I think that bush won because the election was rigged. No i am not kidding around, the election was rigged. That is what I believe. I mean I knew 10 months before that no matter how hard Kerry tried, Bush was still going to win. How did I know that? Not because of people supporting Bush, because its all a scam. To Make Bush president. I think there was this thing my teacher was talking about (I live in Illinois so you know how he feels about the election). Well anyways, he said that the guy who made the electronical voting machines, said that he wanted bush to win or something. I dont know maybe he was kidding around. Or if you have seen that hilarious electronically voting machine movie thingy. Well that was a joke. But anyways, I think its all a scam and they made Bush win. Kerry really deserved to win, and I wanted him to win, even though I predicted he wouldnt win no matter what happened.

the re-election of bush has doomed us all...:dammit:
so maybe this IS an actual footage of a voting machine...http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6144

I bet you 20000000 dollars that the movie is exactly what happened in florida, ohio, and other major states where Bush won. damn that creator of the machine.

im moving to canada...that seems to be the safest place from bush

hell yea man.

or, move to Antartica.

Agreed. But, compare that with the 40-50% we've been experiencing. And who's to say that this will occur again next year. We may make this investment and then not have anyone show up.
Good point on the no work for an hour. However, if we have paper ballots, pens, and cardboard boxes we'll be accused of being a third-world nation. LOL And we have this solution already - absentee ballots.

If this gets to be a problem, and Americans start realizing how important their votes are, then we may have to invest in some more polling places. But now, I just don't think it's justified. IMHO

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Do you have some proof of this? Because this is a very serious federal offense. Please, contact you nearest FBI office and give them your proof, or at least voice your suspicion so that we can get to the bottom of this.
This is true. The company is Diebold and the CEO is a Republican contributor. Did your non-partisan teacher also tell you about the hundreds of cases of election manipulation that has occured in our history without Diebold? Or was he/she just teaching the democratic line? Public school, such a tragedy.
Why? And I don't want your teacher's answers, I want your answers.

@jpklla - have a nice trip!

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I can see that in your world you also have blind faith in your leaders and believe every word they speak out loud.

It doesn't matter if the Bush administration has said the exact words. It is enough that they tell the American people that al-Qa´eda was responsible for 9/11 and that Iraq has close ties with the organization, harbours terrorists etc.

If you really believe that the Bush administration has done their best from the beginning to keep Iraq and 9/11 separate issues, and that they have done so by not speaking the exact words, then it seems a bit pointless to discuss this any further with you.

What? How did you come to the conclusion that this is a very touchy issue for me? Or is it supposed to be an insult?
And no, I was not manipulated. I still have my brains left.

I'm truly amazed of the filter through which you see Bush's actions. You honestly think he has been totally honest to the American people during the past 4 years? That he has done nothing to imply there might've been a connection between Iraq and 9/11? Amazing.

Many people tend to believe what the government tells them, especially when the message is repeated over and over again. You can't just give the government a carte blanche to lie or twist the truth, and when someone believes them you blame the guy for being gullible.

Not all of them have to be stupid, but perhaps just too narrow minded or lazy to search more objective information about things than what the government tells you. When the government is the source of information which proves to be untrue they can be blamed.

I think it is important because it shows the strategy of the administration. Talk about 9/11, talk about terrorism, talk about wmd, talk about Iraq, talk about Saddam, but don't mention Osama. Don't you think it's a bit strange that when they talk about terrorism they don't mention Osama who was/is the leader of al-Qa´eda and actually had something to do with 9/11, but instead they talk about Iraq and Saddam, neither of which had attacked the US, didn't have wmd, don't have strong ties with al-Qa´eda etc. ?

Yeah, what a riot...
The "research" I did actually didn't take that long so don't worry, I didn't waste too much of my life for it.

As I have said earlier, the exact quote from Bush saying "Iraq had ties with 9/11" isn't needed. I'm sure everyone here understand that you can make a point without actually spelling out the exact words.

When over 50% of the Americans still believe Iraq is linked to 9/11, don't it make you wonder where they might have gotten the idea? You really think they are all just so gullible, and they have only themselves to blame for making up such things in their heads?

First of all, I'm not making the claims, Bush and his buddies are.
You may have noticed that Iraq has been on the agenda of Bush a bit more than Syria or Iran. Iraq had been on Bush's agenda for a long time. With a similar information campaign as now has been done but with more emphasis on Iran and less on Iraq, the Americans would probably now believe Iran was behind 9/11.

:confused:

__________________

That is hilarious. Why would you say that? Did I say that I believed everything Bush said? Oh wait, I get it. With you, I don't actually have to say it. You can read my mind, right? Or perhaps you just think whatever you want me to say and then, regardless of what I say, you already know your answer. Very clever.

You see, the problem with your method is that when I go to evaluate a person's claims, I'm actually evaluating what they claimed. When you go to evaluate a person's claims, you're evaluating what you think they said.
Perhaps in your world, and the world of those who choose to listen haphazardly to what is being said to them.
Once again, I never said that the Bush administration has done their best from the beginning to keep Iraq and 9.11 separate issues. I never even implied that. Honestly, I don't know how you function.

I've said that neither Bush nor his administration ever tied Iraq and 9.11 together. They also never claimed that the upper management of United Airlines was involved in 9.11, yet two of their planes were used for the attacks! Omigod! United Airlines has declared war on the US! And Bush believes as much because I distinctly remember him saying, "Two United Airlines flights slammed into the World Trade Center". Shouldn't Bush come out and say that there is no tie between the upper management of United Airlines and 9.11?
Obviously. You could have my part of the discussion all by your lonesome.
Oh, you know, I read your mind. Remember, it's not what you say that's important, it's what I think you said.
And again, I never said I believe Bush has been totally honest to the American people during the past 4 years. What in the world is with you? Tell you what, I'll parse out where I would make a reply to your points and then you just fill in the rest.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Yes, people like me just like to imagine things. And if I say "You are in my way. I will kill anyone who's in my way", it can't by no means be taken as a threat to you, can it? Since I didn't say I will kill you...
Or if I say the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is a liar, you don't know who I'm talking about since I didn't say his name, right?

You really think it's impossible for Bush's administration to have linked Iraq to 9/11 without saying "Iraq is linked to 9/11"? They did manage to succesfully link Iraq with al-Qa`eda with no evidence to back up the claim. But I'm sure you can blame the stupid people who shouldn't have believed what the government tells them. They managed to convince Iraq is a threat to the US without any evidence etc.

Don't you wonder where all your fellow countrymen have gotten the idea of Iraq and Saddam being involved in 9/11? They just made it up out of nowhere? (I know, they just imagine things and the administration can't be blamed for the stupidity of millions of Americans...)

No, those are pretty basic communication strategies they are using and it is not a big secret that you can make people believe things without saying the exact words out loud. You can confuse people by giving contradictory information, spread misinformation etc. You can demand a quote from Bush saying Iraq is responsible for 9/11 all you want but it really is not necessary to prove my point.

And in my world we would expect some evidence of e.g. wmd and links to terrorist organisations and actual threats and not take only the word of our leader that someone is a threat to us before we attack. We wouldn't be satisfied with lies and half-truths fed to us and would be critical about the information that is spread by our government. But I quess we live in different worlds.

And talking about different ways to listen to what is said to a person...Here is the list of reasons for the war you gave to muspell:

Do you still believe in those reasons? I'm just asking since I haven't seen any proof backing up any of them. Nevertheless, the Bush administration stated them as facts and the American people believed its leaders. But all of the above reasons (lies) have of course nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is linked to 9/11 in the minds of many Americans.

So if you think they haven't done their best to keep the issues separate, do you think they may have done something to confuse the issues and establish a link between Iraq and 9/11?

Wow, you actually see a similarity between the confusion about Iraq's contribution to 9/11 and your witty example?

You are so clever, aren't you? I really feel humbled...

But perhaps it is better to end this, since it seems to be pretty difficult for you to be objective and critical about the current administration.

You can overlook the following links, but others with more open minds may read them if they wish and decide for themselves if the American people has perhaps been misled.


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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in607356.shtml

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one."

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml

"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks."

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

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...11_challenged/

"But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq."

But intelligence specialists told the Globe last August that they have never confirmed that the training took place, or identified where it could have taken place. "The general public just doesn't have any independent way of weighing what is said," Cannistraro, the former CIA counterterrorism specialist, said. "If you repeat it enough times . . . then people become convinced it's the truth."

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

"Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Monday in Florida, raised eyebrows by reasserting claims that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...eda/index.html

"In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks."

(Nice way to confuse the people. Deny something but on the other hand suggest the opposite. Do you think this was an accident?)

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

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

__________________