I don't get what you are saying here. I've never heard of the guy in the second picture before.
And, by the way, Bush didn't win in 2004 either--go to the Rolling Stone site. There's an investigative article by Robert Kennedy, or one of the other Kennedies explaining how there was massive malfeasance in Ohio in the election.
Also, check out You Tube--they have clips from a documentary on the subject.
I really don't care if you get your facts straight or not, but you might want to be a little more informed before you post.
A lot of bloggers don't check their facts, or just regurjitate what they read other people writing, or what they hear Newt Gingrich or some other Fox News commentator saying. I'm not saying that you do that, but I would hope that you at least--whatever--do whatever you want--you deserve to.
Anonymous, Of course I am aware of Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone. To the best of my knowledge, there was not sufficient legal ground on which to challange the election, as opposed to the Florida election which was stolen. No matter what you believe to be a fact, Bush is president. I don't like it any more than you do.
You don't know who Johnny Carson is? My word. The point of the post is that much of Bush's attraction (and you have to admit that near half the electorate voted for him in 2000 and 2004) is based on a visual image of the clean shaven, smiling, pleasant, white man. I'm not condoning it, I'm just making an observation. It is certainly not a fact. If you don't see a physical resemblence between these two men in their, for lack of a better word, suavity, then I give up.
2 comments:
I don't get what you are saying here.
I've never heard of the guy in the second picture before.
And, by the way, Bush didn't win in 2004 either--go to the Rolling Stone site. There's an investigative article by Robert Kennedy, or one of the other Kennedies explaining how there was massive malfeasance in Ohio in the election.
Also, check out You Tube--they have clips from a documentary on the subject.
I really don't care if you get your facts straight or not, but you might want to be a little more informed before you post.
A lot of bloggers don't check their facts, or just regurjitate what they read other people writing, or what they hear Newt Gingrich or some other Fox News commentator saying. I'm not saying that you do that, but I would hope that you at least--whatever--do whatever you want--you deserve to.
Anonymous, Of course I am aware of Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone. To the best of my knowledge, there was not sufficient legal ground on which to challange the election, as opposed to the Florida election which was stolen. No matter what you believe to be a fact, Bush is president. I don't like it any more than you do.
You don't know who Johnny Carson is? My word. The point of the post is that much of Bush's attraction (and you have to admit that near half the electorate voted for him in 2000 and 2004) is based on a visual image of the clean shaven, smiling, pleasant, white man. I'm not condoning it, I'm just making an observation. It is certainly not a fact. If you don't see a physical resemblence between these two men in their, for lack of a better word, suavity, then I give up.
Post a Comment