That wasn't the point of my post. It was to show that at one time he was registered as a Democrat and has since moved to another state which does not let you choose a party affiliation. It is clear what his party affiliation would be if he was in a state where you have the option.

I was more amused by the fact that Moore (according to the story) had not voted since 1991.

RIK

In some states you do have to choose D or R when registering. I actually registered as a Republican when I turned 18. Doesn't really matter unless I choose to run for office. I've voted both sides of the ticket in general elections and voted both sides in Primaries where you have to pick one slate v. the other. In fact, I picked a Republican ballot this last primary to vote for a particular State's Attorney in a local race (he lost), and then (in a very proud moment) I left my chads in place for Bush and Hastert (yes, the Drew Carey look-alike is my rep, lucky me). "He's not gonna get my vote, no sir."

So, whether Moore registered in one party or not, he doesn't have to affiliate himself with either one. So, what does it matter? He's not running for office. But, he would get my vote if he did.

I'm actually a little annoyed by that comment. I know Bush is a liar, not because Moore tells me, but because I actually read the news and from many different sources. I don't believe anything from any one individual.

Sorry your annoyed, but I would love to here the things that Bush has lied about. Maybe you could educate me a bit.

So, whether Moore registered in one party or not, he doesn't have to affiliate himself with either one. So, what does it matter? He's not running for office. But, he would get my vote if he did.

Wow, so you would vote for a man who has never said anything that has been true over a President who has the backbone to do what is needed to defend ourselves? I'm probably preaching to the wrong congregation, here. Maybe I should stop talking politics on this site.

Here is an interesting review of the movie from the New York Times. Read it here.

I had never heard him say that. I wonder how many people actually do take what he says in that way? I doubt too many of them do. Do you remember where you heard that? I would love to read that.

I will look and see if I can find it. I saw it on an interview around the time Bowling for Columbine came out. I will do my best to find it, though.

I don't know who you have been debating, and I'm a little late on this thread, but I don't know a single Conservative who responds like that.

A Democrat says, "Bush is telling lies."
A Republican responds: "Clinton lied all the time."

That was just an example. I could have said,

A Republican says: "Clinton lied all the time."
A Democrat responds, "So does Bush."

I've heard the equivalent of both. It's not about who lied, it's about ducking the point.

By annoyed I meant that you would assume I only get my news source from one person. In any event, two of Bush's lies that pop into mind are listed below (these are also the easiest ones to point a finger at... if you want more examples I'll take some time and write up a list).

For over a year after 9/11 Bush kept linking Saddam and Iraq to the terrorist hijackers. It got to the point that the vast majority of Americans BELIEVED the terrorists were from Iraq when, in truth, none of them were. Almost two years after the WTC came down Bush finally admitted that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda.

Weapons of Mass Destruction. In early 2001 both Powel and Rice made statements that Iraq had no means or interest in weapons of mass destruction. Yet after 9/11 they suddenly had huge stock piles of weapons (over 500 tons of chemicals, over 30,000 missiles, and a growing fleet of planes) and they were a threat to the U.S. thus justifying the war. To this day no weapons have been found. (Speaking WMD, did you notice when all this started Bush stated that Iraq had weapons, then it went to they had the parts to make the weapons, finally finishing at they are looking into buying.)

Wow, so you would vote for a man who has never said anything that has been true over a President who has the backbone to do what is needed to defend ourselves? I'm probably preaching to the wrong congregation, here. Maybe I should stop talking politics on this site.

Since when is an act of agression considered defense? Oh, that's right since GWB decided to use a dictionary re-written by the facist, neo-nazi, neo-con, far-right extremists that use fear and terror as weapons in a "war" on terrorism. But, wait, that assumes GWB can read on at least a 6th grade level.

Besides, you would vote for a "President" that "has the backbone to do what is needed to defend ourselves" but has never uttered a truth himself? He's lied about the economy, the environment, the existence of WMD, the various other reasons for invading Iraq, his service in the reserves, his alcohol use, his drug use, etc. Need I go on? I seriously question his "faith." It is nothing more than a tool to get more votes. He doesn't pray to God every morning; he's just helping Dick "F-Bomb" Cheney count his money.

You shouldn't stop talking politics on this board. It's too much fun to spar with friends who agree to disagree. But, Bush still sucks!

For over a year after 9/11 Bush kept linking Saddam and Iraq to the terrorist hijackers. It got to the point that the vast majority of Americans BELIEVED the terrorists were from Iraq when, in truth, none of them were. Almost two years after the WTC came down Bush finally admitted that Saddam had no ties to Al Qaeda.

Dick "Wash-my-mouth-out-with-soap" Cheney must not have heard Bush admit that. He was STILL spouting this nonsense at a campaign stop in New Orleans yesterday.

The torture issue is a tough one. I think that it is part of war. The guy who was in the news a while back talking about how we had those laws so that our soldiers don't get hurt when they are captured is a little lacking in the head. Like the terrorist follow the laws put in place by the Geneva convention. Besides that, we use torture to get information. Now don't get me wrong, we don't go and cut of limbs and stuff like that, we use mental torture. Embarass a few radical Islamists and get some good information. When our nations security is at risk, you would rather these terrorist be treated fairly? That being said, I think torture is validated.

You have just done exactly what I said earlier. You are using the fact that terrorists don't abide by the Geneva convention in order to validate and rationalize the fact that we didn't. If it is wrong it is WRONG. PERIOD. Just because the other guy did it first doesn't make it OK.