Election poll

[Bowling Pin]

I'm sorry that your candidate lost, but it is very insensitive to call this one of the saddest days the world has known.

The saddest days are the Holocaust, 9/11, the challenger explosion, Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, and other REAL tragedies. A guy winning the white house that you didn't vote for is NOT.

God doesn't need to save us all from this administration anyway, he has saved the president's soul, and he is a man of God who will lead us into the next four years with the guidance of the Lord. I'm thrilled and heartened to know that my president serves my God.

 

[ShirChadash]

People like me would have gone after Osama, you know the guy who did it? Not made up some BS excuse about WMDs and "connections" to go after the guy who made my daddy look bad.

Well considering the fact that Oslimy just came out a bit ago with a vow to make America pay for the lives lost in yesterday's raids in Iraq, I'd say that's just one more reason to suspect that Oslimy is kinda connected to and invested in Iraq

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

It is one of the saddest days that the world has known. May God save us all, from the administration!

Reader Nilus

You know, I didn't like Bush either. I would have wanted nothing more than for him to lose by a considerable margin. But the fact that he got more votes than any candidate in the history of presidential elections, voids any thoughts that this is one of the saddest days the world has known. This country wanted Bush as their president, and they came out in wide numbers to support that. True that Kerry also got one of the highest vote counts in history, but that just goes to show how divided this country is. I think it's up to people like us who didn't like Bush, to try and work with him this time around. It's a lot better trying to find common ground than to pout for 4 years.

If the Democratic party works with Bush, they will improve their image and hopefully start winning some elections again.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm sorry that your candidate lost, but it is very insensitive to call this one of the saddest days the world has known.

The saddest days are the Holocaust, 9/11, the challenger explosion, Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, and other REAL tragedies. A guy winning the white house that you didn't vote for is NOT.

Don't you think that it is insensitive suggestion that you paint such an American-centric version of the world's saddest days? Of the last three tragedies - The challenger explosion, Columbine and the Oklahoma City bombing, all pale into insignificance with tragedies that occur in the wider world (yes, outside of the rarefied environment that is America) every single day, both in terms of raw numbers and significance. Or is that only American deaths are of any significance?

Regarding 9/11, the raw numbers pale into insignificance compared to the number of civilian deaths in Iraq - simply because an incompetent leader acted in a politically expedient manner. Do you really think that Bush would have won if it were not for the systematic fear and paranoia that has been constantly drilled into the American psyche. Or perhaps the electors really voted for Bush because of the absolutely brilliant manner in which he handled the economy? Where else would this be the case than in the so-called "greatest democracy in the world"?

 

[Caylin]

I'm sorry that your candidate lost, but it is very insensitive to call this one of the saddest days the world has known.

The saddest days are the Holocaust, 9/11, the challenger explosion, Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, and other REAL tragedies. A guy winning the white house that you didn't vote for is NOT.

Got a point there...

 

[Bowling Pin]

What you say is true but it also supports what I was saying--the saddest days in the history of the world shouldn't include a relatively insignificant US presidential election that will change in a mere 4 years again.

I wasn't choosing "US-centric tragedies" because I think the US has the corner on them, I was just trying to think of sad unexpected losses of lives or human cruelties and murders to illustrate things that are sadder than your guy losing an election.

Regardless of what country you reside in, one human death is sadder than a leaving breathing man losing a popularity contest! And how disheartening that you let your obvious contempt for my country say that people dying in Ok City or Columbine isn't a sad thing.

One car fatal accident or young parent diagnosed with terminal cancer is sadder than Kerry losing the White House.

 

[kathaksung]

Another psychology manipulation in the name of God.

264. Reaction to cover up Robertson (10/24)
Robertson made his prediction in 1/2/04. He said, ""I think George Bush is going to win in a walk, I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way."

http://www.usatoday.com/_common/_scripts/_tacoda/amDataAgent.htm?pid=usat

These two news about Pat Robertson and Anthony Carr that month revealed how Feds to manipulate American's mind in the name of God. Robertson and Anthony are no others then accessories of Feds.

Then a strange thing took place three days ago. A news in Internet said that "A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html

Why Pat Robertson said something very good about Bush 9 month ago (1/2) but now (10/19) let out something negative about him?

I know why.

My articles are under strict scrutiny of Feds. They check up every source I used as reference. They even pointed out a "one day's mistake" of my message. (see "83. Spy country (8/21/02)") I didn't give the exact date of the news about "prophecy", (it was on W.J. 1/17) I only wrote: "Early this year". The surveillance team must have go through all the World Journal published "early this year" to find that article. Robertson's news belongs to same category of Anthony's. They were all "prediction". Thus it fell into their sight. If I wrote about "God's will" of Anthony Carr, they could expect I would do same thing on Pat Robertson. That's why they hurried created a dispute between Bush and Robertson. The purpose is to cover up Robertson's real ID.

This is why Pat Robertson behaved a conflict way in two events. According to Robertson, Bush told him "we're not going to have any casualties" (in Iraq) in March 2003. Why he didn't talk about it for more than 18 months? If you noticed the accusation was brought into news on 10/19, 5 days after my message "261. Prophecy (10/14)". You probably will understand it was an event created to cover up an accessory of Feds. They used to have swift reaction to my comments. Either to perfect, or justify, or repair the flaw they have made. I think the Salinger's death, Robertson's accusation on Bush were all the reaction to my message "Prophecy". And there is more.