Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
g-man do you really hate people who you don't know personally? i mean hate, real hate, is a strong thing. maybe if you were into the san francisco liberal scene you might have some zen exposure to give you a stronger sense of peace.
i never liked bush, he's an idiot and had no place running in the first place. i don't like the fact that he only got in because of his dad and the supreme court justices his dad appointed. i was uncomfortable with the fact he lost the popular vote, i found his reaction to 9/11 to be very troubling and the resulting wars and the needless deaths because of his actions to be something very sad and unsettling.


For such a "zen exposed" guy, with such a "strong sense of peace", you sure do express a lot of spiteful and vitriolic anger on these boards.

The U.S. Supreme Court, if it wanted to pick our president in 2000, would not have kicked it back to the Florida state supreme court the first of 2 times it was handed to them, they would have picked Bush the first time.
It was because of the blatant partisanship of the Florida supreme court that the U.S. Supreme Court, the SECOND time it was presented to them for a ruling, opted only then to decide the issue.

And further, as Ann Coulter points out in a chapter of her book Slander (detailing how liberals and the liberal-partisan media slander conservatives and avoid an honest dialogue to push their liberal agenda) it was the media who rigged the election by prematurely calling the state of Florida falsely for Al Gore. A mistake the media only corrected AFTER the polls had closed in Florida, thus suppressing Republican voter turnout by an estimated 10,000 votes, when compared to the Republican voter turnout in the previous 1992 and 1996 elections.
10,000 votes that would have decisively given the election to Bush, without decisions by the U.S. and FL supreme courts.
Also, several of the most respected papers in this country (liberal media) did several recounts of the ballots in the months after the election, that also found on each recount that Bush was the winner.

And further, Gore tried to cherry pick the districts to count, and tried to suppress counting of strong Bush districts, and also tried to exclude overseas military votes, which are consistently strongly Republican as well.

For the record, as I've said often, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 (I voted Nader), and only voted Bush in 2004 because Kerry was the unthinkable alternative. If the Democrats had given us a candidate such as Lieberman, Biden, Graham, Richardson or Dodd, I would have gone for an alternative to Bush.
Bush wasn't my first choice, but I do accept that he is our legitimately elected president, and he is the 3rd or 4th to win the election but not the popular vote. [ Thomas Jefferson(1800), John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes(1876), Benjamin Harrison(1888), and W.Bush(2000) ]
Richard Nixon would have been perfectly justified to challenge the 1960 presidential election (there is no dispute that the Kennedys have rigged elections, particularly RFK's seat as N.Y. Senator, through mob assistance), but out of patriotism chose not to bitterly divide the nation by doing so. If only Gore could have followed his example.

Finally, if you think Bush is an "idiot" (but you don't hate people, right? ) then you must really think Kerry and Al Gore are idiots, since their grades are actually lower than Bush's.


But amazingly, the oh-so-neutral media hails both these guys as geniuses, and barely mentions their poor academic achievement. No bias at all, none, I'm sure.

Kerry was allowed to skate along and pass himself off as the latest manufactured genius, and only revealed his college transcripts a few months after the 2004 election.