Is Bush dividing the United States ?

He's probably always just felt a little insecure about his status as a normally elected president and is overcompensating for that....:p
 
I don't see Bush or his administration trying hard to unite this country. They'll pay lip service and I think that will be it. I mean, they are already crowing about having a clear mandate from the country, I think not, but they see it - why bother making any meaningful concilatory effort? Bush has indicated backin 2000 that he wanted to be a uniter, well, look around, that didn't happen. We've had our differences but recently, its just down right ugly.
 
Miss_apollo7 said:
politicalgifts_1814_1556630
Click to expand...
oh my god! it's Bush in a box!.. but how does he rank against:
hitlerbox.jpg

HITLER IN A BOX!!
 
maciamo said:
[W]hile the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln, which fought for the abolition of slavery, racial equality and was supported by the ordinary Americans has now become a party for the rich and deeply religious business people in favour of war.
Click to expand...

Obtained from the Internet

Who really is the party of the rich?

Of the ten richest United States senators, eight are members of the soi disant people?s party. They are in order of their wealth:

1-Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry (net worth, $620 million)

2- Wisconsin Democrat Herbert Kohl ($300 million)

3- West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller ($200 million)

4- New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine ($71 million)

5-California Democrat Dianne Feinstein ($26 million)

7-New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg ($17 million)

9- North Carolina Democrat John Edwards ($12 million)

10-Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy ($10 million)

However, Senators are not the only rich Democrats. Some of the wealthiest people in the United States, indeed the world are Democrats.

Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor and the world's second-richest man, is a Democrat. He is now John Kerry?s economic adviser. He was economic adviser to Bob Kerry?s Democratic presidential candidacy in 1992.

Billionaire George Soros, who was indicted for fraudulent transactions, is a Democrat. Soros has stated that he will spend whatever it takes to get rid of George Bush. Soros is funding groups like MoveOn.org.

Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs is also a Democrat and also advising Kerry about economic issues. Jobs appointed Al Gore to the Board of Directors of Apple Computer Corporation.

Susie Tompkins Buell, who is co-founder of the fashion company Esprit, is a Democratic Party donor and activist.

Many of California's wealthiest people are Democrats. They include, Steve Kirsch, Haim Saban, and Steve Bing. The three gave $20.2 million to Democratic Party committees in 2002. Haim Saban, is owner of Saban Entertainment. They are the producers of the "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." Steve Kirsch is a Dot.com millionaire. He was Infoseek?s founder and sold it to Disney. Stephen Bing is the grandson of a New York real estate. Bing also contributed $1 million to help pay for the Democrats? national convention.

Leo Hindery Jr., a cable magnate, recently resigned as CEO of New York?s YES cable network because, ?At this point all I'm interested in is getting a majority in the Senate for the Democrats and in getting Senator Kerry elected in November, ?he was quoted as saying, by Reuters April 5.

The Saint Petersburg Times reported that trial lawyer Harry Jacobs, who has earned millions representing patients in malpractice suits, wants to spend millions to be a Florida Democrat congressman. The Orlando Sentinel has reported Jacobs has a net worth of at least $42-million, largely from suing doctors and nursing homes.

Wayne Hogan earned $54-million by representing Florida against tobacco companies. He also wants to be a Florida congressman.

West Virginia millionaire trial lawyer Democrat and Congressional candidate Jim Humphreys made his fortune helping plaintiffs win settlements from asbestos manufacturers.

Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communications is a major Democrat donor. He was a principal character in the Chinagate scandal (the sale of advanced satellite and space technology to the Chinese People's Liberation Army).

C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman of Comcast Corporation the world?s largest cable company is also a major financial supporter of the DNC. He too was one of the major players that sold defense technology to Communist China.

What is very interesting about the wealth of the Democrats is that much of it is or was made in the communications industry and in the legal industry. Comcast, Saban Entertainment, Loral Satellite, Infoseek, Shangri-La Entertainment, are or were all operated by Democrats.

The trial lawyers are devoted constituent of the Democratic Party - especially those made millions suing doctors such as John Edwards.

When you combine the Democrats pervasive influence in the communications industry, the news industry (Ted Turner and Rick Kaplan just to name two), the legal profession, and the labor unions ? especially government labor unions ? the power they have to control this country is incredible.

This nexus of those who craft the laws and argue the laws with those who communicate and entertain the public should be frightening to the conspiracy theorists. For example, Bing the millionaire producer, contributed to Edwards campaign.

This means that Democrats can craft the laws and then propagandize easily what they are doing. They can create their very own 1984.

Yet, the mainstream media never mentions the concentration of wealth and power with the plutocrats of the Democratic Party. This wealth and power of the Democrats is only occasionally mentioned by the lunatic liberal fringe media. Wealth and power are almost exclusively associated with Republicans.

Is there any wonder why?
 
Last edited:
The size of each state shows how many electoral votes, and therefore the population, each state has. Looks a lot more even this way, huh.

us_map_electoral_prop.jpg


This one shows how each state voted almost equally for Bush and Kerry. Yes, I'd say the country is divided.

purpleusa.jpg


I love maps!
 
Bush's boss was the one who divided U.S.A., just like 'they' did in the civil war.

Excuse me, but how could that Bush divided the U.S.A. when he seems to show that he didn't have the intelligent to do so? Maybe the correct phrasing would, did the boss of George W. Bush (and also John Kerry) divided the U.S.A.? Then the answer is yes.

How did 'they' do that? Well... The election is one of them (it's interesting that 2004 is the year when there are many elections around the world). The other is through propaganda (news, entertaiment, and so on).

How to prevent these attacks?

Easy.

Don't give a damn about the election and who wins.

Don't give a damn what the propaganda is on the news, entertainment, and so on.

Do NOT resist evil.

Remember that we humans have a common enemy, we all are in this together.



Anyway. Bush (and probably also Kerry) seems to be just speaking what ever words that are piped in through his earpiece.

http://www.rense.com/general58/w.htm

And this article below seems to indicate that, it doesn't matter on who become president, since the one who hold the power is the same. And the election (and also elections around the world) has one primary goal, to divide the people.

http://www.savethemales.ca/000630.html
 
Antifederalist said:
Who really is the party of the rich?

Of the ten richest United States senators, eight are members of the soi disant people?s party. They are in order of their wealth
Click to expand...

See, not all rich people are selfish and want tax-rebates and anti-ecological industrial policies to enrich themselves. :-)

Btw, how comes Kerry is so rich ? He surely didn't earn that from the army (even plundering the Vietnamese countryside :p ). Is that all from his wife ?
 
I think most of the funding came from the wife, as she is a multi-billionaire because of the Heinz company... :-)

She is soo rich that she can't spend the money herself... :-)
 
Maciamo said:
See, not all rich people are selfish and want tax-rebates and anti-ecological industrial policies to enrich themselves. :-)

Btw, how comes Kerry is so rich ? He surely didn't earn that from the army (even plundering the Vietnamese countryside :p ). Is that all from his wife ?
Click to expand...

Heinz Kerry Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Most Taxpayers
Mon Oct 18 2004 10:20:34 ET
The Drudge Report

The Kerry campaign finally released Teresa Heinz Kerry's 2003 tax return, or rather two pages of it, late last Friday, the WALL STREET JOURNAL details.

"We think she ought to release the rest of her return, since her wealth was crucial to salvaging her husband's struggling campaign during the Democratic primaries in 2003."


"But even this minimal disclosure deserves more attention in light of John Kerry's pledge to raise tax rates. In 2003, Mrs. Kerry -- or Teresa Heinz, as she declared herself on her IRS 1040 form -- earned $5.07 million, hardly a surprising income for someone estimated to be worth nearly $1 billion.

"The news is that $2.78 million of that income came in the form of tax- exempt interest from what the Kerry campaign's press release attributed to investments in 'state, municipal and public entity bonds.' What the campaign didn't say is that these are the kind of investments that rich people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to steer their money into."

On her "remaining 'taxable' income of $2.29 million, Mrs. Kerry paid $627,150 in taxes, for an overall average federal tax rate of only 12.4% on her $5.07 million in total income." This "puts Mrs. Kerry's tax rate at well below that of other filers in her super-rich neighborhood. But it also means she is paying a lower average rate than nearly all middle- class taxpayers paid in 2001, the last year for which the IRS has published the data.

The top 50% of all federal filers contributed 96.1% of all federal income taxes in 2001, and they paid an average income-tax rate of 15.9%. That's 3.5-percentage points more than Mrs. Kerry paid in 2003." At the "very least, Mrs. Kerry's tax returns are a screaming illustration of the need for reform to make the tax code simpler and fairer. But they also show that Senator Kerry's proposed tax increases are much more about a revenue grab than they are about tax justice."
 
Last edited:
As long as this thread is still going...

This article captures my thoughts on Kerry quite well. I think some other people here might agree with me, too. BUT, after Kerry won the primaries, there weren't many options left. And, left with the choice of the current President and Kerry I didn't and still don't hesistate to think twice about who would be better.

There was a funny article in the onion awhile back, entitled
"Democracts somehow lose primaries." :D

enjoy.

Now Is Not the Time For National Unity!

A little disunity, please. Let?s get divisive, gang. No national healing?raw wounds, anger and resentment. This is the moment for accusations and recriminations.
As per the routine used by countless other defeated politicians, John Kerry wrapped up a quavering call for unity and oneness inside his tardy concession speech. "In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort," quoth the fallen leader of the failed effort. Yeah, yeah, yeah, link arms with George W. Bush and ? and what? Mr. Kerry?s answer was forget politics and take it up with the local divinity.
Unity and prayer. I cannot think of a less helpful farewell sentiment to leave the many thousands of first-time Democratic volunteers with. Let?s talk about unity and prayer.

First, unity. If you are a professional Democratic politician, "unity" translates into making the best deal for yourself with the other side, double-talking the volunteers who busted their butts for Mr. Kerry and refusing to tolerate, whatever else may come, any kind of looking back on Mr. Kerry and the kind of campaign he ran.
The party leaders?such as they are?knocked out Howard Dean and swung behind Mr. Kerry because they thought he could win. Think back to last winter and early spring, when that argument was repeatedly used for the longtime, non-standout Senator from Massachusetts. He could win and the crazy cuckoo-loco from Vermont had no chance. Pick John Kerry because, the pros said, John Kerry could win?except they didn?t know what they were talking about.
Nevertheless, thousands upon thousands of ardent idealists, out of overweening fear of a second Bush term, went to work for Mr. Kerry. They gave money they often couldn?t afford and time they could have usefully employed in their own strapped private lives. Seldom have so many worked so hard for a candidate so little admired and so greatly unloved. But they were told to put all the doubts aside: Don?t listen when he said things that made his own supporters grind their teeth?just keep your head down and work for him because, said the sleazeheads who run the party, he can win.
Except he didn?t.
Since his winning was the sole and entire raison d??tre for Mr. Kerry?s candidacy, his losing has left Democrats and their fellow travelers with a hole in the ground, with nothing. John Kerry was not the champion of a cause which orators can say will go on after him. His cause was beating George Bush and so making sure a clump of hideous, faith-based horrors do not take over the Supreme Court. Duh? This is not a Democratic version of the famous 1964 Goldwater campaign, in which the Republican candidate got skunked but left the G.O.P. with a cause, a goal and a high purpose which would animate hundreds of thousands for years and victories to come. Not the Kerry campaign: It has left us with the hole in the doughnut.
Democratic candidates like John Kerry hide and run away from the word "liberal." Sometimes they will do it by substituting the word "progressive," but more often they do it by donning G.O.P. clothing, which does not become them. Personally, I am not above some outright lying, but only if it gets me where I want to go. If you are going to kid the public, at least win the election. Otherwise, you have your reputation as a liar and nothing to show for it. In this campaign, the candidate and the major politicians fled from being called liberals, which the Republicans did in abundance?except if the heart of the Democratic Party is not liberal, then what the hell is it? Tell us. Who are you? The anti-Bush party. We know what that gets: defeat in the Presidential campaign, losses in the Senate and the House.
The Christian clergy of the United States was either pro-Bush or silent. When Mr. Kerry was condemned by a group of bishops in his own church, there was no countervailing group of bishops stepping forward to defend him. Organized Christian religion is either controlled by the other side or indifferent, or too weak and spineless to defy Republican godliness. Mr. Kerry, having to deal with the hostility of organized religion, chose to play the other side?s game. You cannot blame him for going publicly pious in self-defense: No significant Democratic voice took on religion. The major figures, as much intimidated as Mr. Kerry, shut up and played pious, too. Mr. Kerry was reduced to telling the world that when he was fighting in Vietnam he carried a rosary in his pocket. How undignified is that? But given how he was left out to dry, he cannot be fairly criticized.
Taking on religion, and the superstition and obscurantism which characterize it, is not the job of somebody running for public office in America. Somebody else had better start fighting back, however, before a new species of the Dark Ages is upon us, and faith-based mobs begin breaking into scientific laboratories and smashing the test tubes. If the Republicans want to talk values, then let us talk values, because some of their values are pretty damn ugly.
Let us talk about religion and reaction in America, now and then. The alliance between the Republicans and the churches is no new thing: The Christian clergy has a long history of siding with the big money and the powerful. Be meek and get your butt kicked. The job of taking on organized religion should not be left to well-meaning but ineffectual groups working on keeping church and state separated. This is much bigger, more insidious and more dangerous than dragging a stone with the Ten Commandments on it in front of the courthouse.

From defeat, if we can take nothing else, take disunity, division and a refusal to shut down the liberal spirit. And one more thing: The next time you hear a politician call for prayer or give a "God bless," boo!
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I edited this down abit. Read the full article HERE.
 
being american, i can say that americans are VERY divided on the issues that concern bush's re-election. first, consider the cultural diversity, then consider the conservative right, and the religious riech that follows their policies like gods word. once you have a republican in office its extremely hard to get them out, because congress is nearly all republican. i dont think i have to tell you they are the ones with the money. they also by and large control the electoral college, making it impossible, whether you vote democrat or not, to remove a republican leader from office.
there is also a fine line betweeen democrats and republicans these days. there is also a difference between democrats and liberals. just because your a democrat in this country doesnt mean your a liberal. i think the politicaly correct term for liberal these days is FAR left. anyway, i dont vote because of the electoral college. in the end, they have the final say, whether i like it or not, as was the case in the gore/bush election.
that was a prime example of the electoral college pulling its weight to make sure that a democrat did not take office. im not saying conservatives are bad, but the fundamentalist religious side of the nation is starting to rear its ugly head, behind bush's cause. i mean, we cant catch a 6'4" afghanie terrorist that attacked american soil, butwe can invade iraq? there seems to be a serious mis-allocation of priorities here, and if you bash bush for it, every ignorant conservative right winger gets all heated up and defends him. bs. any president would have retaliated against afghanistan, but iraq is all on bush, thats his quagmire, the american ppl did not ask him to get involved with iraq. if you ask me, i think he had a personal vendetta because hussein tried to assasinate his father, aside from us oil interests.
one thing is for certain, we are devided. my next door neighbor is a hardcore bush supporter, i am a hardcore bush hater. his policies are terrible, especially when it comes to foreign policy. read the book written by the ex treasurer. he plainly states that bush is constantly talking about sports during foreign policy meetings. it seems the dallas cowboys are more important to him than the wellfare of the middle east, or any other part of the world for that matter.
 
There will always be multiple sides to every issue in America. This country is no more divided now than it is over any other major issue. I think Bush's biggest opposition comes from the youth of America who are afraid of the second-coming of the draft.
 
babar-san wrote...
i dont vote because of the electoral college.
Click to expand...

That's not a very responsible way to respond to the situation. Just give up? :okashii: One of the reasons Conservatives win so often is that they're (historically) much better about getting their supporters to the polls.

MW Thomas wrote...
This country is no more divided now than it is over any other major issue.
Click to expand...

The division is obvious everywhere in America! I can't remember a time when Liberals and Conservatives were so divided in their views that they could barely even talk to one another. The priorities of each side are so different that they can hardly find any sort of common ground on anything.
 
Brooker said:
babar-san wrote...


That's not a very responsible way to respond to the situation. Just give up? :okashii: One of the reasons Conservatives win so often is that they're (historically) much better about getting their supporters to the polls.

well,if you take into consideration that arguably gore won the first bush election, and the electoral college intervened via congress, then my vote didnt really matter. :souka: so, with a party designed to overthrow popular vote, and the fact that conservative parties have the money to keep themselves in power, its no wonder that democrats have a hard time getting into the white house. until this party (electoral college) is revised in a manner of its actuall power, i will not vote.
Click to expand...
 
The Yankees are way too overconfident with war, so confident that they can't even stabalize Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Yankees oppose peace?? Do the Yankees here loving killing people?? Have the Yankees totally forgotten about the My Lai massacre in vietnam??? Are Yankees very proud of what their army did in Abu Gharib, Iraq?? Do Yankees stick with the philosphy that "the strong should rule the weak"??

I am bitter because, the Yankees on the internet are way to confident of their military that they started making racial slurs against everyone not "white".

The Yankees have so much pride their military but look down on their infantry, why I don't know. Do Yankees think killing is fun?? How would you feel if you were a in the shoes of an Iraqi POW in abu gharib??

The Yankees are so proud of their army, so confident that they must ask help from the world to aid their middle eastern campaign. Makes you proud to be a Yankee eh?? Yankees think the world is wrong and the Yank is right.

The Yank, is in dire need of therapy. They constantly suffer from a severe phobia of peace and multiculturalism.

The Yank, so proud of being a Yank, that the Yank must resort to being one of the most racist beasts on the internet.

If the Yank has the right to use insulting words such as "J*p", "N*p", "chi*k", "yellow man" etc, then I as a deeply offended asian have the right to at least use the word Yank in return.

If the Yank has the right to belittle anyone not Yankee, then I too should I the right to complain about their behaviours across the world.

If the Yank believes in free speech then I should have the right to say what I posted here without being flammed or kicked out.
 
Maciamo, people in America don't fight over politics, we bicker about them. The thing that divides us in moral issues: marijuana, shooting foster parents in the leg that abuse their children and for it being illegal to do so, gender discrimination such as in paychecks for women, and so forth and yada yada. There's a reason we don't teach karate in schools. Americans would be knocking each other out because most of america is full of ridiculous people who don't have an ounce of wisdom in them. Basically america is full of stupid people. We bicker with stupid people. Thus I am a fool because i bicker with stupid people. It's all stupid.
 
If the Yank has the right to use insulting words such as "J*p", "N*p", "chi*k", "yellow man" etc, then I as a deeply offended asian have the right to at least use the word Yank in return.
Click to expand...

Not on these boards. That is, calling people "J*p", "N*p", "chi*k", and "yellow man" is not tolerated here, so neither will the word "yank," if someone finds it offensive. Last time someone tried using the word "Jap" I believe they were immediately corrected by another member.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top