|
|
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: 03/17/04 - 14:58 Post subject: Prediction
|
|
|
Someone tries to do something big here in the US just before the elections. In an attempt to alter the election, just like in spain. Except here it will do the opposite and help President Bush even more than kerry is helping him now by being himself.
Bush will get 4 more years, the only question is how much he will win by.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
peh...if something big happens here in the US, Bush WILL get shafted this coming election. It will mean he's not doing his job and people will want a change of pace.
That's what I think at least, though I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself that will still vote for bush because you think he has, "balls".
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | peh...if something big happens here in the US, Bush WILL get shafted this coming election. It will mean he's not doing his job and people will want a change of pace.
That's what I think at least, though I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself that will still vote for bush because you think he has, "balls". |
He has balls and you are an idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
rofl...thanks.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | rofl...thanks. |
Anytime....aaannnyytime.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | peh...if something big happens here in the US, Bush WILL get shafted this coming election. It will mean he's not doing his job and people will want a change of pace.
That's what I think at least, though I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself that will still vote for bush because you think he has, "balls". |
Not likely. The only reason Kerry is near Bush in the polls is the fact that the American public currently places the economy as the most important issue (something that will work to Bush's benefit as the election grows closer). A terrorist attack would not be taken as Bush's weakness, but would most likely reinforce his necessity. Remember that the alternate is someone who is incredibly weak on the issue.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
It seems obvious that if there's another attack on US soil, Americans will vote for Bush. The more vulnerable people feel, the more they'll want a strong leader. That's got to be just as obvious to the terrorists as it is to us.
Although it didn't work that way in Spain. Why are Spanish people different from us - why didn't they vote for the most aggressive leader when they were threatened? Maybe because they're much more vulnerable due to proximity, so there's less chance an aggressive leader could be successful? Or because they weren't caving in to terrorism, but rejecting a government that they didn't trust.
Anyway, it seems like the terrorist's best strategy to get rid of Bush would be to concentrate on turning Iraq into Vietnam. That would hurt him far worse than an attack on US soil. Although I guess the threat of an attack on US soil is useful to them in that it forces us to divide our efforts..
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | peh...if something big happens here in the US, Bush WILL get shafted this coming election. It will mean he's not doing his job and people will want a change of pace.
That's what I think at least, though I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself that will still vote for bush because you think he has, "balls". |
Not likely. The only reason Kerry is near Bush in the polls is the fact that the American public currently places the economy as the most important issue (something that will work to Bush's benefit as the election grows closer). A terrorist attack would not be taken as Bush's weakness, but would most likely reinforce his necessity. Remember that the alternate is someone who is incredibly weak on the issue. |
Understandable...I can see how it wold reinforce his necessity, but the millions of people that are in limbo over this issue will be swayed by any type of event that might occur.
To them any attack on the US after all this time would mean just that, Bush's defense is weaker than he has put forth all along. In that case I can see the polls weakening in his favor. I mean this is one of the most important issues surrounding his tenure in office..if America takes a blow, Bush takes a blow in the election as well.
That's not to say he will lose the election, but it will definitely have a huge impact on it. That and his reaction to another terrorist attack if it were to happen.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | peh...if something big happens here in the US, Bush WILL get shafted this coming election. It will mean he's not doing his job and people will want a change of pace.
That's what I think at least, though I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself that will still vote for bush because you think he has, "balls". |
Not likely. The only reason Kerry is near Bush in the polls is the fact that the American public currently places the economy as the most important issue (something that will work to Bush's benefit as the election grows closer). A terrorist attack would not be taken as Bush's weakness, but would most likely reinforce his necessity. Remember that the alternate is someone who is incredibly weak on the issue. |
Understandable...I can see how it wold reinforce his necessity, but the millions of people that are in limbo over this issue will be swayed by any type of event that might occur.
To them any attack on the US after all this time would mean just that, Bush's defense is weaker than he has put forth all along. In that case I can see the polls weakening in his favor. I mean this is one of the most important issues surrounding his tenure in office..if America takes a blow, Bush takes a blow in the election as well.
That's not to say he will lose the election, but it will definitely have a huge impact on it. That and his reaction to another terrorist attack if it were to happen. |
I think the public has a pretty good understanding by now how difficult it is to prevent terrorist attacks. The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. I doubt a terrorist attack would cause people to rally behind a candidate as weak on national defense as Kerry.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. |
Wow, wtg. Of course since we've only ever had the one terrorist attack, it would be more accurate to say the Bush is the only American president ever to have allowed a foreign terrorist attack on American soil.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
And you think if Kerry were voted into office after some attack like this happens, that he would let down all guards and welcome more attacks?
I certainly hope not...I think maybe you're not giving the guy enough credit. He's not completely oblivious.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. |
Wow, wtg. Of course since we've only ever had the one terrorist attack, it would be more accurate to say the Bush is the only American president ever to have allowed a foreign terrorist attack on American soil. |
so preventing things doesnt count now? You dont think they have tried at all? jesus man your insane, and btw terrorism isnt a new thing, we had terrorist attacks going on since.. oh prolly the 1650s maybe earlier here. terrorism isnt anything new to the world. And btw I guess you dont consider the first WTC bombings or alot of the other things that have happened terrorist attacks.
If you want to restate what you said as "Bush is the only president ever to have allowed a terrorist attack to happen on 9/11/01" it might be ok.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. |
Wow, wtg. Of course since we've only ever had the one terrorist attack, it would be more accurate to say the Bush is the only American president ever to have allowed a foreign terrorist attack on American soil. |
The Bush administration has made public many attempted attacks that it prevented (thanks to the patriot act that liberals hate so much). There's a major terrorist attack targeting America every couple of years in the US (WTC bombings, Oklahoma city, etc.). The attempts of terrorist attacks has dramatically accellerated since 9/11 because there has been an all out jihad against us. Bush is a victim of his own success. His administration has been so successful that there is now an erroneous and widespread perception that terrorism is no longer a theat.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tolanin wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. |
Wow, wtg. Of course since we've only ever had the one terrorist attack, it would be more accurate to say the Bush is the only American president ever to have allowed a foreign terrorist attack on American soil. |
so preventing things doesnt count now? You dont think they have tried at all? jesus man your insane, and btw terrorism isnt a new thing, we had terrorist attacks going on since.. oh prolly the 1650s maybe earlier here. terrorism isnt anything new to the world. And btw I guess you dont consider the first WTC bombings or alot of the other things that have happened terrorist attacks.
If you want to restate what you said as "Bush is the only president ever to have allowed a terrorist attack to happen on 9/11/01" it might be ok. |
You're right, I forgot about the first WTC attack. But what others are you talking about? They've all been domestic.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Tolanin wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | The Bush administration has managed to prevent all attacks on American soil for 3 years now, though. |
Wow, wtg. Of course since we've only ever had the one terrorist attack, it would be more accurate to say the Bush is the only American president ever to have allowed a foreign terrorist attack on American soil. |
so preventing things doesnt count now? You dont think they have tried at all? jesus man your insane, and btw terrorism isnt a new thing, we had terrorist attacks going on since.. oh prolly the 1650s maybe earlier here. terrorism isnt anything new to the world. And btw I guess you dont consider the first WTC bombings or alot of the other things that have happened terrorist attacks.
If you want to restate what you said as "Bush is the only president ever to have allowed a terrorist attack to happen on 9/11/01" it might be ok. |
You're right, I forgot about the first WTC attack. But what others are you talking about? They've all been domestic. |
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
there have been terrorist attacks during the early 1900s, both world wars, and at other times too.. argueably you could say indian raids where they came out attacked towns and murdered everyone were foreign terrorist attacks.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 15:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | His administration has been so successful that there is now an erroneous and widespread perception that terrorism is no longer a theat. |
If that were true then everyone is completely oblivious to what is really happening.
I think people know that terrorism will always be a threat.
You just said it yourself, if another attack happens it will reinforce people's favor for Bush this election. That means the public realizes that terrorism is still a threat, rather than believeing that the war on terrorism is over.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | His administration has been so successful that there is now an erroneous and widespread perception that terrorism is no longer a theat. |
If that were true then everyone is completely oblivious to what is really happening.
I think people know that terrorism will always be a threat.
You just said it yourself, if another attack happens it will reinforce people's favor for Bush this election. That means the public realizes that terrorism is still a threat, rather than believeing that the war on terrorism is over. |
Incorrect. I said there is now a widespread perception that terrorism is not a threat because of Bush's success with dealing with it. If the Bush administration were to cease its efforts fighting terror, there would likely be a major attack within months. A successful attack would push the importance of the fight against terrorism to the #1 issue, rather than #2. That would most likely ensure Bush's victory.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So wouldn't that be Bush's easiest option in winning this election?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | So wouldn't that be Bush's easiest option in winning this election? |
Uh oh. Do I smell a leftist-born conspiracy that Bush will allow a terrorist attacj shortly before his next election?? 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
And please don't tell me you speak for the United States. I don't see much of this "Widespread perception" you so boldy bolded out for me.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | So wouldn't that be Bush's easiest option in winning this election? |
Uh oh. Do I smell a leftist-born conspiracy that Bush will allow a terrorist attacj shortly before his next election?? |
Oh please, it was just a joke...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | And please don't tell me you speak for the United States. I don't see much of this "Widespread perception" you so boldy bolded out for me. |
I get that info from a poll of top issues in the US. The economy is #1 and terrorism is #2. The fact that people are worrying more about a booming economy than terrorism indicates my suggestion is true.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | So wouldn't that be Bush's easiest option in winning this election? |
Uh oh. Do I smell a leftist-born conspiracy that Bush will allow a terrorist attacj shortly before his next election?? |
Oh please, it was just a joke... |
Maybe now. But if such a thing were to happen, leftists would be up in arms with that claim.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Oogie
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 216
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
But uhhh...Bush didn't win the first election...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | So wouldn't that be Bush's easiest option in winning this election? |
Uh oh. Do I smell a leftist-born conspiracy that Bush will allow a terrorist attacj shortly before his next election?? |
Oh please, it was just a joke... |
Maybe now. But if such a thing were to happen, leftists would be up in arms with that claim. |
Oh for sure, I can totally see that happening. It's just too easy of an option for people to think he wouldn't take it.
Like you said, Bush is a victim of his own success. :p
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Kin
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Oogie wrote: | | But uhhh...Bush didn't win the first election... |
haha my thought exactly. He lost last time, why would he win now? 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Oogie wrote: | | But uhhh...Bush didn't win the first election... |
Yes he did.
That bugs you I bet:)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Oogie
Luke Warm
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 216
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:25 Post subject:
|
|
|
Naw doesn't bug me. 
He became president...he wasn't elected president. It's an important difference although one I don't expect someone of your inferior intelligence and blind ignorance could comprehend. It's ok though, there is hope. If you have children, one of their future descendants might have evolved your bloodline to the point of being able to comprehend such things.
Keep hope alive!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 03/17/04 - 16:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kin wrote: | | Oogie wrote: | | But uhhh...Bush didn't win the first election... |
haha my thought exactly. He lost last time, why would he win now? |
he only lost to people who dont understand how we elect our presidents and how our government works. Apparently its not clear to some people that popular vote isnt the be all end all of our government.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
