<p>hahaha, how can you question Bush's credibility when more than half of America voted for him. He won fair and square, so this stupid "not a mandate" thing is just a typical liberal method of discrediting others cause they're bitter and contemptuous.</p>
<p>Since you don't agree with Bush and wish death upon him, do you also wish death upon the whole Republican Party?</p>
<p>Ok, I think i was too harsh in wanting Bush's death. There is a soft spot in me that doesnt make me feel right when i say that. Bush is human, and so are we. So i appologise for my wild statements.</p>
<p>But i do want him out of office ASAP. I think its better for the country and even the world. In the years to come, issues will become serious and I dont think that Bush can handle them good. </p>
<p>As for uc_benz, I am not against conservatives in general. If you have read my posts before in this thread, I said I would be satisfied that if even Cheney or another conservatibe was president (if not a liberal). So I hope that answers your question. </p>
<p>And intoxicated 51% of Americans support Bush. 48 % support Kerry (source: cnn). So I dont think Bush is accepted by a high margin. Almost half of America want him out. </p>
<p>The only Republican that i only admire is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He would be a much better president than Bush. I dont want to go into detail of Arnold's accomplishments as governor as I assume you know very well of it.</p>
<p>you've got to be kidding me. He was charged for sexual molestation, oh yea, Americans would love to have a sexual pervert as their president.</p>
<p>You shouldn't critisize politicians based on their personal drawbacks. You comment based on their performance as politicians. As far as Arnold goes, he's actually making a difference as governor. He is doing alot for the environment and stemcell research, unlike Bush. If the next president is Republican (which most probably wont be) , Arnold has a great chance of being that president. Just face it.</p>
<p>Bush was a strong alocoholic and he took drugs, but does that affect him as president? I guess not. Clinton was also a pervert, but does anyone care? Not many do. He is still respected as a great president, even by the Bush family.</p>
<p>Use this reasoning- even though Arnold was a pervert, he became governor of California. Now do you expect that the accusations on him will affect him in his political future? I doubt it. No politician is perfect, not even in the cas eof Arnold. He is an idol to many Americans. America is highly divided over Bush (51% to 48% as polls show), on the other hand. Bush is luck to have a politician like Arnold on his side.</p>
<p>Highly divided? This was the biggest margin of victory in YEARS.</p>
<p>I would love to read your sources about you statement if you dont mind looking for one. i am looking foward to it. I think it may take HOURS to search for a legit source.</p>
<p>"Highly divided? This was the biggest margin of victory in YEARS."</p>
<p>Well, according to my source, what he said is totally wrong!!
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004</a></p>
<p>Let me take out the most notable phrases:
"Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Furthermore, more votes were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S. presidential election."</p>
<p>So it seems that uc_benz came to terrible conclusions, without relying much on sources. That is typical of most conservatives, and it proves that whatever they say is not credible in most cases.</p>
<p>If you google search, you may find hundreds (or even thoudsands) more of similar sources.You can brag all you want to about Bush's victory, but in reality he accomplished little and the polls proved it.</p>
<p>Bush received the largest number of votes of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history.</p>
<p>George W. Bush became the first candidate since his fatherGeorge H. W. Bush, in winning election in 1988to receive a majority of the popular vote (that is, over 50% of it)</p>
<p>why dont you support you wild staements for a change?
What YOU said before was this:</p>
<p>"Highly divided? This was the biggest margin of victory in YEARS."</p>
<p>PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF TO SUPPORT IT!! LOL</p>
<p>George W. Bush became the first candidate since his fatherGeorge H. W. Bush, in winning election in 1988to receive a majority of the popular vote (that is, over 50% of it)</p>
<p>Wow, what a huge accomplishment! the only president between them was Clinton!! So thats not a something notable at all, uc_benz.</p>
<p>No response. At least we all know that America is divided over Bush, even though he's still president. If he did anything he promised in the 2000 election, then he would've defeated kerry by a larger margin. Well, what can you expect from a Bush?</p>
<p>okay, so cryptic or should I say primitive, Clinton was not a great president, nor will he ever be recognized as one. He's not a pervert like
arnold schwarznegger, but he openly committed perjury in court and obstructed justice numerous times. As a president, he should have set an example for the American people. I mean how can anyone call him a great president when he constantly relied on his sycophants to get him out messes he himself made.</p>
<p>whoa...... did I say anything about Clinton here? i was talking about America being divided over Bush. Clinton is no longer president and so there isnt any need to talk about him. If you want to talk about presidents making bad impresions, i can go on and on about Bush Sr. , i can even talk about Bush Jr., but there do need to because there isnt any significance around it. If you are so curious in comparing Clinton to Bush read the chart here:
<a href="http://www.eriposte.com/politics/bush/bush.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.eriposte.com/politics/bush/bush.htm</a></p>
<p>just face it. Even though Bush won, it was because of one freaking state. Almost half of American still want Kerry. So UC_BENZ, you are dead wrong, just admit it.</p>
<p>Obviously almost half of America voted for Kerry. It doesn't matter though, at least 50% +1 voted for Bush. This is a democracy.</p>
<p>haha strange that you said that. just hours ago you said;
"Highly divided? This was the biggest margin of victory in YEARS."</p>
<p>It doesnt matter if its democracy or not. The statistcs imply that Bush was not a pretty good president because if he actually was, then this wouldnt have been a close election.</p>
<p>looks like uc_benz would rather hide from this thread than admit he was seriously wrong.</p>
<p>It doesn't imply anything. It is you who are making baseless assumptions. </p>
<p>I don't like the New York Yankees. Does that mean they are bad?</p>
<p>I am making baseless assumptions? Isnt this what you said:
"Highly divided? This was the biggest margin of victory in YEARS."</p>
<p>I proved you dead wrong and I used credible sources. Just admit it and be mature that you were wrong.</p>
<p>I'm puzzled, why do democrats hold such spite towards their president?</p>
<p>I'm confused about this debate... "Almost half of American still want Kerry." That would imply that over half of America wants Bush as their president, which means we've got no problem, democarcy works. Also where are these so called credible sources?</p>