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.

Go back and re-read. It wasn't my only reason. It is true and I think that these terrorists are less then human so I don't care if they get tortured. But if I say that, them I am considered a heartless jerk. I did say that we were doing it to get information. That was my justification.

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?

I don't think that Bush lies as much as the far left would lead everyone to believe. Infact, I couldn't tell you a single lie that the same left wasn't in on (the left and right, with the same info, both agreed on a war in Iraq. Now the left claims that they were lied to by the President eventhough every word he was told, was also told to Kerry and Dean and Rockafeller etc. So how were they lied to by the President?). Moore is pointing fingers. Bush isn't. He has been on the defensive by the left since entering office. A little history. Do you remember Neville Chamberline (I can't spell so forgive me)? Well when he was Prime Minister he tried everything in his power to avoid a war with Germany. When Churchill took over, things started moving towards the war. Churchill always knew that Hitler was an evil person that couldn't be delt with diplomatically. After the plains started flying above, dropping bombs, Chamberline stood next to Churchill and didn't open his mouth once about a pre-emptive war. Instead, he knew he should have listened before it got to that point. The point is that he didn't start back talking the leader when his veiws were different. Thats exactly what the NY Times and Kerry along with many other Ds have done. Instead of having support, they have constantly attacked our President to further their own careers. They don't want a Republican in office so they can't sit down and shut up when our President is doing what needs to be done. The only problem is that I won't be able to convince anyone of that. I could dump all kinds of facts but you won't change your mind. Same here. But I do like to hear why you think that I'm wrong. If I don't have a response, then I look it up.

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.

Now I think you could be right. Consevatives do it more. Why? Because we are always defending ourselves. We are rarely attacking others except during Reagan's term (greatest president of all time). But for saying that we are "further from the center" would be wrong. We don't have a Green Party or anything that is like that. We have peole that see that these countries are evil and want to get rid of them. They aren't going around and saying kill everyone that isn't american. And don't lump the KKK or White extremests with conservatives. They don't have real political agendas.

But that is pretty much the definition of a conservative. They see things how they are, or how we think they are. We don't look into past that. Why should we? Why should we waste time trying to figure out if Hitler is really evil when we are positive that he is?

Now, there are about 60% of Americans that are on the far left (30%) or far right (30%). The other 40% is in the middle. Just because Rather is on your side, don't think that the numbers are.

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

Ken V.

Well, now that would be illegal, wouldn't it? But I know MD does it electronically. So, if you leave it blank, noone can fill it in.

I could dump all kinds of facts but you won't change your mind. Same here.

Facts won't make you change your mind?

Well . . . at least you're honest about it.

As for me, I think Bush should be shot for treason. Although stringing him up from the nearest lamp post would also be acceptable . . . same with Kerry.

Ken V.

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.

Thanks for your welcome. To let you know, I didn't read books until my Uncle (Aphew) and my Aunt (not married to Aphew but a sister) told me about The Keep. I'm reading that Midnight Mass book currently (along with two other political books). Thanks.

Rob

Well, now that would be illegal, wouldn't it? But I know MD does it electronically. So, if you leave it blank, noone can fill it in.

Actually there is some research that says that electronic ballots are at least as easy to tamper with as regular paper ballots.

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.

I was actually going to say something similar to Scott after his post but I decided not to. Did I do it because it wouldn't help support my argument? If so, does that make me a liar?

Back to the original premise. You contend that M Moore is "lying" because he manipulates the truth by using the arguments that support his case and not mentioning others which would hinder it. I still fail to understand how Bush (again, the admin) is any different. While they may have used carefully chosen words so as to avoid spoken lies (I am still searching for actual evidence, but I an CERTAIN it is out there), but they definitely manipulated facts in order to support their claims and advance their goals and agenda. I fail to see the difference.

By no means am I saying that Moore is not a liar, only that Bush (admin) is a liar. That makes both sides wrong. I do, however, believe that parts of Moore's movie and the "facts" presented in it (I will be seeing it tonight) are valid and should be known by the general population. The more information one knows, the better. It is up to the individual to sort through it and verify facts. It is not anyone else's responsibility to censor the information before one can do this.

BTW, Welcome to the board and the perpetual argument! I think you will soon learn that many on this board are not so much against Bush or Kerry or any party whatsoever as they are against the ever-growing, rights-denying power of the federal government as a whole. Just to warn you. :p

Jim (anti-Bush)

Well, now that would be illegal, wouldn't it? But I know MD does it electronically. So, if you leave it blank, noone can fill it in.

With electronic voting there is no paper trail and they can do anything they please with it.

As far as being illegal is concerned, since when has that stopped politicians?

Ken V.

P.S. No one is two words.

Ken V.

P.S. No one is two words.

Yes!! You got him there, Ken. Way to go!

Jim (fellow grammar Nazi)