<p>“For every vote cast for President Bush, there is a liberal somewhere trying to make an excuse for why Kerry didn’t win. Yeah, it had to be the Swift Boat Veterans.”</p>
<p>No there’s not. If there were that many liberals, Bush wouldn’t have won in the first place. =</p>
<p>You assume that all liberals voted.</p>
<p>Assumably the liberals who voted for Kerry would be the ones who cared enough to make excuses for his defeat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last I checked there wasn’t a 100% voter turnout.</p>
<p>I do not think the Constitution gave us the right to attack any country (which does not show any terrorist to us) whenever we want, and even going against the United Nations. It is in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL.</p>
<p>And uc_benz, as i said before, i am not here to make excuses for Kerry. All i fear is the danger that might be caused from many of Bush’s policies.</p>
<p>Actually primitive you are wrong. The constitution gives us the right, if we legally declare war to attack any country we want. And going against the UN is not unconstitutional. In fact the founding fathers would reprimand us for even being in a permanent alliance - AKA UN.</p>
<p>“In fact the founding fathers would reprimand us for even being in a permanent alliance - AKA UN.”</p>
<p>Again, BCgoUSC , you do not support any of you statements as the one above. How do you know the opinions of the founding fathers? Are they still alive? lol . This sure is funny.</p>
<p>Have you even read Washington’s farewell or inaugural addresses where he clearly warns against making permanent alliances? I can cite you MANY other instances where the founding fathers warned against making any permanent alliances. Before you ask me about the opinions of the founding fathers, read some of the primary documents such as the Federalist Papers, Anti Federalist Papers, Letters from a Federal Farmer, The inaugural addresses of the first 5 Presdidents, Adams’ notes on the Constitutional Convention. ALL ARE AGAINST MAKING PERMANENT ALLIANCES. Do your reading before you question a well known fact.</p>
<p>What you just said is completely foolish. George Wahington and our founding fathers were from the COLONIAL AGES. America then is NOTHING like America is now. Modern America cannot be an isolationalist country anymore, in fact it is now the opposite. </p>
<p>If you are not aware, during the times of our founding fathers, America was still expanding as a country. Now it is the world’s most richest and powerful nation in the world.And that was because WE kept ties with other nations both culturally and economically. If we follow the advise of people from two hundred years ago, America would be a disaster. If you believe that what our founding fathers say , then about HALF of all our presidents will be terrible in your view, which is absurd.</p>
<p>Please BCgoUSC, say something reasonable. It is obvious that advise from people from America’s “primitive” times would cause a mess in America during a period of great technological advancement.lol</p>
<p>“Now it is the world’s most richest and powerful nation in the world”</p>
<p>correction - Now it is the richest and powerful nation in the world</p>
<p>correction: Now it is the richest and most powerful nation in the world.</p>
<p>thanks. seth_blue. I needed that before the conservatives made a big deal out of my grammar.</p>
<p>no problemo…</p>
<p>Half of the Presidents are terrible in my view. When we start saying that we are smarter than the founders of our country, we are in a hell of a lot of trouble.</p>
<p>“Half of the Presidents are terrible in my view”</p>
<p>To bad your statements mean nothing. Thanks to the efforts of half of our presidents, America is what it is today. It is the most powerful and richest country in the world. It is hard to accomplish this in such a short period as America did. </p>
<p>Does that mean Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Wilson, Reagan, and others are sucky to you? Probably you dont respect their accomplishments and so thats a shame.</p>
<p>Its is kinda silly because you like Bush and our colonial presidents rather that the presidents who made the most differences. I dont know why you are in this debate since you dont have respect for presidents in the first place.</p>
<p>I think that Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we ever had. He single handedly destroyed the Constitution and FDR only furthered this. I don’t feel like getting into the reasons because it seems that you will never understand.</p>
<p>he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, i doubt that a bad president would do that. </p>
<p>Either way, i think i accidently wrote radical left before. when i meant to say my political inclinations are to the right, so yea, i prefer bush. Just wrote this to correct a mistake.</p>
<p>And BCgoUSC, you can’t justify what you said about a president who united america during the civil war without listing reasons, so do you feel up to it?</p>
<p>I will briefly. The emancipation proclamation did nothing except free slaves in land that legally seceded from the Union. It did not free slaves in the actual Union. That is a fact. </p>
<p>If you think secession is illegal, you are wrong because look at all of the times that the Federalists tried to secede. Never was the legality of secession questioned, only whether or not it was wise. </p>
<p>Lincoln was a centralizer who believed incorrectly that the Federal Gov’t created the states rather than the States creating the Federal Gov’t. He spent his whole political career trying to promote Clays ideas.</p>
<p>He also destroyed the idea of self determination. The south, regardless of their reasons, CHOSE to not be part of the Union, how can anyone argue that they were not using the idea of self determination. I will be glad to go into further detail if anyone questions any of this, but not tonight…I’m too tired.</p>
<p>FDR saved the country during the Great Depression. (I assume you dont know this as you think he is the worst pres.) He provided millions of jobs and his New Deal was a success. He also made the wise decision of joining WW1 because he realized that if Germany (and Japan) became too strong, they will eventually invade America. And his Social Security ideas showed he realy cared about the American people. If he was such a bad pres, why was he overwhelmingly elected in 1936? Wasnt he the only president to serve MORE THAN two terms. Then probably he is one the best presidents. </p>
<p>Once again, you feelings against FDR is lame. As for Abraham Lincoln, almost EVERYONE knows him for his accomplishments as president. I understand that no president is perfect (Bush is definitely not) , but Lincoln’s actions enabled the acceptance of Black men in some northern states, especially in the Union army. It was a crucial time for being president at the time, but Lincoln pulled it off. </p>
<p>Your conservative spin on the most respectable presidents is not being backed up enough. What do you expect them to do as presidents? Indeed it would be difficult solving the problems Lincoln and Roosevelt did. </p>
<p>You are telling me that I dont understand? What I just said is accepted by MOST Americans. What you said are your own opinions which would be valid if you backed it up fully by being aware of the whole situation in America during the time.</p>