Bush: how I'll rule the world

SMH News - CenterExNews ^ | September 21 2002 | By David Sanger in Washington

[twigs]

David Sanger? Any relation to Margaret?

[fogarty]

"YES!!! We need him to rule the world."

I hope you're being sarcastic here. The next man who rules the world will cause such horror and tribulation upon the earth that if the days would not be cut short, no living thing would survive.

If Bush aspires for a world rulership, than he will pit himself against God. He will have done an effective job deceiving the elect, if you look at the number of Christians who voted for him...

[lavaroise]

THe lack of sanctuary created by a one world rule is problematic. But who can say the world cannot be ruled and rule out by oneself the world? This was the quandary of the Jews, who had a world of their own and provided apparently little alternatives, save to be scattered. This built in failure management of the one world rule is what is to be sought.

One world rule yes, but scatterable. Though I do not believe the South should have seceded, I still believe the North should have seceded instead and made war on the South's inner circles of coercion in earnest, and not backed by the Feds.

The tragedy is that the North hid behind the intimidation of the Feds instead of facing its enemy in earnest. In fact the coercive circles of slavery were simply replaced by other coercive circles of land redistribution and reparations - without which the political support of DC by the blacks through divide and conquer the South would have not been possible. After all, we never went to seek reproach against the African slave traders who were part of the human peddling of the South. We only replaced the coercive "white" South and encouraged instead a coercive "black" South.

[gcruse]

That would be something to see. I'm curious..
who do you think will get more of the black vote?

Condi's gender and race will count for nothing
to black and women voters, as long as she
is conservative.  Watch for free advertising
for Oreo cookies.

[patriciaruth]

If Bush aspires for a world rulership, than he will pit himself against God. He will have done an effective job deceiving the elect, if you look at the number of Christians who voted for him...

Unbunch your panties. The article is absurd and people are reacting with the sarcasm and outrageous remarks that such an article deserves. The poster probably offered it for it's potential for humorous content.

[patriciaruth]

Empress Condoleezza the Great. Got my vote.

[spetznaz]

Yep ....i leftt hat one out. There was so much PC it stunk of Liberal hell!

[section9]

It says "the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago".

Except for one thing: it says no such thing at all. Fox News found a copy of the NSS and could not find that passage. That was because the reporter had included it as quotes after he had talked with several administration officials. The New York Times, from which this story came, published a retraction over the weekend.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[rdb3]

Condi's gender and race will count for nothing to black and women voters, as long as she is conservative. Watch for free advertising for Oreo cookies.

If conservatives depended on the likes of you, then you're right. Not another American black person would become a conservative.

The thing is, however, is that we are NOT counting on the likes of you.

And praise God (in whom you don't believe) that we aren't.

[rdb3]

That would be something to see. I'm curious...who do you think will get more of the black vote? Hillary because she's a Democrat, or Condi because she'd be the first black president? I'd guess Hillary, but not by much.

This depends strictly upon what conservatives do until then. As I've said before, conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for their lack of support within the general black communities across the country.

If conservatives continue to do what they've always done, then the RATS will keep the black vote in its back pocket.

[copycat]

An American Empire? I do not desire it.

I do, however, desire that government by the people, for the people, and of the people is spread to every nation on earth, along with the ideal that all humans are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. Conversely, it hardly need be said that tyranny would be eliminated by such a proliferation of moral self-governance.

As for the US controlling such a world, I would not seek it, but would seek 170 sovereign Americas dotting the globe.

[section9]

That would be something to see. I'm curious...who do you think will get more of the black vote? Hillary because she's a Democrat, or Condi because she'd be the first black president? I'd guess Hillary, but not by much.

Naturally, the Democrat, even if white, will take more of the black vote.

It's the margin that kills a Democrat in this race. Against Hillary, Condi would do no worse than take 40% of the black vote. By this time, she'll have been Vice-President for four years while Hillary will be old news. A Democrat, to win nationally, must hold the Republican to below 20 of the black vote, all other 2000 demographics being equal. Otherwise, he or she tanks in the electoral college. Push the Republican down to single digits as Gore did to Bush and you actually make a game of it.

Condi has stronger national defense credentials and describes herself as a Second Amendment Absolutist: I'm giving her white males already.

If Condi splits with Hillary among white females (she will come across to other women as more trustworthy than the Hildebeast), and scores well among black voters, she romps across the Electoral College.

Give her 45-55 percent of Hispanics, and perhaps higher numbers amongst Asians.

Finally, I look for Condi to hold Republicans to near 92-95 percent levels. About the same level as Bush had, iirc.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[gcruse]

Touched a nerve, did I?

[rdb3]

Touched a nerve, did I?

In your dreams.

I was just laying it out like it truly is, something which your curt statement failed to refute.

Typical.

Lastly, you could never touch a nerve of mine. Not in a billion years. So don't sweat yourself. You've been weighed in the balance and been found lacking.

[gcruse]

What's to refute? Insults don't deserve reply,
much less refutation.

[rdb3]

You've got your finger on the pulse, section9. You got it.

Now, how is the 40% of the black vote realized? That's the question. Without 80-100% of the black vote, the RATS are crispy critters.

[rdb3]

What's to refute? Insults don't deserve reply, much less refutation.

Oh, really? In post #30, you said, "Condi's gender and race will count for nothing to black and women voters, as long as she is conservative. Watch for free advertising for Oreo cookies."

A lesser man would have taken that as an insult to black people. Oreo? Will "Uncle Tom" escape your keyboard next?

My subsequent statement to you was that if conservatives depended on the likes of you to make a change in this voting pattern, it would simply remain the same.

That wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact.

Deal with it.

[gcruse]

Condi will be attacked by the black community as
being an Oreo, and you know it.

[wi jd]

What impresses me about her is she's about as sharp (verbally) as Hitlery

ABOUT as sharp?!

C'mon, is that why Hitlery never takes questions at press conferences? Because she is sharp?