First off thanks to Tiger Shark i now have a reason to care. I will now argue seriously.
Quote:
ROFL! YES, those were misguiding, They were edited and key parts of those "well documented" were cut off and edited to give you the wrong impression. I really don't feel like diging up those facts again. The fact that not even the Dems want to keep away from Moore and his BS tells you how farfetched his "well Documented" movie was. You do know that Moore is not allowed to the DNC right? You also do know that Moore doesn't have the balls to accept any criticism about the "well documented" movie that he made. C'mon man, stop lying to yourself...deep inside you know the real truth. You're smarter than this.
i will not believe this until i see more proof than michael moore showed me. you all fail to realize how serious he was about this film. In most of his documentaries, he is silly and fallacious. Watch the film if you haven't. But until i see some sort of outrageous proof that every last one of his accusations were entirely false, i will side with michael moore. Think about it, if Bush has done anything that michael moore said in that movie, he is a bad president, and is bad for the US. You cannot deny the subtle things that were pointed out in the movie. For instance: people's reactions to their children dying needlessly in Iraq. The Iraqi people (note: to you ignorant folk, simply because someone is from Iraq does not make them a terrorist) and their reactions. I cannot quote them, however; watching the U.S. soldiers bombing needless places, such as houses, etc in mere accidences, and watching babies burn, children die. For christ sake a corporal in the U.S. military refuses to go back to iraq, he will face court marshalling if he is called up and doesn't go, but after he is been there and has seen what the U.S. has done to these iraqi's, for in his opinion, a corporal in the military, for no reason, he refuses to go back. The unnecessary slaughter of iraqis, and the unnecessary deaths of our soldiers. You prove to me that michael moore is wrong about everything in that movie, and i will side with Bush. If bush is such a great president, then michael moore is wrong. Prove it. Im not challenging you, im asking you. I have researched for hours and found nothing but republican schemes to get this movie banned, and even outlawed now as recently proposed. And i cannot find any concrete or solid information telling me that michael moore was wrong in every account. </end f 9/11 argument>
As for devpon's:
Quote:
Enough whinning about the 2000 election and how the "court elected Bush". Gore and the Democrats screwed up and lost. If your people don't know how to cast a vote, then show them, duh.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/opi...ion2000-07.html
http://www.usbc.org/media/voting.htm
quote:
The Clinton Administration applied their famous "don't ask -- don't tell" strategy to the Motor Voter law's implementation by warning Motor Vehicle Department employees not to ask if an applicant is a citizen or tell them that non-citizens cannot vote.
this is sad. the link story was terrible. a. it was an opinion (first link) and b. all it is saying as that bush could have won just as easily as gore. my argument was of the courts, and the minorities that were purposely kept from voting ->
Quote:
In St. Louis, a lawsuit was filed claiming that minorities were having trouble voting, while in Nashville, Tenn., the Justice Department last year investigated claims that names were missing from some voting rosters and polling times and places were changed in Nashville without public notice.
Boyd said the federal suits were the result of more than 11,000 complaints from voters after the election.
i wonder why 11,000 people would complain, in one state about not being able to vote.. lets think.. minorities.. republicans... minorities... democrats... whose to blame here? Why has the justice department not solved this problem? It went disregarded. People don't complain in mass numbers like this for no reason. Its obvious that the bush peope were keeping people from voting. Why would a democrat keep minorities from voting? ha... not likely. link to this argument -> http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/flavotes.html
as for the supreme court argument:
* 7 of the 9 Justices were nominated by a Republican
* 4 of the 9 Justices had questionable conflicts of interest
* The ruling passed down by the Justices went against their own track records
lets just take a poke at Clarence Thomas, appointed by daddy bush himself and why he would have voted for bush no matter. Then think about the other 6 republican appointed judges. here we go:
Quote:
Clarence Thomas was also related to the case because his wife was working for the organization that was handling the job applications for Bush's administration, so his wife's job was directly tied to George Bush. This clearly gave Thomas incentive to rule in favor of Bush, not to mention the fact that he was nominated by Bush Sr. and had a difficult confirmation hearing during which Bush supported him. Can the incentive for payback be any more blatant?
blam.
uh oh.. theres more:
Quote:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra O'Connor both expressed a desire to retire and be replaced by a conservative judge within the 2000 to 2004 timeframe prior to the time when they presided over the case of Bush vs. Gore.
At a party on the night of the election Justice O'Connor expressed dismay when she heard the news that Florida was initially called for Al Gore. Her comments that night were "This is terrible!"
There is in fact a petition to hold Justices Scalia, O'Connor, and Thomas accountable for their actions.
The petition can be seen here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/senate/petition.html
and more:
Quote:
Antonin Scalia has two sons, one was a partner of Ted Olsen, who was representing George Bush in the case, and the other was a partner in the law firm representing George Bush in the Florida case that the Supreme Court was then ruling on. So, both her sons were involved with the only two law firms representing Bush in these cases.
but look at this, bush appoints family to scalia after election.. wonder why:
Quote:
Shortly after George Bush took office he appointed Eugene Scalia as top lawyer for the Labor Department and Janet Rehnquist as inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department.
link to these arguments: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/su..._were_bias.htm
From RoadClosed
Quote:
Moore directed this movie to invoke hatred for Bush.
wouldn't you, if you were in his place/power and new what moore did/does?
from AngelicKnight
Quote:
What I don't like about the Democratic strategy is shown beutifully in the title of this thread.
The whole strategy is "Keep Bush Out of Office", not "Put Kerry Into Office". People in general don't want to hear the negative on "the other guy", they want to hear the positive on your guy. This, then, is a major reason why I predict Kerry will lose this election. The strategy is way too weak. You can't run an election on the basis of "I'm not that other guy!"
I agree with this to a point. you Can and will win an election if people hate the "other guy" enough. For another, i dont support kerry because i don't like him. I HATE george bush. Therefore i will help the devil ahead of him.
eh hem.. now for Tiger Shark:
Quote:
Rich.... Really rich.... When your entire previous post was a list of "quotes" with no reference to them.....
notice the link in my signature. Notice the discussions we were having prior about where those quotes come from. But here, i'll find reference to them for you. Further reference, if you will.
for the anthrax investigation argument: http://www.geocities.com/ceriason2000/whyhas.html
that came from a columnist for the guardian. read it you can't make that **** up.
for the overtime argument: http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy...nderattack.cfm
there you go.
and if you would like i can find links supporting the rest?
Quote:
Erok, and you other LIBERALS, (ooohhhh... nasty word that you get all pissy about when someone calls you it nowadays), please learn _critical_ thinking...... Think with your brains.... You have one you know..... that heart you use has no logical capability..... Really.
ouch.. below the belt eh? Well we "liberals" (btw i don't get pissy when called a liberal) think with our brains more than your leader of the republican, conservative party. Would you like for me to bust out thousands of hilarious bush quotes, you know... how he doesn't think before he speaks, etc.. this is a very dumb, low, un-precendented and unnecessary argument. irrelevant to the thread and opinionated.
Quote:
The proof you are not using your brains.... Easy....
Erok titled the thread "Keep Bush out of office"
NEWSFLASH: He's in office.... He's been in office for almost four years.... He's the President of the United States of America. His resume and history will show that. So, Erok's thread title is flawed, thus the thread is flawed....
Hello, /me knocks on Tiger Shark's head and notices something small rattling. Keep Bush out of Office implies, Keep him out of office further, ie the next term. Notice the subject of the thread which says "Vote Bush Out of Office" implying, when you vote, you vote for people to be in office or for some position/job. We as in the people who think like me, wish for bush to be voted down in the next election, ie "Voted Out of Office" ie keeping him "OUT OF OFFICE" for the next term. If you want i can go back in my original post and Put "For those of you who can't assume, or conclude, Keep Bush out of Office means "Don't vote for him in the next election, please"
Quote:
Erok, Stick to computers.... you seem to be better at them than political debate.....
if you had read before, i stated that i was merely talking, hell you could call it musing. Now i am serious. Don't tell me that i am not good at political debate. I have two all-state plaques (sp?) on my wall that say "Oklahoma State Champion, Policy Debate." weird.. these people, these thousands of debaters in oklahoma that i have beaten all think i am somewhat good at it.. but you, who read a thread on the internet, assume that i am not good because of what you read.. i can assure you that if we were in a room, with 3 judges, over a topic, i would slaughter you. Unless of course you have been to The University of Kansas debate camp, the university of Texas's debate camp, for a month. Spent countless hours with senators, supreme court judges (state), coaches, teachers, and philosphers of political theory, you know political scientists, and learned from them, i believe you will have trouble. for i have done all and more of this. thankyou, very much.
Quote:
LIBERALS: Please.... Learn to think, critically. Stop just listening to "If you vote for me and sit on your fat lazy ass everything will be provided for you on a plate". That's the liberals POV. Fine POV if you are worthless....
Aren't you better than that???????
you do realize that your post said nothing right? you merely took shots at a group of people. you are no better than the "liberals" you are attempting to slap on the wrist and teach something to.
Anyone ready for another round cause i am having loads of fun.
