<p>If you want to debate the meaning of a year then I would be happy to do it.</p>
<p>year (n): The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds of mean solar time. In the Gregorian calendar the year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 and is divided into 12 months, 52 weeks, and 365 or 366 days. Also called calendar year.</p>
<p>So what are you debating? It was the largest margin of victory in years. I don't see how you can dispute that.</p>
<p>So what are you debating? It was the largest margin of victory in years. I don't see how you can dispute that.</p>
<p>LMAO!! You said that this was the greatest margin in YEARS. In actuality, this was the smallest margin ever in U.S. history in terms of percentage of popular votes. There is a four year gap between each term and of course there was no presidential election within this term.</p>
<p>I do not mean to offend you but what you just said is totally idiotic. What are you trying to explain to me by defining " a year?" This was the smallest margin ever and there is no way you can rewrite history.</p>
<p>And allena, just because Bush won doesnt mean that the majority of Americans support him. There were thousands of liberals who didnt vote. He won because the Republican voter turnout was greater. History has constantly proven that the Republicans win because not enough liberals bother to go to the polls. So if the liberals went to the polls, it would be possible for Kerry to have won, especially in Ohio. i am not here to make excuses. Bush won the election and I have to accept him as president, like it or not. As for my source, read my posts above and you will see the wikipedia website. I hope your confusion is cleared by now.</p>
<p>"There were thousands of liberals who didnt vote. He won because the Republican voter turnout was greater. History has constantly proven that the Republicans win because not enough liberals bother to go to the polls. So if the liberals went to the polls, it would be possible for Kerry to have won, especially in Ohio."</p>
<p>Who's fault is that? All you liberal idiots do is criticize conservatives who actually have a platform and go out there and mobilize their supporters. And their supporters actually SUPPORT the PARTY, not just certain candidates or certain issues. If liberals won't vote, then shut up and deal with the President who the majority elected.</p>
<p>Bush and Gore had the exact same percentage.</p>
<p>Again what you said is not credible. Al Gore got 48.38% of the popular votes while Bush got 47.87 percent of popular votes. Do these figures look the same to you? You can check this website for verification:</p>
<p>I have many more sources but I think these are enough. Did Bush cheat? thats for you to decide. As far as the facts go many black liberals didnt have their votes counted. Please dont make excuses or dispute with the facts.</p>
<p>bigjake, i still am waiting for your sources claiming that "other countries are afraid of America" LOL. Do you find it difficult to find one? Thats bad. </p>
<p>Lets pretend i forgot you ever said that and have a fresh beginning? LOL</p>
<p>If you were a good reader, you would have noticed that I said i was not here to make excuses. I also said that I can accept Bush as president like it or not. All you do is take the negative points out and make a big deal out of it. Why dont you take note of EVERYTHING I say in my posts? I do not want to repetitive for some idiotic reason.</p>
<p>Are you just trying to **** people off you idiot?? I left because I'm sick of this back-and-forth name-calling. You're not discussing any issues. You're posting stupid left-wing sites as your sources. I can find some blogs written by evangelical Christians to back up my claims too. Other countries ARE afraid of America. We are still the dominant superpower on the planet. DO YOU NEED SOURCES TO CONFIRM THIS??? It's like I can't even say people need air to survive without posting sources.</p>
<p>We are still the dominant superpower on the planet. </p>
<p>Other countries ARE afraid of America</p>
<p>Do these two statements have the same meaning? I assume not. You can get ****ed all you want, i dont care. American is a dominant superpower, but not all countries are afraid of the country. Just look at N.Korea or iran and how they insult Bush on national television. this is a debate, not a friendly conversation. if you cannot prove your wild claims then forever hold your peace. i do not want to offend you but thats how a debate usually goes.</p>
<p>As for my sources, it seems that you dont know the meaning of "left winged" Does wikipedia, infoplease, or the San Francisco Chronicles look left winged to you? LOL. All these sources are doing is providing FACTS. I use these sources to support my arguments. thats is how a debate goes. If you cannot prove the credebility of your arguments, then thats you problem.</p>
<p>"I do not mean to offend you but what you just said is totally idiotic. What are you trying to explain to me by defining " a year?" This was the smallest margin ever and there is no way you can rewrite history."</p>
<p>Actually no... There have been pleanty of times in US history (Either 3 or 4, I can't remember off the top of my head) where the winner of the election has lost the popular vote. If that's the case then your comment that this was the smallest margin of victory in term of popular vote can't be correct since Bush WON the popular vote.</p>
<p>The San Francisco Chronicles a left wing source of media! Noooo.... Media is always unbiased, and besides San Francisco has historically been such an exceptionally conservative city!</p>
<p>OBVIOUSLY I didn't mean they had the exact exact exact same percentage of the vote. That would mean they have the exact same amount of votes. If you have to nitpick at stupid things like that it just shows how weak your argument is. It's called rounding! 48% - 48%</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that the reason for the poor democratic turnout at the polls was because a majority of them didn't really support Kerry, they just hated Bush. America may suffer from megalomania, omnipotency, you name it, but hate obviously does not dominate the people. At least when it comes to issues concerning their country.</p>
<p>Actually no... There have been pleanty of times in US history (Either 3 or 4, I can't remember off the top of my head) </p>
<p>First of all, the 2000 election is a good example of this. Bush lost in terms of popular votes and won in term of electoral votes. What I ment by "smallest margin" is the difference between the percentage of popular votes between the WINNER (ie. new president) and LOSER of the election (and not taking negative results). In that terms, it is the smallest margin. I hope I got my point clear.</p>
<p>And uc_benz, you said they had the EXACT percentage of popular votes. If you cannot use your words correctly, then thats your problem.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that the reason for the poor democratic turnout at the polls was because a majority of them didn't really support Kerry, they just hated Bush.</p>
<p>I agree. That is the truth, and liberals have to face it. Similarly, there was a very high republican voter turnout because many conservatives hated Kerry.LOL</p>
<p>i hope that everybody can agree on the fact that the 2004 debate was a really close one. If kerry had just won Ohio, then he wouldve been the new president. Also, nobody has responded to my post that votes that accounted for about 1 million african americans were excluded.</p>
<p>Last time I checked 48% and 48% are the exact same. I'm older and more intelligent than you are so I don't need YOU to interpret my words fo me. I know what I mean.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If kerry had just won Ohio
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Excuses, excuses, excuses. Well guess what? He didn't!</p>
<p>Last time I checked 48% and 48% are the exact same</p>
<p>Well in reality they didnt have 48% and 48% so just leave it. Why dont you respond top the comment I made about 1 million african americans whose votes were not counted? To afraid to admit the election was UNFAIR?</p>
<p>So all those elections with negitive votes simply don't count? Those were not real elections? I just can't understand how you can ignore those elections (especailly since most liberals pride themselves on Bush losing the popular election in 2000) since they did occure.</p>
<p>Also saying that "if so-and-so just won this (any state) state" does not work. You could spend hours figuring out different ways that the loser could have won, however nothing can change the fact that he lost.</p>
<p>1.) I said before I am not here to make excuses for the election.
2.) Nobody has yet dared to respond to my post regarding the 2000 election where 1 million african american votes were not counted.</p>
<p>i find it unfair when i promptly respond to post made by others while they ignore key posts i have made.</p>
<p>I'd like to see a really strong source on that "1 million lost votes." I did a bit of research on that and just about everything I found had a considerable slant to the left. Do you have an unbiased source for that information?</p>
<p>please stop questioning my sources. if you cannot do anything to prove me wrong, just do so. So far, I am the only one providing sources to supporting my arguments.</p>