NoCalMike

what are you talking about? Me and 2Cold quite abruptly, said Cheney won without qualms, and we are two of the more liberal folks on here.

Those angry troops better watch themselves, or Ann Coulter will label them treasonous.

RIP Rodney, a viewing of LadyBugs all around.........*kidding* CaddyShack~!

Who cares what YOU call. Moore doesn't need to prove anything to you. Since you are so adamanet they are fake, go ahead and PROVE IT. Something tells me NOTHING would be proof enough for you, so why even bother acting like you could be persuaded. No is claiming every single troop over there is against the war and/or Bush, but you are being silly and pretty thick headed if you honestly believe there isn't a percentage, a good one at that, that is angry, feeling a bit betrayed, and maybe possibly felt Michael Moore was one of the few guys they could confide in, since they know his opinions on Bush and the war.

If the letters are fake, then Moore should never have the nerve to show his face around ever again, however if they are legit, the most disturbing thing about them is the common theme of our tax payer dollars being wasted on a lot of the big time profiteers over there basically living like pigs on our money.

Cheney won the debate, however Edwards didn't come off like a bumbling fool like Dubya did against Kerry, he just simply lost the debate. Cheney was just to prepared on foreign policy, and Edwards seemed like he just wanted to hop on by all of that stuff and get to domestic issues, where the debate started to level out a lot more for both candidates. Add to this the fact that once Friday comes around no will even remember there was a VP debate, and how historically the VP debate is irrelevent to the election, and I'd say even though Edwards lost the debate, it did minimal damage to the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last. And where exactly do you think Kerry's getting his most support, from actual KERRY SUPPORTERS? Hell most would vote for Nader or Badnarik but 'don't think their vote would do any good' or 'it doesn't get Bush out of office'. If you think that many people actually know and consider third-party candidates, you are mistaken. 50 million people are going to vote for Kerry and the notion that "most" of them would rather support Nader or Badnarik (especially considering how much of a loon Nader is and the fact that the general public hasn't even heard of Badnarik) is pretty delusional. who cares really? I don't vote based on what someone else thinks. California is wrapped up anyway. There is NO THREAT of Bush winning CA, none at all. My vote is 100% safe.

Is that the video where they just kept playing honking sounds over the first few minutes with a large yellow "MOORE LIES" every 10 seconds, often with sketchy information backing up their claims? Sketchy information, oh you mean a "Dick Morris fact".

Yes, because if you aren't voting for Bush, you MUST BE a Kerry supporter. Oh I also happened to think Kerry performed better in his debate, so I guess I am voting for Kerry. I have stated it several times already, please let this be the last.

ugh....nevermind, this is an old interview.

You know that something like 30,000 Iraqi Civilians died in the First Gulf War, right? Or are you just an idiot? NoCal: Not a threat? Wait, what does John Kerry have to say about this... well in case you haven't been paying attention to the dozen or so, "who are you voting for" threads, I am not voting for Kerry.

It is a commercial break, but the interview shall continue afterwards. So far it is actually pretty civil....

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea. The only way he's not interested in N Korea is not being in favor of those bilateral talks Kerry's so in favor of. It's funny how you knock Bush for the war, yet when he's taking action in a non-militaristic fashion, he somehow 'isn't interested'.................. Well when Bush says he is concerned about WMDs, and then invades Iraq, yet wants to TALK to the country that is actively testing them in the ocean, it kind of sends (a bush favorite) a mixed message.

Not to mention the Bush41 quote, echoing those same sentiments.

kind of like the pic in your signature?

Oh please, lets not even act as if Bush is even partially interested in dealing with N. Korea.

Too bad Bush is still OVERWHELMINGLY supported by the military. They KNOW what they're signing up for. The people bitching aren't the soldiers, by and large. The soldiers KNOW that their death is a real possibility --- albeit a miniscule one (you do realize that less than 1% of soldiers are dying, right?). THEY, by and large, don't bemoan their fate. They, by and large, support the mission. except for the 1/3rd that didn't bother to show up when called back up.

Do you KNOW what American policy was on Iraq even before Bush came in? Christ this 'Decry Bush and those who support him' witchhunt is getting to PTC vs. Vince McMahon levels. Get your facts straight. enlighten me......

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration. Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it? Just one. Go ahead. -=Mike Hello, I NEVER SAID BUSH SAID THAT. I said he manipulated the situation. He would start to throw in Iraq and Saddam in the same sentences as Al Qaeda, BLURRING THE LINES, over the course of a year. So either the majority of americans are too stupid to tell 2 groups of brown people apart, or there was heavy manipulation going on. I'd like to hope it was the latter. So, because he mentioned two problems, it means he's manipulating things? Wow. I guess Bush's rhetoric can be too clever for some -=Mike That sounds like spin hot off the Hannity Press. I have clearly pointed out the manipulation tactics only for you to come back with, "oh he was just explaining two different problems" Problem is, there was no reason to even be mentioning Iraq at all whatsoever, period. If so, then Bush and co. should have been long at work on selling us on them before 9/11 even happened, but I suppose you are going to reply to this with something as cliche as, "9/11 changed everything"

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration. Can you point to one time where Bush said Iraq was behind it? Just one. Go ahead. -=Mike Hello, I NEVER SAID BUSH SAID THAT. I said he manipulated the situation. He would start to throw in Iraq and Saddam in the same sentences as Al Qaeda, BLURRING THE LINES, over the course of a year. So either the majority of americans are too stupid to tell 2 groups of brown people apart, or there was heavy manipulation going on. I'd like to hope it was the latter.

Come on, don't be obvlivious to what happened.At the start of the war, over 70% of americans believed Iraq was behind 9/11. I guess they came to that false conclusion through long, hard research. It was a very sneaky, manipulative tactic that worked, and when it finally started unraveling, there was a lot of, "yeah but......"'s coming from the administration.

Only problem is that you know as well as I know, as well as everyone on this board knows damn well the ONLY REASON given by the Bush administration that stuck, with the american people was the year long propoghanda of blurring Iraq & 9/11 & al Qaeda, trying to convince people that Iraq played some huge role in masterminding, funding, and helping commit the WTC attacks, which was an outright fucking lie, yet at the same time a perfect oppurtunity to manipulate the nation at a time of vunerability.

They have their reasoning straight. They gave NUMEROUS reasons to remove Saddam. You should try to pay attention. -=Mike No they don't actually. Ties to Al Qaeda - No WMDs - No Threat to America - No Trying to buy uranium from Africa - No He was an evil dictator - Yes 1/5 is not too good.

Well it would be nice if Rummy/Cheney/Dubya could get their own BS reasoning straight, considering it changes daily, with any new evidence that comes out to debunk a pre-existing "fact" I am still waiting for the final concession by the trio and the "ok guys, look he was an evil doer, what more do you need" speech.

Except they don't do that. Rumsefeld saw how the press was covering his remarks and corrected them. -=Mike umm yeah, except they do, do that. Bush was going on about some "threat" Iraq posed, when the very night before Cheney admitted there were no connections between Iraq/Al Qaeda and there were no WMDs. Not to mention Colin Powell and his flip flops on the matter.