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.

I am aware that there were other reasons, but the number one reason always stressed by the Bush-clan was WMD and the link (or lack thereof) between Saddam and Al Queda.

Oh, and that Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.

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

I'll try and track it down for you.

After the plains started flying above, dropping bombs,

I believe it should be planes.

Scott, good luck trying to catch all my errors.

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 have to admit that of all our President's Bush is not the brightest one.

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.

Bush: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

:confused:

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.

Your uncle is Aphew? Well then your practically family here! Welcome.

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).

"Conservatives" are always attacking others. And as far as Reagan is concerned, he was at best a mediocre president. He talked good libertarian talk, but like all republican presidents in the last half century, he still governed like a democrat.

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.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. What are you talking about?

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.

David Duke is a republican. Traditionally, a conservative is someone who wants to conserve the status quo. Perhaps you have a different definition.

But that is pretty much the definition of a conservative.

You gave no definition.

They see things how they are, or how we think they are.

Who is they?

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?

How can you be positive about anything if you consider checking for facts a waste of time?

Ken V.

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

Really? That would be an interesting read. You remember where you saw that?

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.

This is false. Its not that he doesn't mention other's quotes, its that he cuts off quotes. Like what he did to Condi. There are other examples of that if you would like to see them.

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.

I will Mike Moore this for you and you tell me if there is a difference:

Jimbow8 claims that Bush is a liar but yet has no facts to back up his stance. Earlier today he was quoted as saying, "I am still searching for actual evidence."

On a side note, Jimbow8 continues his anti-Mike Moore campaign by saying that he "fail(s) to see the difference" between the two.

What I had just done implies that you think Bush is a liar but you sound stupid because you don't have anything backing up your stance. The second one is me putting words in your mouth by chopping the meaning of your post, up. Now, I don't think that you are stupid because anyone that is deeply pationate about politics, and is willing to spend time to back up themselves, can't be to a degree. I have seen people that insist that Bush planed the 911 attacks. Stupid is about the only thing that comes into my head when thinking of these guys.

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.

His facts are very twisted and if you took your time, there are already sites put up telling these lies for F911. I could post some if you would like, but thats up to you guys (don't want to give up all my sources in one go).

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.

And I'm the complete opposite. I don't see any of these "right-denying" things. Sensorship seems to be the major cry by the public these days but I can say what I want. Kerry can say what he wants. Call me blind, but I don't seem to see any of it. But thanks for the welcome. Everyone here seems real nice. No one has attacked me for thinking differently and I recognize and appreciate it.

Rob T.

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.

I have seen it both ways and my spell checker says that it can be one word. I are not a english major so I ain't care one way or another.

True, but ethics has something to do with a lot of it. As much as politicians are slime balls, ethics factors in somewhat. But in order to cheat electronically, they have to have everyone in on it. All the people working the stands. And they are all split 50/50 with Ds and Rs. So, it would be pretty tough. Our state switched because our old Gov was documented for having dead people vote for him. And it wasn't just people that recently died either, it was a Black Sheep cheating scandel. MD is also very heavily liberal and we have a Republican Gov now. Yet no report of cheating, and trust me, if they had anything, it would pop up.

Really? That would be an interesting read. You remember where you saw that?

I'll try to find it


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some time be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- Humanitarian Theory of Punishment - C.S. Lewis

All democracies turn into dictatorships-but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea...What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction? -- Interview, Time, April 21, 2002, about Attack of the Clones - George Lucas

I believe it should be planes.

Scott, good luck trying to catch all my errors.

Yes, you are right. Again, I am not an english major and I make those simple mistakes. But doesn't everyone? Why do we need to start these grammar wars?