http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG1GM2U2M1.DTL"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of some 5,000 GOP partisans packed in the arena at an earlier stop at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Ga. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."Should this kind of talk be out of bounds in a democracy. Should one be able to compare their political opponents to the enemy?
HA. So basically Democrats = Terrorists in the eyes of Bush.I'm only voting Democrat this year just because I want to get a democratic majority - so they can make life hell for Bush.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Oct 31 2006, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>HA. So basically Democrats = Terrorists in the eyes of Bush.</div>That's not really what he said.
I misplaced this thread - it should have been in the debate section. Can one of you move it there? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Oct 31 2006, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's not really what he said.</div>He did not flat out call democrats terrorists but he did say they will enable the terrorists to win.So is that type of rhetoric acceptable -oh great explainer?What he said if the democrats win the terrorists also win and America therefore loses. But if citizens elect the person they want, don't the people win?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1331 @ Oct 31 2006, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He did not flat out call democrats terrorists but he did say they will enable the terrorists to win.So is that type of rhetoric acceptable -oh great explainer?</div>That was the point I was making. Although he's wrong, well, probably anyway, it's not saying that Democrats are terrorists. There's a difference between interpreting what someone says correctly and saying it's wrong and interpreting something incorrectly and saying it's wrong.Is it acceptable? I don't know, in what regard? I mean, we have free speech. It's pretty hard to prove libel against a public figure, especially when it's something broad like that. Worse things have been said in elections. Is it laudable? Not really.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1331 @ Oct 31 2006, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What he said if the democrats win the terrorists also win and America therefore loses. But if citizens elect the person they want, don't the people win?</div>So you're saying we won in 2000, I'm guessing?I don't think it's at all absurd to think that people's opinions change on a person they elect. I don't think it's crazy to say that people we elect do terrible idiotic things. So yeah, I guess democratically we win, but for all practical purposes we lose if we elect someone inept or unqualified.
I think it's fair to say that Democrats would pull us out early, before the plans we put in motion when we started this were fully complete. That being said, the deliberate approach Bush is taking with this is kind of creepy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Oct 31 2006, 06:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm pretty sure the terrorists won with a republican in office.</div>lol...Good point. haha.
I don't care about the party. I want to see who the people are running for office. I welcome change, and getting rid of Bush is change.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Oct 31 2006, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so we lost in 2000 and 2004...</div>I would have said that, but I figured I'd hear some smart remark about Florida and the popular vote.
