Interesting!

[MaxFly]

Bush did fall off his bike, he had a bike ride and fell off. only bruises though, Lance Armstrong also done it. I insult the president because i speak the truth. He is an idiot.

I know I cant blame it on him about this hurricane and people looting, But he is saying complete success when clearly its going slow as hell. They just started giving them supplies after 4 days!!!

←

Bush has never called the relief efforts a complete success... I'm not sure where you heard this or who told you this, but the source is wrong.

In fact, he has called the efforts disorganized and "unacceptable." To set the record straight, here at the exact words he said.

The magnitude of the crisis "has created tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities... The result is that many of our citizens simply are not getting the help they need, especially in New Orleans. And that is unacceptable."

Also, I brought up the topic of Lance Armstrong, 6 time Tour de France winner because in trying to insult Bush, you make it seem that because he fell off his bike, he is an idiot or incompetent... These are you words...

"This is the dude that got hurt falling off his bike for gods sake"

How ridiculous is that statement when Lance Armstrong, who rides bikes for a living and is a champion at doing it, has fallen off and been injured several times.

If you want to insult the president, do it right. Mention Iraq or WMDs, not that he fell off his bike...

[Jonny 5]

haha that falling off the bike statement is funny - who hasn't fallen off their bike? I've lost count...

You could mention that pic where he is trying to look through binoculars, but the lens caps were still on, that would have been funny :lolsign:

[MaxFly]

George Bush is relevant cause during the 2000 elections thousands of black votes  were prevented from being counted.

Don't think it's a fad, at least you have objections, instead of everyone following the accepted line.

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." George W Bush, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 16th February 2000

←

It's one thing to have objections, but it's a different thing entirely to jump on the bandwagon and insult and criticize because everyone else is doing it.

Even in this thread, people have said things that have no basis in fact in their attempts to criticize the president. My only wish is that people would get their facts correct and know what they are saying before they post. Don't regurgitate something you heard someone else say just because it sounds right or because you want to believe it. Instead, investigate and then speak from your own knowledge on the subject, not from what someone has told you.

This is largely why Bush is in office today. The Republicans stuck to their talking points during the election season and many people believed them without investigating the facts behind their statements.

[Schnazz]

"Why the hell is he president?"

Cause you guys over there choosed him..

well we actually didn't choose him. bush used his daddy's connections to win 2 terms. the truth is that in 2000 the republicans literally stopped people from voting beause they would do the following:

in USA if you are in jail you can't vote so let's say that there is a guy in jail named Will Smith, now let's say that the Will Smith that we know goes to vote. Even if he is in another state they won't let him vote because he has the same name as a guy in jail.

also in 2004 the whole thing was fake, because the exit polls (when the press asks people who they voted for right after they leave the voting booth.) they said that john kerry won in a landslide.

←

:word: I would add that in the 2000 elections, the actual vote counting was stopped and then the supreme court (the majority appointed by Republican presidents) handed the presidency to Bush, and then basically said that the decision was a one time decision and shouldn't be used as a basis for any future events.

[MaxFly]

"Why the hell is he president?"

Cause you guys over there choosed him..

well we actually didn't choose him. bush used his daddy's connections to win 2 terms. the truth is that in 2000 the republicans literally stopped people from voting beause they would do the following:

in USA if you are in jail you can't vote so let's say that there is a guy in jail named Will Smith, now let's say that the Will Smith that we know goes to vote. Even if he is in another state they won't let him vote because he has the same name as a guy in jail.

also in 2004 the whole thing was fake, because the exit polls (when the press asks people who they voted for right after they leave the voting booth.) they said that john kerry won in a landslide.

←

:word: I would add that in the 2000 elections, the actual vote counting was stopped and then the supreme court (the majority appointed by Republican presidents) handed the presidency to Bush, and then basically said that the decision was a one time decision and shouldn't be used as a basis for any future events.

←

I'd have to concur on that point. In addition, thousands of votes were not counted and many complained of voter intimidation and underhanded practices. Voting boxes went missing. The whole thing was a debacle.

[MaxFly]

"Why the hell is he president?"

also in 2004 the whole thing was fake, because the exit polls (when the press asks people who they voted for right after they leave the voting booth.) they said that john kerry won in a landslide.

←

That's actually not true Sonic. The early voter turnout showed John Kerry with a significant lead in many states. As the afternoon wore into the evening, and the evening wore into the night, the exit poll results significantly narrowed, and then Bush took the lead on a number of states in the exit polls. The exit polls all relate fairly similar results to the official vote counts. Those who interpreted them are the ones who made the error. They began looking at the exit polls too early and overanalyzed them. They saw Kerry with early leads and started to believe that he would win many of the states he had leads in. The problem is that Bush rallied in the afternoon and in the evening on these very same exit polls, something that the analyzers didn't expect, and then ended up ultimately winning them.

Here is an accurate reference of the final exit poll data from the 2004 election...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

Incidentally, this is what I'm talking about when I say that people make statements on matters that are not true or grossly uninformed.

Guys, make sure that your statements are accurate or as close to accurate as possible. When you post something inaccurate it only serves to chip away at your credibility.

[WesSyde]

thanx 4 that link Max. i didn't recall the exit polls being as one-sided as someone said they were. i think u also make a good point about being sure of ur info. when u post info that isn't totally true, not only does it make ur statement invalid, but it can screw up the whole debate because people are misinformed of what really happened. i wonder if the person who said that really remembers it differently or if that had something to do with disliking Bush which everyone seems to these days.

Edited September 4, 2005 by reborn2reign

[Schnazz]

The early voter turnout showed John Kerry with a significant lead in many states. As the afternoon wore into the evening, and the evening wore into the night, the exit poll results significantly narrowed, and then Bush took the lead on a number of states in the exit polls. The exit polls all relate fairly similar results to the official vote counts. Those who interpreted them are the ones who made the error. They began looking at the exit polls too early and overanalyzed them. They saw Kerry with early leads and started to believe that he would win many of the states he had leads in. The problem is that Bush rallied in the afternoon and in the evening on these very same exit polls, something that the analyzers didn't expect, and then ended up ultimately winning them.

Here is an accurate reference of the final exit poll data from the 2004 election...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

←

There's a couple problems with that, which put the entire election in a very shady light. I was using cnn.com's election coverage for my primary source of information on that election, and something interesting happened. The polling data showed very consistantly that Kerry was winning through out the day and evening. Then, I believe it was a little after midnight, the poll values instantly changed dramatically. (as in, shifting from a several point lead for Kerry to a several point lead for Bush) There was a lot of uproar over this and the official explanation that I read was that the poll results where combined with the election results at that point. (I believe they actually termed it 'callibrated') Which begs the question, why where the poll results that they had been recieving all day so out of wack with the election results? Is it true, do they need to be adjusted? Why did the significant adjustments only take place in swing state? Why do so many other elections apparently have accurate poll numbers, but this one apparently didn't for the better part of 16 hours?

Another issue is the allocation of voting resources. In poor, black communities people literally waited hours in the rain so that they could vote. It's unknown how many people that just got fed up and left, or had to go to work and left. Incidently, poor black neighborhoods typically vote for Democrats, not Republicans.

Then there was a report that, I believe it was Diebold, but the head of a major voting machine company, stated that he was committed to helping Bush win the election. And when you look at election data, the numbers are significantly shifted in a way that areas that used those machines had a much higher vote for Bush then areas that didn't use those machines. Perhaps it's all a big coincidence... perhaps the newer machines where more expensive, so you'd expect the richer areas (which usually means more Republican areas) to be voting more for Bush. But it's a shady coincidence.

Then you have the question of the security of the machines themselves. It's been reported that you could modify the result data quite easily. (If you know anything about computers, it was reported that the data was stored in an un-encrypted Access database) Since these voting systems are property of the companies, and the courts have ruled that they can't be examined (for competition issues), no one can really state clearly or not if these are in fact secure.

And next you have an issue of who's in charge of the election in various states. In Ohio, a very key state, it was a Repulican, who was also a rather high member of the re-elect Bush campaign. There are reports, though non are confirmed, that he made questionable demands and resource allocation that would help sway the vote result. While this person may have behaving in a non-partison way, it does seem a bit shady.

Finally you have the un-substantiated rumors. Such as Bush never acting concerned when early numbers showed he was going to lose. Or the hacker who claimed he had either personally changed, or witnessed a change to the election results.

All in all, there is no proof that this election was fake, however there are many, many shady things that happened. The legitimacy of the election, and the poll results, are not nearly cut and dry in favor of Bush.

[mixmastermegan7]

Things like this make me embarassed to be an American. But guys, wasn't it sweet when George Bush took off of his vacation to tour New Orleans by air for 30 minutes?? :hail:

:woono:

[MaxFly]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp

[Frenetic]

Maxfly: Excuses are easy to come up with.

[bigted]

Whether you wanna blame Bush or the looters, this is a bad image for America, the world is gonna be looking down at us again! :therain:

[MaxFly]

Maxfly: Excuses are easy to come up with.

←

That is exactly my question to you Frenetic. Why do you keep providing excuses for those who are acting lawlessly; I haven't heard a peep from you in this whole discussion about how outraged you are that young men are raping girls or how disgusted you are that they are shooting at rescue workers. You've done nothing but deflect questions about those realities. I've posted links to pictures of the looting... You said that you hadn't seen a single picture of someone stealing DVDs or TVs. You can no longer say that. Is it that you really don't see what is right infront of you, or is it that you see it but refuse to accept it.

I really want to hear your explanation for why 8 men fired at Navy Core of Engineer workers who were going to work on the levees yesterday. How was that apart of their survival? I want to hear your explanation for why men have raped little girls. How is that apart of their survival? Why did men shoot at rescue helicopters. How was that apart of their survival?

Someone earlier said that other countries are looking at the relief efforts and are criticizing the government.

What do you think the people of the world are thinking about black people when they look at the city and see the violence and the lawlessness taking place all while people are dying and honest people are trying to survive. Is this the type of image we should be displaying across the world?

When people become myopic and are quick to blame outside forces, but refuse to ever look inwardly and address their own issues, change will never come about.

[MaxFly]

Whether you wanna blame Bush or the looters, this is a bad image for America, the world is gonna be looking down at us again!  :therain:

←

I agree Ted. However, instead of blaming people, citizens should be working together to provide relief. There will be plenty of time for blame. The thing is that people like Kanye are quick to blame the government, but silent when his own people are shooting at one another and at law officials. If you're going to pass out criticism, do so judiciously and fairly.

[Frenetic]

Maxfly: Excuses are easy to come up with.

←

That is exactly my question to you Frenetic. Why do you keep providing excuses for those who are acting lawlessly; I haven't heard a peep from you in this whole discussion about how outraged you are that young men are raping girls or how disgusted you are that they are shooting at rescue workers. You've done nothing but deflect questions about those realities. I've posted links to pictures of the looting... You said that you hadn't seen a single picture of someone stealing DVDs or TVs. You can no longer say that. Is it that you really don't see what is right infront of you, or is it that you see it but refuse to accept it.

I really want to hear your explanation for why 8 men fired at Navy Core of Engineer workers who were going to work on the levees yesterday. How was that apart of their survival? I want to hear your explanation for why men have raped little girls. How is that apart of their survival? Why did men shoot at rescue helicopters. How was that apart of their survival?

Someone earlier said that other countries are looking at the relief efforts and are criticizing the government.

What do you think the people of the world are thinking about black people when they look at the city and see the violence and the lawlessness taking place all while people are dying and honest people are trying to survive. Is this the type of image we should be displaying across the world?

When people become myopic and are quick to blame outside forces, but refuse to ever look inwardly and address their own issues, change will never come about.

←

Isn't that for sure that raping, killin and violence is all acts of complete insanitiy and should be punished? DO i have to say that just to make it RIGHT for goverment and authorities to discriminate and overlook the need for help amongst poor & black people?

Don't be a jerk, the topic was not about the violence and raping, it's about media ONCE AGAIN (not the first time) portrays whites as the superior people.

WHY should I explane their acts? huh? I am only in the discussion critizising the hatred and discriminination on blacks. I've gotten tired of getting angry on those idiots, i've made various remarks on those kidn of things in other boards. Those people are idiots, BUT, BUT according to journalists in NO, 90% of the people "looting" ARE either not looting or is just pciking up food. BUT, since people like to get excited, they don't report that as much as the action kind of stuff about people shooting at rescue choppers and raping underagre girls in the superdome and so on.

Why does it feel like u just had, had to come in with an explanation about the blacks being violent in here? huh? Is it cause u can't open your eyes and see the truth, that the african-americans STILL are the inferior race in the US but it's jsut not so open for the public to notice. Remember that ALL media is controlled by privateowners with different kind of interests, FOX is a completely conservative channel displaying 74% black violence in their news when about 35% of the violence in the streets are caused be african-americans. How come FOX was the first channel to air BUSH as a winner in 2000? Cause Bush's cousin got a job there.

How come FOX is known for various racist and anti-islam reportages including one about my hometown in Sweden.

If the media can't handle their business without being objective and fair, they should shut the **** up, cause they got alot more power then they seem to know.