saddam was no real threat and W knew it but he lied and started this BS war and AL-QUEDA was not in Iraq till W started the war funny how you say how cheap W's war was but at cost do you count the over 4000 American soliders who died for nothing the real enemy was hiding in Afgan, Ban-ladin should have been the number one target but W wanted Saddam instead Jerseygirl Jen
Last edited by transjen; 08-24-2009 at 11:19 PM. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|