Moore uses his "manipulative truths" to show that Bush is a "liar." He isn't. The reason you think so is because Moore tells you so. Remember, you just said that he manipulates the truth.

On a side note, Moore is a Commie. When you break down what he wants, he is right next to Thoreau. His views of the world are severely skewed.

At the end of my last semester of school, I got into a four hour political debate with my old Poly Sci teacher. We are not enemies by no means. He had his knee replaced and I was the only student that helped him out carrying stuff from class to class. But he, not unlike many other Moore followers, ignore fact sheets and take what he says as the word of God. There is nothing I can do to convince him or others differently, but I will try.

If I've come on strong on these posts, I'm sorry. I was just shocked to see that everyone here is anti-Bush and I got a little defensive.

So you are saying that Moore is a "liar" because he manipulates the truth to serve his agenda. Are you refuting that Bush (when I say Bush I usually mean the Bush administration, whether it be an individual or as a whole) does EXACTLY the same thing?

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.

See, now why do you make blanket statements like that? It totally destroys your argument. Moore has NEVER said anything that was true?!?! Really? And everything Bush says is true probably, right? That is what really bugs me about Conservatives (Extremists on both sides do it, but to me it seems that conservatives do it more, mainly because I believe conservatives are further from "center" that the liberals currrently). They only seem to speak and think in terms of "black and white," "good and evil," "rich and poor," etc. Like there is no middle ground. Most Americans don't fit these polar ways of thinking, they tend to be somewhere in the middle.

By the way, Sublime1983 -- welcome to the board.

Don't be afraid to stir things up. The only rule (and may this serve as a reminder to the rest of you as well): No ad hominem attacks on fellow boardwalkers. Public figures are fair game, of course. But here...flame, slash, burn, and nuke any opinions you disagree with, but not the person who posted them.

By the way, Sublime1983 -- welcome to the board.

Don't be afraid to stir things up. The only rule (and may this serve as a reminder to the rest of you as well): No ad hominem attacks on fellow boardwalkers. Public figures are fair game, of course. But here...flame, slash, burn, and nuke any opinions you disagree with, but not the person who posted them.

This is just one example of why I love this board. Every opinion is valid.

And that's why FPW is our favorite Pappy.

Its funny because its true. But you do hear how people want to make things better (unless you are Kerry, he just tells you that he isn't George W. Bush) but it gets pushed out of the light because its bigger news to hear that so and so called so and so a liar.

How is that Gov doing in your opinion?

Maybe Thune is, but Daschle can't be the guy you are talking about that never pointed a finger. Thats all he has done since Bush has taken office. He is a major figure in all the problems that are going on. His constant DOTM has put a damper on things and nothing is getting done. I know he is going to get re-elected becuase, like you said, he is a major national figure, but I pray he doesn't.

Rounds has been an ok govenor. He's definately a lot better than Janklow who did nothing but push people around while he was in office and make the schools in the state worse off.

As far as the Daschle/Thune race goes, I will never vote for Thune. I know Daschle and Bush butt heads on a lot of issues, but I would rather see that over some little puppet that Bush can use to do what ever he pleases and that's what Thune is. Right now these two are arguing because Daschle asked Thune to tell the out of state groups to stay out of the race and he told them no and at the same time, Thune asked Daschle to have a spending limit on the race and Daschle told him no.

The finger pointing I talked about in the Gov race was between Thune and I honestly can't remember right now (I tried to find it on the internet but was coming up with nothing). This race ended up being very nasty and Rounds just sat back and won the primary in a landslide over the other two.

Well, thats true...but you can still go and vote on everything else, like issues, and leave your presidential boxes blank.

Thats how it is in MD at least.

Leaving it blank just gives somebody else the opportunity to fill it in for you.

Ken V.

In some states you do have to choose D or R when registering.

Yes, I know.

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."

Before I moved to Texas I was a registered Republican. However, I have voted for Democrats several times. There were a couple of judges that I thought were going to do better jobs. And then there was the David Duke/Edwin Edwards race for Governor. I held my nose and voted for "The Crook".

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.

Thank goodness.

But, he would get my vote if he did.

Yikes!

RIK

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.)

Gotcha.

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir and January 5, 2000. Look those two up. Beyond that, I will just say that it is highly believed that the Iraqi Gov. trained him. They say he was working for the Iraqi Intelligence Service. He was also a major figure in the meetings of high ranking al Qaeda memebers. Thats a tie, although a small one, but I don't think you can just look past it.

"Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Uaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994 (doesn't mean they gave the weapons to bin Laden)...An Irqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000."

All the above quote was from Stephen F. Hayes and was in his new book The Connection . I suggest you take a look if you want to see what the other side is.

You do know that the war wasn't strictly because of WMDs, don't you? You didn't ignore the rest of President Bush's speech about a war in Iraq, did you? If you remember, President Bush listed off about nine reasons for going into Iraq, WMDs being just one. Others were to liberate the Iraqi citizens. To get rid of a dictator. Reasons like that.

As for the WMDs, hadn't it recently come out that we found some kind of yellow dust, or whatever its called, to is needed to build some kind of bomb. I will stop on this one because I just recently heard it and haven't followed up on it. But one event I like to bring up is when we found all kinds of Biological weapons in Jordan. They tell us they got them from Syria. Well, Syria doesn't have the capabilities to make all those weapons. And if you remember, the CIA reported that Iraq had weapons, but there was just as good a chance as those weapons being moved into a neighboring country. So, Syria's weapons are also known as Iraq's WMDs.

It is a popular thing to blame George H. W. Bush for not going into Baghdad in the Gulf War. He didn't exterminate Saddam when he had a chance. He didn't get rid of their WMDs back then when we knew they had them. They had used them on the Kurds. So you would trust an evil dictator's word that they got rid of them over common sense? They had them, they aren't going to disappear, and he kicked the UN out of the country before he was supposed to. What was he hidding, some embarassing pictures?

Don't remember that speech. Couldn't find it on the net anywhere. Maybe you could help (Rice & Powell denying WMDs).

Looking into buying them. I think that was the yellow dust or fairy dust or whatever it is that I was talking about earlier. It was that they were going into Nigeria to buy it so they could build Atomic Bombs. Would you trust this country?

So, Iraq doesn't have weapons? What happend to them? Are they in Syria now, another evil country? Or have they magically disappeared?

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!

Cheap shot. When all else fails, start attacking our President's intelligence. If thats how our debate will go, I won't continue with you. Then you go on to call Cheney F-Bomb.

You can easily say he has lied about these things as easy as I could say that he hasn't. Use a little evidence like Marc did above you. In order for me to refute, I need something to refute.