Bush has won for the second term!!!

I have no problems with drunks...it's the lying, warmongering, idiotic drunks that bother me

i think its sad how kerry had everybody thinking he would end the war when he himself said he would have went to war with iraq he just would have done it difrent not one person has been able to me why kerry woul;d be a better president other then that bush is bad and bush is an ******* can someone who wanted kerry to win please give me a valid reason why

HOLY RUN ON SENTENCES BATMAN!!!!

whats worse i talk the same way i type lol

Looks like Putin is happy that Bush is still President.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/election.world.reaction/index.html

Valid reason #1 Kerry would bring a measure of respectability between the USA and Foriegn Nations

Valid reason #2 Kerry would not be as brutal on the enviroment as Bush's policies have been

Valid reason #3 Kerry seeks to resolve an international situation with international participation and international approval

Valid reason #4 None of Kerry's associates are directly financially profitting from a unethical war that he started

Valid reason #5 Although many of his decisions have been questioned and ridiculed Kerry's record of honesty is a heck of alot better than Bush's

Valid reason #6 Bush's campaign felt it neccessary to question a vietnam vetran's actions in the field and integrity when he returned home while their candidate avoided the conflict all together and spent his time drinking and doing coke

Any of those reasons good enuff for you?

smug mode ---- Kryten

*event* Kerry concedes

It's funny, this is actually the FIRST time Bush actually won.

Legally & historically it is the 2nd. Funny.

That's only an opinion; the body whose job it was to decide that declared otherwise.

(in reference to BF)

Originally posted by ssj4goku
your forgetting that we did not go to iraq until we found out that they had weapons of mass destruction and that was only after extensive research. we started or war on terror in afghan terroist bases and training camps. we destroyed osama bin ladden and he got what he deserved we also helped the iraqies get their independence from saddam husien and let them choose their form of government. so far all i see us doing is fighting for whats right and well if you dont like it then you need to leave the U.S. cause they are also fighting to keep our freedom

Which planet is ssj4goku are you living on?

1) No WMD were found and as other people have said Bush knew that there was none.

2) Osama bin Laden is still alive and America no longer has my sympathy if another terrorist attack happens.

3)Saddam Hussein may have been a strict leader but at least he kept the Iraqies under control.Now because he is gone there is a civil war between different groups of people trying to take control of Iraq.

4)I don't understand why the war in Iraq has got something to do with the your freedom.

5)The main reason why Bush attacked Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was the strongest Muslim leader to stand against him. Now without any other leaders he can help Israel take control of Palestine.

Why don't you read newspapers instead of just writing here what you are told.

Yep, never won the popular vote though, which is what SHOULD matter in a democracy.

And if he was aiming for the popular vote he would not have won. But he was not; he was aiming for an Electoral College, so he DID win.

And in fact local representation is what SHOULD matter in a democracy. The possibility of a slight minority win is always a democratic possibility.

But why should a person who doesn't actually get teh most votes become president? Sorry, that simply doesn't make sense. Seems last time he won through a loophole rather then through credibility.

Whatever the case, this time he won cleanly no matter how you look at it, so it doesn't matter.

no not really

1 and 3 are about the same and i was allways thought you should not care what everyone thinks of you

2 is all right if you are into the enviroment

4 depends if you think the war is ethical or not plaus ive seen kerry say himself that he did not plan to end the war and he would have still went just handled it difrently

5 all politicains lie

6 both sides did alot of mudslinging this election

He won because he did best at the rules of the contest he was playing.

Few democracies elect leaders by popular vote. It is a misapprehension to believe that that is the function of a democracy. Like I say, that function is local representation.

The electoral college has its points. I see the reason for it. I do not want densely populated states dictating who the president will be. Farmers would suffer. Low population dense states supply the basics for living. Corn and other basic grain goods, cotton, and tobacco are all produced in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska, and South Dakota etc.

First thing I heard today when I got to college was that Kerry conceded. What a way to start my day...

Well the electoral college is meant to go hand in hand with the popular vote. I doubt when they made the electoral college they wanted it to be a possibility that the person who gets the least amount of votes could win.

The popular vote goes hand in hand with the electoral by state, and not popular vote from New York or California to drain into Iowa. You know I'd not like other voters out of my state voting for my state's decision. United States, not Cities.