NYC was attacked on 9-11...why is NY voting Democratic?

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
NYC is dominated by the angry leftist mob under Bill Clinton's rule. All the educated workers there come from NJ which is now switching away from the Dems thanks to our gay governor and his sins.

Tough to tell whether or not this is sarcastic...

 

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

Gulf War I?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Achtung

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
NYC is dominated by the angry leftist mob under Bill Clinton's rule. All the educated workers there come from NJ which is now switching away from the Dems thanks to our gay governor and his sins.

Tough to tell whether or not this is sarcastic...

Based on my experiences with his posts, it's not.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

The Repubs don't take the country to war. Between the 2 World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, the Dems shipped American life after American life to die in the 20th century.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
NYC is dominated by the angry leftist mob under Bill Clinton's rule. All the educated workers there come from NJ which is now switching away from the Dems thanks to our gay governor and his sins.

Well that's why The Fearless Liar stopped in New Jersey for the first time this Campaign.

The Gay Governor Issue has riled up the Religious Radicals in New Jersey enough that he feels the normally Democratic voting State will have enough Gay Haters to pull out a Neocon victory.

Unfortunately he may be right for once in his 4 years :shocked:

 

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

The Repubs don't take the country to war. Between the 2 World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, the Dems shipped American life after American life to die in the 20th century.

And you've just compared the war in Iraq to WWII. Hilarious. :roll:

 

[SirStev0]

sorry dp

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Achtung

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

The Repubs don't take the country to war. Between the 2 World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, the Dems shipped American life after American life to die in the 20th century.

And you've just compared the war in Iraq to WWII. Hilarious. :roll:

ok so democrates made mistakes in the past... like between 60 and 30 years ago... obviously they are going to do it again ... same way with the repubs...

god damn people...

 

[Gen Stonewall]

The fact that New Yorkers would vote for Hillary Clinton for senator gives me almost zero confidence in their political wisdom.

 

[lordtyranus]

I'm just answering the question of why the US hasn't won a war under a republican president: Because there hasn't been one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Achtung

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

Gulf War I?

With apologies to the soldiers who fought and died, if that is what mainstream America thinks is a "war", then we are gonna be in for a big surprise when another real war comes along. I suppose the Italians in 1935 believed they had won a "when" the easily defeated Ethiopia.
At least with the Spanish-American War, the American people believed at that time that Spain was still a world power...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I'm just answering the question of why the US hasn't won a war under a republican president: Because there hasn't been one.

Do you mean declared war or undeclared war? If declared, then you are right. If you include undeclared, then it should be noted that Korea and Vietnam both ended with Republican presidents.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I'm just answering the question of why the US hasn't won a war under a republican president: Because there hasn't been one.

Do you mean declared war or undeclared war? If declared, then you are right. If you include undeclared, then it should be noted that Korea and Vietnam both ended with Republican presidents.

Well, I guess it depends on whom you want to pin the blame for Korea and Vietnam on. But if you are going to use that logic, well, anything that happens in Iraq should also be accounted against a potential Kerry administration if he is elected. Iraq will hopefully be over within the next 4 years.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Achtung
And you've just compared the war in Iraq to WWII. Hilarious. :roll:

Exactly. They are nothing similar. Though many refuse to believe it, the Axis powers of WWII were militarily more powerful than the Allies, and we won in large part due to better manufacturing abilities and better tactics and strategy. Had Hitler ever tried to and been successful in capturing Britain, it is almost certainty that the Allies would have lost. Save perhaps during the War of 1812 or the Civil War, the US was never in more danger.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
I'm just answering the question of why the US hasn't won a war under a republican president: Because there hasn't been one.

Do you mean declared war or undeclared war? If declared, then you are right. If you include undeclared, then it should be noted that Korea and Vietnam both ended with Republican presidents.

Well, I guess it depends on whom you want to pin the blame for Korea and Vietnam on. But if you are going to use that logic, well, anything that happens in Iraq should also be accounted against a potential Kerry administration if he is elected. Iraq will hopefully be over within the next 4 years.

But neither Korea nor Vietnam were pre-emptive wars, but resulted from the US meeting its obligations to protect its allies. So different circumstances for entry entirely. If the US loses Iraq (unlikely, except Vietnam was declared loss despite a 50-to-1 casuality ratio in our favor), then history will likely note that fault belonging to the unnecessary beginning to the war.

 

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Achtung

Originally posted by: Vic
Who is better for national security? The US has not won a war with a Republican president since 1898.

Gulf War I?

With apologies to the soldiers who fought and died, if that is what mainstream America thinks is a "war", then we are gonna be in for a big surprise when another real war comes along. I suppose the Italians in 1935 believed they had won a "when" the easily defeated Ethiopia.
At least with the Spanish-American War, the American people believed at that time that Spain was still a world power...

Oh I agree it wasn't really a traditional war... just the best answer I could come up with. I hadn't heard that stat before, and it was a little surprising, TBH.