George W. Bush has won.

[steveyo]

Originally posted by Brian MacKenzie



me and 51% of Americans don't

And most of your 51% still think Saddam had a hand in (or caused) 911.

Do you?

[TheObieOne3226]

Originally posted by steveyo


And most of your 51% still think Saddam had a hand in (or caused) 911.

Do you?

It is obvious now that he did not. However, we are in Iraq, and we aren't going to leave soon, regardless of the president.

[MrBoogiejuice]

Originally posted by Tim
Come on Joe.

Say you were older and went into the military when Clintin was in office. Bush was the elected would you stay if you could leave?

I quit my job because the bosses where jerks and only liked people who kissed butt so I left. If the bosses were better I would have stayed. Its all about who your leader is.

Tell me how thats "weird" logic.

I'd be so chuffed if I was serving in the American military under Bush, and Kerry got in. I'd know there'd be less chance of me being sent somewhere where'd I'd be killed, like perhaps Fallujah!

Kit

[onewheelwizzard]

I agree. Simply put, if I'm in the military, Bush is more likely to get me killed than Kerry. So I'd rather be serving under Kerry than Bush.
I was only saying the logic was "weird" in this particular instance.
This is not to say that I'd go off to join up if Kerry were elected ...

[Tim]

Originally posted by MrBoogiejuice
I'd be so chuffed if I was serving in the American military under Bush, and Kerry got in. I'd know there'd be less chance of me being sent somewhere where'd I'd be killed, like perhaps Fallujah!

Kit

*sigh*

That's exacly what I'm talking about. You wouldn't want to be there same as the people serving would likelly not want to serve when Kerry is president.

Thanks for reinforsing what I said.

Originally posted by onewheelwizzard
I agree. Simply put, if I'm in the military, Bush is more likely to get me killed than Kerry. So I'd rather be serving under Kerry than Bush.
I was only saying the logic was "weird" in this particular instance.
This is not to say that I'd go off to join up if Kerry were elected ...

Its no different for people who want Bush as president like I already said about three times now. Just switch around which one you like and you're where I and the people over there are at.

Again thanks for reinforsing what I already said.

[TheObieOne3226]

Originally posted by onewheelwizzard
I agree. Simply put, if I'm in the military, Bush is more likely to get me killed than Kerry. So I'd rather be serving under Kerry than Bush.
I was only saying the logic was "weird" in this particular instance.
This is not to say that I'd go off to join up if Kerry were elected ...

Nah you're wrong. We are stuck in Iraq for a few years regardless who is the president.

[onewheelwizzard]

I actually think that had Kerry been elected, we'd be out of Iraq faster. For the next couple years, we're there regardless ... but I still think Kerry would've gotten us out faster. So the difference in risk is small ... but I'd still rather serve under Kerry than Bush, because I think I'd have a better chance of surviving the Iraq war.

[jawnz]

Regardless of who your president is, you people never had it so good. Stop complaining and go uni.

[xtremeskier_]

[Brian MacKenzie]

Originally posted by steveyo


And most of your 51% still think Saddam had a hand in (or caused) 911.

Do you?

They are not my 51%

[john_childs]

Originally posted by steveyo


And most of your 51% still think Saddam had a hand in (or caused) 911.

Do you?

The only people I have heard make that claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11 are on the left. The people on the left who consider Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a fine documentary. I have not heard people on the right make that claim. President Bush never made that claim. Fox News never made that claim.

The people on the right know Why We Invaded Iraq. The arguments in that editorial piece are the same arguments made for the war in Iraq by the right on talk radio, news punditry shows, and editorials at the sart of the war in Iraq. The people who support President Bush know why were are there.

[paco]

We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need -- the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin the healing.

John Kerry, on his conversation with President Bush

[daino149]

Originally posted by onewheelwizzard
I actually think that had Kerry been elected, we'd be out of Iraq faster. For the next couple years, we're there regardless ... but I still think Kerry would've gotten us out faster. So the difference in risk is small ... but I'd still rather serve under Kerry than Bush, because I think I'd have a better chance of surviving the Iraq war.

Do you not think we are going to survive the Iraq war? Look, we've lost a thousand people in over a year of war. No one said that was is bloodless. The president said that we are in for the long haul and so far he's right. We will withdraw when it's time to withdraw. Doing so earlier may save a few soldier’s lives in the short term, but would leave the world in a much more dangerous state.

I don't think there are many people who would say that the world isn't a better place without Sadam.


Daniel

[paco]

Originally posted by daino I maintain that America is not ruined and it would take a lot more then a Right or Left winging president to ruin her.

I completely agree. You may not like the way things will be going for the next four years, but there were plenty who didn't like the way the U.S. was going under Clinton. Somehow, the U.S. survived. I'm sorry, but Bush is not the worst president ever. The U.S. will still be here in 4 years, and someone else can come in and fix the majority of problems he may or may not cause. And the president after that can do the same, and the president after that...

The United States is not perfect. George W. Bush is not perfect. But I'm sure glad I'm an American and have the rights I do. That's not going to change.

[steveyo]

Originally posted by john_childs

The only people I have heard make that claim that Saddam was involved in 9/11 are on the left. The people on the left who consider Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a fine documentary. I have not heard people on the right make that claim. President Bush never made that claim. Fox News never made that claim.

The people on the right know Why We Invaded Iraq. The arguments in that editorial piece are the same arguments made for the war in Iraq by the right on talk radio, news punditry shows, and editorials at the sart of the war in Iraq. The people who support President Bush know why were are there.

Bush: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida." [State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003]

Cheney: "If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC, "Meet The Press," 9/14/03]

another Cheney example:

Question: "The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?"

Cheney: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection." [NBC, Meet the Press, 11/14/03]