From another angle see US politics .

I think we do live in a democracy. I think that the elections were a joke, not because people's vote didn't count. I think our votes where counted. The thing that really gets me,and something that no one is talking about is HOW GwB Won.

Middle America are a bunch of hillybilly knuckheads that think God himself say down to write the bible. These people are uneducated and half brained. They believe anything you tell them, trust me i know this first hand i work in sales. They are nothing short of complete morons.

This election was a little different than the elections of the past. It almost looks like the Democrats wanted to lose this one. They didn't even put up a fight, and when things got close and it looked like Kerry might pull it out, then he would go and speak and contradict himself again and get caught.

Both Kerry and Bush are BOTH members of Skull and Bones... I think Kerry threw this election...I think he had to.

So although i do believe that i live in a democracy...this year the wool was pulled over over heads a little...but in the next election everything will be different as the Democrats will actually put forward a real challenger.

Me thinks this is another mad lib who can't get over the fact Kerry lost, and that he(she) has to endure another 4 years of just and righteous politics unlike the shaddy deals done by the opposition. We are entering a Republican era of politics, simple as that. Why? Because that is who the people want, if they wanted Green or Indi, they'd have voted for that party's candidate.

Just a silly question here:
Was there a secret handshake involved with the "one" and those working and advocating this "nominee"? How was the selection choice made? Was a secret "lotto" held to determine such?

On a side note, in all fairness, if such is proven even remotely true and factual, then this would verify that indeed a "Shadow Government" exists and that those NWO groups are quite legit?



seekerof

Originally posted by verfed
If one party states aren't so great (COMMUNISTS) then what good does adding just one more party. The green party and independents hold too few seats too actually do anything.

Actually the dual party system has proven in the real world to be much better then polyparty systems. See Italy as an example. What happens is that nothing ever gets done because the more parties there are the harder it is to get legislation passed with a majority.

What might work is a 4 party system. If you think of the views on politics they basically fall into 2 catagories - those which affect personal laws (think 1st/2nd amendment, abortion etc) and those which effect the country as a whole (federal budget, foriegn policy etc.).

So, since ther are 4 parties, you would get basically every different combination of liberal/conservative views on the 2 different catagories.

Of course the fact that the Dems and Repubs seemed to have basically choosen their stances on the issues at random, who knows.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by verfed
If one party states aren't so great (COMMUNISTS) then what good does adding just one more party. The green party and independents hold too few seats too actually do anything.

Actually the dual party system has proven in the real world to be much better then polyparty systems. See Italy as an example. What happens is that nothing ever gets done because the more parties there are the harder it is to get legislation passed with a majority.

What might work is a 4 party system. If you think of the views on politics they basically fall into 2 catagories - those which affect personal laws (think 1st/2nd amendment, abortion etc) and those which effect the country as a whole (federal budget, foriegn policy etc.).

So, since ther are 4 parties, you would get basically every different combination of liberal/conservative views on the 2 different catagories.

Of course the fact that the Dems and Repubs seemed to have basically choosen their stances on the issues at random, who knows.

I believe Italy's president also holds office for about a year. So, that might have something to do with it as well.

im pretty sure its Rigged

looks clear to me

i see 95% + chance of it being rigged and controlled
5% chance of it being fair

why cant a poor person run for president?
Exactly
its rigged for rich only

Originally posted by muzzleflash
im pretty sure its Rigged

looks clear to me

i see 95% + chance of it being rigged and controlled
5% chance of it being fair

why cant a poor person run for president?
Exactly
its rigged for rich only

Would you want a poor person as president? Obviously if they are poor, they can't be too great a candidate for the highest position in the US. Being poor conveys a sense of lack of leadership and ineptitude, on the other hand being rich conveys a sense of leadership and competence.

Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7)

Tasted the sweet of advantage of a pending competition, Inside group established another one in election 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 a few undecided states. It was a psychological gimmick. They manipulate the public to focus on a few states but neglect the others. Did the nation 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 already. 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 election 2000 so they had a tight observation on Florida. They found unusual phenomenon. But the suspicion was eliminated quickly by Feds. Florida is not in their plan this year. It is 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 to him, "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 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.

hey katha, stop repeating that catch phrase will ya its annoying.

i disagree on a minor point. the lewinsky scandal was not part of the inside groups way of keeping clinton in check, it was another group trying to get him out of there. clinton and bush , same side. kerry took a bribe and the dems caught him on it too with that campaign money he kept back.

as far as bush sr, i always though it was because he raised taxes after saying that he wouldnt, but i dont know really cus i was young then.

you are right about the kerry and dean thing, did u know that 20% of the democratic primary vote is controlled by about 475(check number) people called superdelegates? perhaps the first kerry edwards dean "poll" was somewhat legit (the superdelegates just voted first).
superdelegates also have the power to change their vote later...
im not sure how the republican one is run, its more complex.

ok for legitmacy who do u think the next prez is. get it right and people might take this posting more seriously in 4 years or so....

and for the last time stop using that "controlled by inside group" phrase every start of your posting and 10 sentences afterwards. (and point out when other people do it too, just to be fair)

Sorry, Nutroll, but I won't write to your favour.

----------------

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.

the ohio thing...wrong! bush was elected by the people of ohio. i live here,i voted here. did i vote for bush? no. but the majority in a christian,farming,redneck state did. i'm tired of people saying that bush really didn't win ohio...even though I DID NOT vote for him.

Originally posted by Frosty
Me thinks this is another mad lib who can't get over the fact Kerry lost, and that he(she) has to endure another 4 years of just and righteous politics unlike the shaddy deals done by the opposition.

We are entering a Republican era of politics, simple as that. Why? Because that is who the people want, if they wanted Green or Indi, they'd have voted for that party's candidate.

Hehe you like your guns hey!!why dont you go play with them and let us grownups discuss some corruption issues.OK?

hey...leave the gun thing alone. in proper hands guns are FINE! that is such a minor issue! the fact is that bush won. well,i didn't vote for him,but yet he is the president...i didn't think kerry was any better really. why all the arguing over a dead issue? and as i've been reading this thread(not to be mean) most of the arguing is from someone who doesn't even seem to have basic english(america's language)down.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by muzzleflash
im pretty sure its Rigged

looks clear to me

i see 95% + chance of it being rigged and controlled
5% chance of it being fair

why cant a poor person run for president?
Exactly
its rigged for rich only

Would you want a poor person as president? Obviously if they are poor, they can't be too great a candidate for the highest position in the US. Being poor conveys a sense of lack of leadership and ineptitude, on the other hand being rich conveys a sense of leadership and competence.

You make the perfect example of ''the ignorant american''.

This kind of logic is what makes the US so polluted in every sense of the world.

Originally posted by psychosgirl
hey...leave the gun thing alone. in proper hands guns are FINE! that is such a minor issue! the fact is that bush won. well,i didn't vote for him,but yet he is the president...i didn't think kerry was any better really. why all the arguing over a dead issue? and as i've been reading this thread(not to be mean) most of the arguing is from someone who doesn't even seem to have basic english(america's language)down.

so what?bad english???so what, he has valid arguments.
typical american logic....bush is a american native and his english is bad, he cant even talk properly.

oh please. when i say bad english i mean bad grammer. i am NOT a bush supporter,but if you want to debate...at least have the literary skills to do so...i honestly didn't understand half of this thread...that is based on the bad use of grammer. if the arguments were understandable and easier to pick through,maybe i could see the other side of the debate.......ironic that someone who is anti-bush could have the same language problems that the president does.

Originally posted by psychosgirl
oh please. when i say bad english i mean bad grammer. i am NOT a bush supporter,but if you want to debate...at least have the literary skills to do so...i honestly didn't understand half of this thread...that is based on the bad use of grammer. if the arguments were understandable and easier to pick through,maybe i could see the other side of the debate.......ironic that someone who is anti-bush could have the same language problems that the president does.

I dont know if you know this, but there are alot of international members on this site also, my self included.
Does it mean that because my(our) english isnt flawless like yours (uhg uhg) that i have no right to speak my mind??
You seriously have to have a session with DR.Phil if that is your logic, you know what he will say right!?

Dont come with this kind of narrowmindedness that you use to descredit someones valid arguments, sorry, but thats just childish.

Psychological manipulation and propaganda (12/28)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (6)

Some people apologized to the world that US has Bush elected for the second term. They don't have to. The majority of Americans didn't elect Bush. It was inside group which selected Bush by a rigging election and media propaganda.

There was really nothing good to justify Bush's victory, the media at last throw out a "moral value". But under this justification, Bush should have been a big loser because he is a dishonest man. He misled US to an unjust war by a big lie - that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.

Media rarely report the conflict exit poll in US election but beat the drum to same event happened in Ukraine. Yushchenko's poison case played same role as "Swift boat team" - to tarnish the rival in election.

A destroyed face played the propaganda to its utmost.

1. Most poison were used to hurt victim's health, on the purpose to take their lives. A poison to destroy someone's face is rarely heard. Does Dioxin only influence the skin of victim's face? Or the skin of all body? Though I don't know what happened to Yushchenko's body, it seems the skin of his neck and hands are all right.

2. Yushchenko vigorously active in election. It seems the poison didn't hurt his health much.

3. Yushchenko and Western media blow the trumpet said that he was poisoned. It seems the poison was selected for propaganda much more than killing.

4. Motive is important in any case. Who benefit from this election if the victim having a destroyed face?

5. Is perpetrator an amateur who selected a wrong poison to let others know that Yushchenko was obviously poisoned? Or just want to have a propaganda?

Next time when you see the TV repeatedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center; or a destroyed face; see the orange terror alarm code; or see the US map printed in blue and red color, be aware that it's a psychological manipulation. Government has a purpose.

Make a blackmail more efficient (1/8)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (7)

"Democrat wins Washington with 130 votes". Mercury News reported on Dec. 24. It said Democrat Christine Gregoire won the election by 130 votes out of 2.9million ballots cast in third round of recounting by hand. The previous count and recount declared that she had lost to her GOP rival Dino Rossi by 261 and 42 votes separately. The article came with a picture of smiling C. Gregoire. She really had a reason to smile to win the seat of governor of Washington at such a slim margin:0.004%.

The price of this victory may be big for Democrat : The seat of Presidency of US. I think it's a concession to the pressure of people whom demand investigation on obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio.

Strange enough, the protest on rigging election are mostly from individual groups or observer. The high ranking of Democrats seem keep a blind eye on it. Kerry quickly admits his failure despite a controversial election. Have you ever heard any words from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards..... about the fraud? These people are experts. They know the principle of game. If there is no order from inside group, they won't make a move.

As a matter of fact, the result of election was decided long time ago. When they pushed Howard Dean out of the campaign in Democrat's Primary, the inside group had got what they want already. There is little difference between Kerry and Bush. They both voted for war and Patriot Act. Bush was elected because he was proved a loyalty of inside group. He was more eager to sell his soul.

The skill to squeeze more from an election now is more advanced. Though they are able to make a unilateral victory for a candidate, Feds created a situation that by only control several hundreds of votes they can decide a governor of a state. Or by only control the election result of a state, they can decide a president of US. With which they can more efficiently to blackmail the candidate.

Control media - intimidation(1/11)

CBS fires four staffers over Bush story. Dan Rather also will step down as anchorman of the "CBS Evening News". All these because they had been "myopic zeal" about Bush's story relied on forged documents.

They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time. The fact was Bush did escape the service in Vietnam. Some one did arrange him in National Guard to avoid Vietnam service. Bush's military record mysteriously missed. As CBS said, "It's a blow, but it's not fatal. ... Ninety-nine percent of the stories we do are accurate and solid."

They told the Truth. Only the documents they referred was a forged one which was supplied with an evil will. The mistake was made inadvertently.

Compare with Bush. He deliberately misled Americans into an unjust war. He deceived people by fake "WMD" and "imminent danger". He caused the loss of hundred of thousands lives of innocent people. Who is to be blamed?

A witness reported a theft. The accessory of the thief supplied a forge evidence to the witness, deliberately to discredit him. The witness was punished when he referred the forged evidence. The thief, though was a criminal, on contrary, got a prize. Bush was awarded a second term of presidency. A team of CBS lost their job.

Feds used to set up trap for people. Rumsfeld repeated trying to make it a legitimacy of his "Strategy office". They have a "Lie workshop" which produces misinformation and disinformation. CBS event can be viewed as an achievement of this "Strategy office".

Ive and Adams lost paradise after they ate the apple given by Satan. People know who was the evil. They painted Satan a snake. But it's not only the staffers of CBS lost their job. It's another step the American people lost the freedom of speech. It is an advance of Inside group to intimidate media workers for more self restriction. You can expect to have more "political correct" poll and news from media since.