HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » G. W. Bush--Innocent of t...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:04 AM

G. W. Bush--Innocent of the Theft of the Presidency?

I just appended to a diary "In Praise of President G.W. Bush" on Daily Kos an acknowledgment of ABC TV's Scandal bringing to the attention of the American public the view that G.W. Bush was not complicit in the theft of the Presidency orchestrated by Karl Rove.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/25/1204847/-In-Praise-of-President-G-W-Bush
39 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
G. W. Bush was not complicit in the theft of the Presidency
2 (5%)
G. W. Bush was complicit in the theft of the Presidency
37 (95%)
No opinion
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

58 replies, 7225 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 58 replies Author Time Post
Reply G. W. Bush--Innocent of the Theft of the Presidency? (Original post)
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 OP
graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
Octafish Apr 2013 #5
FarPoint Apr 2013 #13
One of the 99 Apr 2013 #7
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #8
graham4anything Apr 2013 #12
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #18
graham4anything Apr 2013 #20
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #21
graham4anything Apr 2013 #28
dreamnightwind Apr 2013 #34
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #35
Orsino Apr 2013 #49
graham4anything Apr 2013 #50
Orsino Apr 2013 #51
graham4anything Apr 2013 #52
Orsino Apr 2013 #56
graham4anything Apr 2013 #57
Orsino Apr 2013 #58
Jenoch Apr 2013 #9
blm Apr 2013 #17
EOTE Apr 2013 #22
graham4anything Apr 2013 #23
Jenoch Apr 2013 #26
ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #31
Coyotl Apr 2013 #2
Orsino Apr 2013 #44
Coyotl Apr 2013 #47
Orsino Apr 2013 #48
stevenleser Apr 2013 #3
FarPoint Apr 2013 #14
pacalo Apr 2013 #19
Octafish Apr 2013 #4
FarPoint Apr 2013 #16
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #41
HappyMe Apr 2013 #6
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #10
HappyMe Apr 2013 #15
graham4anything Apr 2013 #24
sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #27
graham4anything Apr 2013 #30
Gidney N Cloyd Apr 2013 #11
Lisa0825 Apr 2013 #25
hedgehog Apr 2013 #29
jschurchin Apr 2013 #32
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #36
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #42
jschurchin Apr 2013 #43
Zoeisright Apr 2013 #46
ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #33
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #40
Knightraven Apr 2013 #37
Auntie Bush Apr 2013 #38
Initech Apr 2013 #39
whistler162 Apr 2013 #45
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #53
lpbk2713 Apr 2013 #54
mattclearing Apr 2013 #55

Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:07 AM

1. Ralph Nader/NH was compicit in the theft of the 2000 election, is my answer, choice not there.

 

Bush was the beneficiary.

Bushfamily was compicit in the democratic party not being seated in the elections of 1968, 1972, 1980,1984,1988,2000 and 2004

The 4 electoral votes in NH in 2000 caused Al Gore to remain under 270.
He had 267.
4 more
271 and victory without Florida.
Ralph Nader is guilty of that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:21 AM

5. Hilarious!

Add disinformation much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:40 AM

13. You nailed that one correctly.

We can always count on the village attention seeker to rise to the occasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:24 AM

7. No, Bush, the GOP in Florida and the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election.

At worst, Nader was an unwitting accomplice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:24 AM

8. So running for president in the US is illegal? What was illegal about Ralph Nader's run

for president? Something in the Constitution we missed?

The OP is talking about the ILLEGAL theft of an election, and you inject a totally irrelevant comment that has zero to do with the topic.

Are you ACTUALLY claiming that Bush was 'just a beneficiary' and had zero to do with that crime??

Since when did Democrats decide they have to defend Bush? Someone please explain this sudden love for Bush we're seeing around democratic forums lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:38 AM

12. Without NH's 4 going for Bush, Gore was seated. It is a plain fact. 267 plus 4=271

 

Do I think W himself planned the Florida thingy before the fact?
Only in the sense that Republcians paid for and promoted Nader and ran on the both are the same meme to make it close enough for Florida to matter.

No one is professing love for Bush.

I am 100% consistent on blaming Ralph Nader and blaming those who voted for Ronald Reagan and John Anderson in 1980.

It is a fact.
And I consistently report that FACT.

And this blame Bush is going to backfire in that Jeb is running in 2016.
And if Hillary is the nominee, and people don't vote for her over some trivial wedge issue,
Jeb will become President45.

I am consistent and lay the blame on the fracture of the Democratic party in all the elections they lost in the last 80 years.

Starting with Adlai.

I am mortified everytime I see someone on a democratic board say how much they like Eisenhower.
Sheesh, if Eisenhower ran in 2016 against Adlai, I get the feeling the same people would vote for Ike and he won in 1952 and 1960.
NO those times were not good for a good majority of the people.

It took LBJ to make the times good, thanks to Martin Luther King Jr. and many others who helped build what LBJ signed into law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:57 AM

18. We are talking about the illegal theft of an election. You did not answer the question. The

only way Nader is relevant to this conversation is, IF he did something illegal. Now, can you try to stick to the topic and explain what was illegal about Ralph Nader's run for the WH?

Otherwise your comments are meaningless.

The SC STOLE the 2000 election with the help of a bunch of CRIMINALS doing ILLEGAL things.

Unless you can provide something relevant to the conversation, Nader was no part of that massive crime and you appear only to be trying to distract from the crime for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:51 AM

20. Not true. IF it was a pre-planned conspiracy and not a CT, then yes, Nader part of it

 

because if you are saying W was involved knowingly in the steal the 2000 election,
then everything done leading up to election day and after was part of the conspiracy

Was it a bad court?
That is a separate question then answered by-
All those who elected Ronald Reagan and voted for John Anderson elected that supreme court.

Anyone who did NOT vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980, elected THAT SCOTUS.

The 5 republican players on the Court were put there by republican presidents Reagan and Ford and Bush41 and Bush43(different court members, but they put those on).

So if 2000 was a conspiracy, the people who were on the court were put there by republican presidents.

Clarence Thomas as opposed to Thurgood Marshall. A democratic president did not nominate Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, OConnor, Kennedy (and later Alito and Roberts).

So do NOT blame the 4 who voted 7 to 2 to let Florida decide and the 2 new democratic court members.

Blame Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford,Reagan, Bush41, Bush43

if the question is-was W complicit in the election results? I think 41 was complicit in the court and every single bad thing in America since the Bums stood at Dealey Plaza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:53 AM

21. Democrats voted for Thomas. So what's your point? The USSC committed a crime.

What crime did Nader commit?

I consider it, eg, a crime for anyone to have voted for Thomas. But that's just my opinion, legally even Democrats had a right to do so and they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:09 PM

28. Russ Feingold voted for John Roberts

 

but John Roberts and Clarence Thomas would NOT have been nominated in the first place

Do you not see the folly of stupid protest votes throwing elections time and again?
19521956 19681972 1980 1984 1988 2000 2004
and then railing against the Democratic presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama

What part is not obvious- protest votes, tearing down a democratic president-

all it did was get 41,43 and will get Jeb.

If not one other thing happens good or bad, I am voting straight democratic.
If all the people who voted for President Obama and Hillary Clinton in the democratic primary in 2008 vote for whomever is the democratic candidate in 2016, no matter whom, makes no difference it will be better than the Bush's coming back.
It's not tearing the party and then Hillary down. It is beating the Bush's and Jeb by the largest landslide.

Because nothing else matters 13 years later debating 2000 than the fact that W was seated.
And tearing our President and Hillary down will lead directly to Jeb.
Why if one hates W, would they want Jeb? Makes NO sense.

The answer for Ralph Nader is- don't anyone consider anyone but the democratic nominee for president in 2016.
Then Alito,Roberts,OConnor, Thomas,Scalia,Kennedy would not have been named

And we would have great people like Sonia Sotomayer and a suitable replacement for Thurgood Marshall, not the joke that was Clarence.

Teddy put up a great fight stopping Bork and attempting to stop THomas.
However, his fight in 1980 was the wrong time and his not reuniting with Carter helped with other things to get all of those future SCOTUS picks.

One has the legal right to do anything. But then one should have the moral responsiblity to see what was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 01:26 PM

34. You're either with the DLC...

You're either with the DLC or you're with the terrorists. Seems to be your argument.

I actually agree that, if your state is not "safe" in a presidential election, it is not wise to vote third party. My state is generally safe (goes to the Dem) so I have that luxury if I want to exercise it. Sometimes I do, sometimes I vote for the Dem, it depends to what degree the Dem disgusts me.

I completely disagree with your statement about not tearing down a Democratic president. If we don't stick up for positions on the left, absolutely nobody will. We bring pressure to bear, such as it is (they mostly ignore us anyway, since we are Left Out), on our politicians with our critiques of their positions. It's worth every bit of progressive argument we can muster. Especially as it relates to the primaries. That's my point of view, I know that yours differs.

Policy-wise, it's been a dismal experience the last 5 years or so for many on the left, and depending on which issues are most important to a particular leftist, there has been little substantive change from the unbelievably misdirected Bush years.

The SCOTUS argument remains as one of the few substantial differences between the Dems we are force-fed by the corporatists and the Republicans they oppose. Sotomayor is not a Democrat (she said exactly that, and would not specify what she identifies as, on Colbert's show), but even so, she is better than anyone McCain or Jeb are likely to give us. The court actually became more conservative with both of Obama's appointments. I do acknowledge, though, that newly appointed Republican justices would have been worse.

That's about as much common ground as I can find with your posts on this subject, unfortunately.

We need real Dems, not the impostors that so often call themselves Democrats these days. There are serious changes that absolutely have to happen, involving climate policy, wealth distribution, the explosive growth of the surveillance state, corporate capture of our government, military overreach and terrorist blowback from it, etc. The Dems in power now are barely even slowing these things down, let alone changing directions, so I completely reject continuing on the current path, it is a failure. We're headed towards the same outcome we would be under Republican rule, it's just a slightly slower decline under the DLC/PPI/New Dems. We need a course correction, not a more gentle descent into oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:47 PM

35. Lol, so did Joe Biden. Again, what is your point other than avoiding the question I asked

What crime did Nader commit by running for the WH?

A CRIME was committed, by the USSC, for whom many Democrats voted including our VP.

Your anger at one man for doing something that was legal is remarkable.

But using your logic, if only Democrats had not voted for Republican SC nominees maybe that crime would never have happened. That sure had more to do with Bush stealing the WH than someone else running for office.

So, trying to keep on topic.

USSC committed a crime.

Nader did not.

Enabling the USSC were many Democrats who voted for them.

Your anger is misdirected, thank you for reminding me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:09 PM

49. And without Gore, Nader would have been seated. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 06:29 AM

50. How? Where would the 270 have come from?

 

To be seated you need 270 electoral votes.
Without Gore, W would have had 538.
Nader was a frivilous protest candidate who was just there to be a joker or wanted anarchy occur.
He wasn't a serious candidate,just another Alf Landon, or Roseanne running solely to bloviate and either with or without his own knowledge. At least Pat Paulsen told everyone it was a joke.

Begging the question how smart is Ralph Nader? What did he know and when did he know it?
The republicans financed him, did he in advance know? If so, wasn't it his duty to like his own Green party leaders wanted him to do, step out of it?

I take anyone at that level to be smart-ergo-he was a 15 minute fameseeker, who parlayed it into a lifetime supply of whine, which he does to this day.
So in essence, he is just another rebel with a straw, sipping the whine.

At least to any fans ofW-W was seated, what prize at the end did Ralph Nader and his fans get?
Did anyone ever get a T-Shirt from Ralph (maybe it said-
I stole the election of 2000, and all you got was a t-shirt and W and Iraq).

He should have ran in the primaries.
Then he should have not been so lazy and run for something he could have won, and like Al Franken serve without bloviating.But that would have required work.
Ralph Nader don't do no work. He just found his lotto ticket and cashed it in.

Anyone who doesn't like 41 and W and doesn't want Jeb around, doesn't like Nader, and knows very well what Ralph Nader did.

All it took was 4 electoral votes and 270 votes were Al Gore's.

Nov.2000 vs. Dec. 2000
Which came first?
Nov. Without Ralph Nader there never would have been a SCOTUS taking the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #50)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:59 AM

51. That was more or less my point.

As they say in football, what could have happened did.

Saying that Gore would have won without Nader is almost as fatuous as saying the reverse. Without any one of the three, election 2000 would have been different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 10:48 AM

52. No, it is nothing the same. There should only be 2 running in the general.

 

The top two vote getters in a primary.

Nader was intellectually lazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:51 AM

56. Not according to the Constitution. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:55 AM

57. Then don't complain about anything W ever did. According to it, W won.

 

and as Nixon wasn't impeached, anything a President does is legal.

BTW-even Ron Paul refused to sign on for impeachment.though Kucinich wanted it,
and now the two and David Duke are BFF's it seems. All for Rand and Rand for all.

go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:12 PM

58. My takeaway here is that third-party candidates shouldn't be allowed?

But since they are, I can't complain about W's myriad sins?

Not following this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:24 AM

9. "Bushfamily was compicit in the democratic party not being seated in the elections of

 

1968, 1972, 1980,1984,1988,2000 and 2004"

I don't quite understand what it is you mean with this phrase. Will you explain it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:56 AM

17. Gish Gallop - it's g4a's tactic of choice

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:56 AM

22. Nailed it.

Throw out loads and loads of misinformation and strawmen as possible without addressing the issue at hand and hope to dazzle them with bullshit. Every. Single. Time. Really makes me wonder what the poster is attempting to do here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:58 AM

23. 41,41,41,41,41,41,41.

 

41 had a hand in the power in America since then.
The line does draw through all of them continuously, and they are attempting Jeb coming in and saving America.
He wanted to be Nixon's VP He wanted to be Ford's VP, he became Reagan's VP
He became the power when Reagan was shot by his families son, he was the Cheney to Reagan as Cheney was to Reagan.
And continues to be the power in the family over his two sons one of whom is running in 2016.

I don't get it, but the vast majority of people consider 41 a hero and whenever in the future he goes, he is going to get an outpouring of love that will help Jeb and W.

I know 41 and Jeb helped on election eve. I am sure W was there.
And well, the court was their court.

So the time to stop it was 1980 and re-elect Carter, but many democratic voters strayed
just like in 2000.

Don't want it to happen in 2016-no matter who, vote for the democratic candidate,
be it Hillary, be it anyone else. Otherwise Jeb is 45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:03 PM

26. Good to know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:42 PM

31. I blame Gore significantly more than I blame Nader for Gore's loss.

If Democrats want liberals to vote for them, then Democrats should actively seek out their votes. If Democrats think liberals should vote for them "just because," then there will be some disappointments. People can sneer at that all they want, but it won't change reality. If you want votes, give people a damn good reason to vote for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:08 AM

2. Complicit?

 

Who the F*** do you think stole it? Complicit, my ass. He is the one, others were complicit, but he sat in the stolen chair!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:31 PM

44. W. was always a stooge. Always.

Not capable of masterminding a scheme like this.

"Complicit" is probably a good term for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #44)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:24 PM

47. More like a very willing tool

 

Happy to get all the fame, perks, days of vacation, nice house and cars, best jet in the world, and

really cool codpiece

You get my point, tried-out-for-the-role kind of guy that the plutocrats put all their money on. He knew how to persuade them to pick him and they knew they could control him.

Regarding stealing the Presidency, by that point in time there was a big machine in place and there is little doubt Bush was giving the orders to senior campaign staff, with Cheney having a lot of authority and a huge slice of decision making.

Was it stolen? There is no historical doubt at this point in time, GUILTY AS CHARGED and as such treason, no statute of limitations, but you'd need Jeb's testimony to convict, I'd bet. Politicians know how to use cut-outs better than Mafiosos do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:07 PM

48. Yes. We blew trillions and lost hundreds of thousands of people...

...all so he could be a big shot, and so his buddies could loot us.

Admission to his Liberry should be a lifetime subscription costing thousands per year, and should get you into only the bottom floor, where the air, water and food are poisoned, and where snipers execute a few dozen visors per week. All this finances the upper floor, which we hear is very nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:12 AM

3. He stole it and was aided and abetted by his brother and the Florida GOP and various

 

other groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:44 AM

14. Exactly!

Thank you. The facts have not changed...selective memory occurs for many. Healthy reminders are essential.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:45 AM

19. Here's the "Fahrenheit 9-11" scene with Dubya & Jeb sitting in a plane guaranteeing the interviewer

that he would win Florida. "You can write that down, heh-heh."

Scene at 2:04 point:




Rep. Peter King: "We'll take care of the counting."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:20 AM

4. The BFEE had an idiot cousin working at Fox noise calling Florida for the smirking gangster.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The faux call by John Ellis led to Al "Why campaign on 8 years of unprecedented peace and prosperity?" Gore to call and concede and then call and un-concede.



Bush Cousin Calls Presidential Election

by Michael I. Niman
Special to Buffalo Beat (December 14th, 2000)
AlterNet Syndication (December 14th, 2000)

The US presidential election was a celebration of the triumph of media over matter.

To an objective observer, two facts are clear: Gore won the nationwide popular vote, and according to a recent Miami Herald analysis, he was also in all likelihood the favorite of Florida voters as well.

George W. Bush’s claim to victory initially had a shaky basis in objective reality. The Florida race, or even the national race, was a statistical dead heat — a tie. There was no clear winner. Factor in the bizarre antiquated 19th century vote tabulating technology used in much of the US and the wide margin of error inherent with these machines, and the difficulty of determining a winner was clear.

For most Americans, and for much of the global television audience, however, Bush was always either the presumed "winner" or at the very least, the likely winner. Al Gore was always seen as trying to either "catch-up" to Bush, or "overturn" the Bush victory. The Bush claim to victory always had the veneer of legitimacy while the Gore claim effused a certain stench.

This perceived Bush victory, the perception that the horse race finally boiled down to one stallion breaking through the finish gate, was a network news fabrication. We saw it on TV. The networks called the election for George W. Bush, projecting him the winner — in effect declaring him the President Elect. CBS News’ Dan Rather boldly told us late on election night, "Sip it, Savor it, cup it, photostat it, underline it in red, press it in a book, put it in an album, hang it on the wall — George W. Bush is the next president of the United States." The networks anointed a President and no recount of actual votes will ever be able to undo that coronation.

The genesis of this call, and in particular the chronology of the ensuing echos are telling. The story began on election night at 2:16 AM. Fox News projected George W. Bush as winner of the Florida primary and the Presidential election. In a classic case of pack journalism that college professors will no doubt cite for years to come, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN all followed Fox’s lead during the next four minutes, calling the election for Bush.

SNIP...

The telling part of this story is that the call was made by John Ellis, a freelance political advisor contracted by Fox News to head their election night "decision desk." Ellis is also first cousin to George W. Bush and Florida governor John Ellis "Jeb" Bush.

CONTINUED...

http://mediastudy.com/articles/jellis.html



Keep up the good work, Cliff Arnebeck. Democracy needs you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:47 AM

16. Ditto cheers for Cliff Arnebeck!

Absolutely a grassroots super star!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:46 PM

41. Thanks to Octafish, expert on major media and politics

Thank you, once again, for your highly informative and very kind comments,

Cliff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:23 AM

6. Of course he was complicit.

He had a lot of help in that theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:27 AM

10. Yes, he did. He had Katherine Harris, his entire crooked family, mostly The USSC who committed

treason to install him. The list is long of those who set out to steal that election and install one of the worst presidents ever who succeeded in destroying not only this country, but several others also.

And what are we doing to try to reverse the damage he has done? Well, we did our part, we threw out Republicans. So now, what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:47 AM

15. We have our work cut out for us for 2014 and beyond.

We need good, solid candidates. I'm always contacting my congress critter and Senator about issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:00 PM

24. the protest or fracture will throw the election to Jeb. Is it not obvious?

 

it goes round and round and round.

President Obama won the revolution.
Protest against his agenda can elect Jeb.

answer?
VOTE DEMOCRATIC except in the rare instance where there is not a democratic person who will win, and the other will be the 60th vote(ala Bernie in the senate, Dennis in the house).

Straight democratic party and no other is the only answer.

This tear it down proved 100% wrong in 1952, 1968,1972,1980,1984,1988,2000,2004
There is only one choice in 2016

either
or

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:05 PM

27. So what you are saying is that we should never, ever protest bad policies put forward by our

party? Did you know that this is a Democracy? I'm beginning to wonder if you actually understand the duty of citizens in a democracy.

You do what you want, but I will never, ever support policies that are bad for the American people no matter who is proposing them. Nor will anyone else I know.

What happened when Dems lost was their fault. If they want to win, then let them act like Democrats and we Democrats will support them all the way. But if they act like Republicans, then there is a party for them too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:15 PM

30. Words have consequences. So do actions.Protesters are small minorities with loud voices

 

Sorry, but i see on the 20% people from both sides with the same tactics and I see
Dennis Kucinich joined Ron paul.
In no shape or form is Ron Paul good for any democratic person in the nation. Nor is his son.
Not even once. But Rand plays his angle and admits to want to get people to join his crusade to take the nation back to the 1850s.

If you are syaing voters count-80% of the voters want unity
20% don't.

If the voters are responsible, we shall see that 80-20 is the new 50-50.
The cottage industry for the 20 needs to end.

Only way to move forward is with the 80.

If you wish for no parties, and have it 80-20, we agree on that.
I myself want President Obama's agenda to last at least 24 years so that the good moves forward.

Not wanting that, will directly lead to Jeb.
Not the candidates fault, but there are only two choices

To have a mob say W sucks W sucks W sucks gets the energy up, but if it is not followed by not voting for the person running against Jeb, then W sucks means a vote for Jeb.

See?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:37 AM

11. Too dumb to be the brains of the operation but he had to be actively complicit to pull it off.

And yet, I'll bet he thinks what went down in that election was simply how the game is played. He'd never characterize it as "stolen."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gidney N Cloyd (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:02 PM

25. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:15 PM

29. Kick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:43 PM

32. Really? Theft of the Presidency?

 

Are we talking about the same idiot here who struggled to put a sentence together? And you all really believe he had a hand in the theft of the election? Really???

com·plic·it
[kuhm-plis-it] Show IPA
adjective
choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.

Knowledge of DOES NOT mean involved in. Did Dubya know Rove and Co. intended to steal the election? Possibly. Was he INVOLVED, oh Fuck no. In my 51 years on this planet, he was BY FAR the dumbest motherfucking President we ever had. And the posters and voters in this thread believe otherwise.
It takes intelligence to orchestrate the theft of an election. Individuals in positions of influence are required. George W. Moron is/was neither intelligent or in a position of influence.

Wow, just wow!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jschurchin (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:54 PM

36. Why it's important that the posters and voters in this thread consider your point of view

Scandal is written with the advice and assistance of a Washington insider. I think it is saying that Bush was not in on the illegal stuff. A friend of mine who was at Andover and Yale with G.W. Bush described him as not being intellectually curious--in either place. The criminal stuff in regard to both the 2000 and 2004 elections could have been going on in Bush's campaign, under the direction of Rove, without Bush's knowledge or involvement.

As long as we blame Bush, Rove gets away with it and retains the ability to try and try again and again. That's why I think we need to get to the bottom of these major election thefts--including what I think was the biggest of all in terms of the number of elections affected--the 2010 election cycle. The fact that Bush fired Rove in 2007 and unleashed two special counsel to undertake criminal investigations of him is the precedent Obama can cite for his pursuing Rove's criminality as not being an attack upon either his predecessor's administration or his opposition political party. Rove should be a target--he must be a target--if we want to put a stop to serial election theft in the United States of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jschurchin (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:23 PM

42. My comment on this to Paul Krugman, in regard to his distaste for G.W. Bush

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/the-great-degrader/

Paul, I am the guy who introduced himself as your greatest fan, when standing first in line for your autograph of your "End this Depression Now" at the 2012 Take Back the American Dream Conference in D.C.

I am also the guy who signed, as counsel of record, the Moss v. Bush contest of the 2004 Presidential election before the Ohio Supreme Court.

I think you are wrong about President George W. Bush. I do not believe he is either a liar or a person who conducted himself in the office of President of the U.S. in bad faith. Furthermore, I think it very important that you reconsider your view of President G.W. Bush, for the sake of our future.

As long as G. W. Bush is perceived as the treacherous liar responsible for the disasters you describe, Karl Rove, the real culprit, will continue to practice his trade of serial treason against the people of the United States to the prejudice of civilization. Therefore, I implore you to take the time to understand Rove's role in betraying President G. W. Bush and us from his strategic position of trust and confidence within the White House from 2001 through 2007.

I have been blogging on this subject at Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022762994 and Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/25/1204847/-In-Praise-of-President-G-W-Bush?showAll=yes. My political home on the Web is ElectionProtectionAction.org in association with Jill Simpson who knows a lot about this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:13 PM

43. Thank you for the links Cliff

 

I'm at work now and only have access to the web through my phone. I will check on them when I get home.
Thanks again for the intelligent post and the conviction to pursue the true perpetrators of the fraud that our electoral system has become.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jschurchin (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:15 PM

46. What would you call it?

He certainly wasn't elected. Although I agree with you he's dumber than a pile of dirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:45 PM

33. There are semantical issues with the poll.

Since Bush was given the Presidency through the courts, it was legal, and therefore no theft was involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:14 PM

40. Both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections were a product of criminal election theft activity

Actually, both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections were stolen. Paper ballots by the thousands were criminally manipulated, and electronic voting machines and tabulators were criminally manipulated, to switch votes from the Democratic candidates to the Republican. This criminal activity was not even touched upon in the recount and litigation activity surrounding the 2000 election.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision was plainly wrong--based upon politics and departure from fundamental law. Counting votes as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court could not cause "irreparable harm" of the kind that is necessary to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Justice Stevens, for a bipartisan minority of the Court, appropriately admonished the partisan Rove Republican majority, in both Bush v. Gore and Citizens United v. FEC ten years later, for undermining the reputation and credibility of the Court as an Institution for the promulgation and maintenance of law and justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:57 PM

37. Bush has a thing for being the one to call shots.

So my answer is yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:01 PM

38. JEB BUSH was complicit too!

Right up to his slimy neck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:07 PM

39. Oh he definitely stole it no question,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:59 PM

45. Definitely innocent.......

It is Obama's fault... doncha' know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:40 PM

53. Rove benefits from the vitriol unleashed against President G.W. Bush

In last night's White House Correspondents' Dinner President Obama put up a picture of his smaller library to be built next to G.W. Bush's with the label: "George W. Bush did it" and a big arrow pointing to the G.W. Busk library next door.

Rove has gotten away with treason and murder by pointing the finger at others. Rove is the biggest beneficiary of the vitriol now being leveled against President George W. Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:45 PM

54. Hell yes, ridiculous to even suggest otherwise.



All the BushCo conspirators should be in jail along
with Katherine Harris, James Baker and the Supremes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:47 PM

55. Bush made it pretty clear he didn't believe it when Florida was called for Gore.

He basically said the fix is in, so don't believe the hype on Gore winning Florida, so yes, he knew and was complicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread