Fitty Brave MM Fans:thumbsup

fuck Moore, fuck his films, ALL of' em, sloppy fat ass..

He's got 2 be one of the ugliest asswipe I've seen, you would think with his money he'd take a little pride in himself

Hitchens may not be a liberal but I wouldn't classify him as a conservative either. One thing you can be sure of with Hitchens is that he hates religion and those who practice it (including, believe it or not, Mother Teresa) with a passion. Outside of his hatred of religion and his desire to 'shock' and be in the spotlight, he is a free thinker with no real political agenda.

Since when is Hitchens a liberal? LOL.. if you're going to try on this kind of thing, at least.. I don't know.. use a modicum of commonsense. I've read the Hitchens article and the anti-columbine sites, and frankly you'd have to be as much of a moron to agree with them with everything they say than you would about everything Moore says.

Next time please find some actual liberal witers if thats what you say you're doing.. I find this amazingly hysterical because of the total hypocrite you're making yourself by doing the same thing moore does - slanting the truth to get your point across..
bloody 80% of people "used to be a liberal" what is it they say? If you weren't a liberal in your youth you didn't have a heart, and if you aren't a conservative at adulthood you don't have a brain?

Who cares what some article writers think of michael moore?

I dont need anyones help to form my own views :)

Also, who cares what some article writers think of bush?

I dont need anyones help to form me own views :)

perhaps people aren't interested because that first link was posted almost a week ago and has already been discussed to death.

The Hitchens article is full of ad hominem attacks on Moore, speculates about his intentions without really pointing out specific factual errors.

The Newsweek article seems reasonable.

First off you mischaracterize Snitch Hitchens as a liberal. Even if he were a liberal it is an opinion not a fact piece. I can?t offer you research to contradict someone?s opinion. The second Newsweek article you posted has already been debunked. Moore himself debunked on his site. The guy who wrote that article sheepishly admitted on Scarborough country that he had unintentionally misquoted the movie, and then in a bizarre move attempted to blame Moore for his mistake for not providing him a transcript of the movie. If you want the proof, I guess you can order a transcript from MSNBC.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...Newsweek&hl=en

:glugglug :glugglug :glugglug

Never said that there werent any Republic sheep. There are plenty of them too.
He also being praised as someone righteous. He's not! He doesnt make documentaries, he makes liberal propaganda. Yes there are the same on the right as in the left.
Let me know which right winged moive made as a documentary is in the theaters right now or during the Clinton years. He should catagorize his movies for what they really are. Bias and just admit it.

Also the same people who do their research are the sameone's who vote. Sheep never vote.
Check out the latest polls in Florida 43% to 43% . Sheep remain silent.

yep.. these links have been posted so many times now, it's as if Sperbonzo has only just seen them.. In Regards to the newsweek article I just found this at the link above:

"In "Under the Hot Lights," Michael Isikoff attacks Fahrenheit 9/11 by asserting that "Craig Unger appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." The article then goes on to say that this assertion is false.

Unfortunately for Isikoff, I make no such statement in the movie. I do argue -- accurately -- that the bin Ladens and other Saudis were whisked out of the country without being subjected to a serious investigation. But the sequence to which Isikoff refers ends with director Michael Moore summing up my account of the bin Laden evacuation by saying, "So a little interview, check the passport, what else?" "Nothing," I respond.

It would be one thing if Isikoff had simply made an honest error; but that clearly is not the case. When he called me, I specifically told Isikoff that the evacuation process involved brief interviews of the bin Ladens which fell far short of the kind of intense criminal investigation that should have gotten underway after the murder of nearly 3,000 people. The worst crime in American history had just taken place two days earlier, and the FBI did not even bother to check the terror watch lists. Isikoff omitted all that. Instead, he put words in my mouth that are simply not in the movie.

Isikoff also wrongly asserts that the Saudi "flights didn't begin until September 14 -- after airspace reopened." In fact, as I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, the first flight took place on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. According to the St. Petersburg Times, that flight has since been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport. Isikoff knew all this. I told him. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight and told him how to get in touch with them. But Isikoff left all that out as well -- as he did other information that did not suit his agenda. In dismissing the Bush-Saudi ties, Isikoff even omits the fact that more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts went from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and Cheney have been key figures -- all of which is itemized in my book. Isikoff begins his article by asking, "Can Michael Moore be believed?" The real question should be whether Michael Isikoff can be believed. Clearly, the answer is no.

Craig Unger
New York City, NY "

So the newsweek article has been proven wrong.. I wonder if Sperbonzo will just ignore this and keep on posting the link in another year or two when Moore's next movie comes out with the anti-columbine stuff.

I mean sure.. the fact is you should read all of it, both sides.. It's just incredibly funny to see something think it would be brave to read these pieces when theres no more likelyhood of them being factual or correct than the movie int he first place.

If I remember correctly, he may have said something along the lines of "of course the film is biased".

If someone on the right made the same type of movie, it'd be biased too.

People always go on about how everything people on the left watch is bullshit and made up... It's no different for those on the right. Everyone watches biased films and reads biased articles.

*sits down*

did i miss anything? :1orglaugh

how about we make a list of Bush lies and a list of Michael Moore lies and see which list is longest?

How about we measure the impact of those lies and see whose hurt the most people?

fucking republican asshats

this isn't a debate, this is the same mini flamewar over and over. (and you still have THE best eyes)

Moore's film is also filled with experts with excellent credentials backing up his claims. A lot of the film is filled with his opinion, but we still have the right to that in the US...at least we do now... I'd say about 1/3 of the film is emotional hyperbole (of the sort Hitchens employed in his own piece). If even 1/3 of it is true (and from what I can tell, most of it is substantiated by documentation and research), we should be impeaching and turning Bush out of office. Watergate was *nothing* next to this. If this film is even half-true, Bush and Co. are guilty of high treason.

Moore's would reach to the moon with his bullshit, spins and lies. The guy hates America and thinks it is an Evil Empire. Just because he said in his movie that he loves America you sheep believe him. Actions speak louder than words. The guy is a fucking spinner with a hidden agenda to get sheep to follow his bullshit and try to take America down. And for all of you that think he is just after the Bush Administration think again. He called us an Evil Empire that needed to be taken down in 98 when Clinton was in office. I believe his exact words where, one evil empire down one to go. So if you hate America and think we should be taken down join this ASSHAT's club. I love the movie. I think it will finally bring light to the idiots who have a hidden agenda and no matter what the truth is they will spin anything to fit their fear and hate. I love my country no matter who is in office. This ASSHAT is trying to do anything he can to make us fail and hurt our country and you Moore fans love him for it. FUCKING SICK!!!

Oh and if any of you want to open your mind and read a few things that point out even more holes in his bullshit read the article I am posting. If you truly hate LIARS then have the fucking balls to call anyone you hear lie, a fucking liar and put your emotions aside. It's called having a value. Something I know not too many of you Michael Moore lovers have.

This was posted a day ago, so to all you bullshit chaser let's see if you have the balls to call everything bullshit or do you just call out the people you don't like and let the people you do like get away with it. If you do let the people you like get away with bullshit, then I bet you would be a pretty shity friend!!!

************************************************** *
On the very same day that Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is released in theaters, the headline of a New York Times' article, "Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says," undermines one of the movie's claims--Bush lied about a link between Osama bin Laden and Iraq.

This is just one of many discredited allegations and debunked conspiracy theories Moore presents as fact in his "documentary." Indeed, the movie is merely a compilation of left-wing conspiracy theories and allegations.

Moore could have mailed in this script.

The first conspiracy theory proffered is the "stolen 2000 election." Moore, who narrates the movie, recites the litany of discredited allegations made by the Democrats. What evidence is there the election was stolen? Moore says Bush's cousin, working for Fox News, made the call that Bush won the Florida election--after the other networks awarded it to Gore.

So what?

The implication is that somehow the election was influenced--because once Fox News declared Florida for Bush so did all the other networks. However, the facts are quite different. The networks declared Florida for Gore just before 8 p.m. By 2:00 a.m., November 8, Bush was projected the winner of Florida. Two hours later the election was declared too close to call.

How Moore distorts the truth here is a preview of what he does throughout the movie.

Next Moore recycles the criticism that Bush was spending too much time on vacation--an accusation made by Democrats his first few months in office. There are scenes of Bush golfing. Moore mentions that, according to the Washington Post, Bush vacationed 42% of the time during the first eight months of his presidency.

So what?

The same thing was said about Eisenhower. Besides Moore only tells the audience part of the truth. The Post article said, "Many of those days are weekends, and the Camp David stays have included working visits with foreign leaders?"

Moore's next specious allegation is about what Bush did, or did not do, the morning of September 11. When Bush is informed that the second plane crashed into the World Trade Center he is in a reading class at a Florida elementary school. Moore says disdainfully, "Not knowing what to do, with no one to tell him what to do," Bush reads a book to the kids.

So what?

Did Moore want President Bush to grab a sword and march off to combat the terrorists? Is that what FDR did when told of Pearl Harbor?

Moore plays fast and loose with these facts as well. The truth is, the first plane crashed at 8:45 a.m. Bush was notified at 9:05 a.m. about the second plane. Less than a half hour later, at 9:30 a.m., he addresses the nation saying, "Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country?.And now if you would join me in a moment of silence. May God bless the victims, their families, and America."

Contrast Bush's statement, twenty-five minutes after learning what happened, with Moore's bizarre comments published the next day to his website: "In just 8 months, Bush gets the whole world back to hating us again.?If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who did not vote for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted against Bush! Why kill them?"

Who, in your opinion, do you feel is more mentally stable?

The next discredited conspiracy theory furnished is the "Flight of the Saudis." Moore introduces this by saying, "In the days following 9-11--when all American flights were grounded." Moore announces in a jocular voice, "Even Ricky Martin was not allowed to fly," during a sequence showing the singer wandering around an airport. Moore claims that some planes were authorized to fly Saudis around the United States.

The evidence provided this time is a photocopy of a document listing dates of birth, country of origin (all Saudi Arabia), date and port of departure, airline code, and flight numbers of numerous people. Moore states that 6 private jets and other commercial aircraft were authorized to fly Saudis September 13 and afterwards.

So what?

Saudis, Ricky Martin, and everybody else were permitted to fly chartered jets and commercial aircraft September 13. All such flights were authorized. Moore is just being slick. He gives people the impression that these were special flights when they were not.

Moore then states that the FBI never questioned the Saudis before they left the U.S., thereby proving Bush was in cahoots with them. Yet, Moore contradicts himself. Richard Clarke, who was the counter terrorism chief at the time and who appeared during the movie as an authoritative source, testified before the 9/11 Commission that he authorized the Saudis to leave the country and President Bush knew nothing about it.

Next in the conspiracy theory parade is the "war for oil" plot. The Workers World Party (WWP) has been credited for originating this one. The WWP, which worships Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Slobodan Miloslevic, is so loony that even other Communist groups think they are insane.

Moore states that the Bush family and the Saudis have business dealings with one another. Bush also has relationships with the bin Laden family. The hijackers were Saudis too.

So what?

Using this logic, Moore should have been interrogated about the Oklahoma City incident, since both he and Timothy McVeigh are from Michigan. Now I know why Disney did not want to distribute this film. While it is more imaginative than--say--Cinderella, it lacks the charm.

Moore's conspiracy theory pageant continues with the "Unocal pipeline conspiracy." This plot states that the war in Afghanistan was not about bin Laden, it was about the Unocal Corporation profiting from building a pipeline in Afghanistan. The evidence to substantiate this is that Afghan President Hamed Karzai was once a consultant for Unocal.

So what? Better the president should be a former sheepherder?

This Unocal conspiracy dates from 1998. Although then, it was said that we were allies of the Taliban to build the pipeline. Now this same canard explains why we eliminated the Taliban. Ironically, the World Socialist Web Site's (Nov. 16, 1998, edition) alludes to this same conspiracy only they mention Clinton and Iraq.

Does Moore feel that the Workers World Party and the World Socialist Web Site are good sources of information?

This segment shows a pipeline contract being signed by President Kharzai, the impression being that this is with Unocal. What is omitted is that neither Unocal nor the U.S. was involved in this pipeline contract.

The movie is grounded upon one canard and cliché after the next. One would think there was at least one original idea of Moore's in this film.

The only thing Fahrenheit 9/11 proves is that Moore's cinematic propaganda lacks originality. He is a cheap imitation hybrid of Oliver Stone and Leni Riefenstahl.

The conspiracy cavalcade proceeds to illustrate the abuses of the Patriot Act--the legislation designed to make America like Nazi Germany. One such abuse is the infiltration of an antiwar group called Peace Fresno by the Fresno County Sheriff's office.

So what?

What this has to do with the Patriot Act is never stated. The only thing stated is that Peace Fresno is merely a group of concerned citizens.

He cites as evidence that legislation endangers civil liberties because no one in Congress read the bill. He shows one congressman who says his colleagues never read the legislation. However, Moore contradicts himself again. He also shows a congresswoman with two very specific criticisms about definitions in the Patriot Act. Obviously, she read it.

Moore's next allegation is that Congress is full of hypocrites. This is evinced by the fact that only one member of Congress has a kid in Iraq.

So what?

If this were a criterion, Abraham Lincoln should not have waged the Civil War.

Michael Moore is a snake oil salesman--Jimmy Swaggart without the fashion sense. He condemns exporting jobs, yet his website is a Canadian product. He talks about helping the common person while living in an elite Manhattan enclave.

Facts never matter to Moore or his audience. They both dwell in a paranoid parallel universe. They are emblematic of those to whom Orwell referred when (paraphrasing) he said that only an intellectual could believe such lies, any normal person knew it was not the truth.

If ignorance is truly bliss then many of those who believe the thesis of Fahrenheit 9/11 are very happy people today for having watched this film. One could tell they were buying everything Moore was selling--no tent revival crowd was more enthusiastic.

**************************************************

'so what?' is not an effective rebuttal. Your whole article doesn't point out any lies by MM, it tries to justify the inactions of your awol cokehead rich boy president that MM attacked.

Excellent! Actually from the New York Times? Of all papers?

Communist China is loving Moore as well.

Hezbollah and Communist China! What friends Moore has!

and here's another free clue for you clueless types: People who are trying to keep their government from being turned into a police state aren't anti-american, they're ACTUAL patriots, as opposed to the phony conservative patriots who think they're doing the country a service by swallowing the right's strategy of increased police power, perma-war, and propaganda.

Tell me again what Hussein had to do with 9-11?

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 21, 2002
The Guardian

The row about whether the September 11 attacks could have been averted has begun to focus on the US attorney general, who is accused of playing down the terrorist threat in the first months of the Bush administration.
Since the attacks on New York and Washington, John Ashhahahahaha has been criticised for rounding up more than 1,000 people on suspicion of being connected to al-Qaida. Many were held for months, despite a alack of credible evidence.

He has accused his critics of undermining the fight against terrorism. But it is becoming clear that before September 11 he had little interest in counter-terrorism, and diverted resources from measures to prevent terrorism towards those aimed at more traditional targets, such as drugs and child pornography

In the late 90s the threat of a terrorist attack on US soil became a near obsession in the Clinton administration, particularly in the justice department under Janet Reno. But her successor had other ideas.

On September 10 last year, the last day of what is now seen as a bygone age of innocence, Mr Ashhahahahaha sent a request for budget increases to the White House. It covered 68 programmes, none of them related to counter-terrorism.

He also sent a memorandum to his heads of departments, stating his seven priorities. Counter-terrorism was not on the list. He turned down an FBI request for hundreds more agents to be assigned to tracking terrorist threats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september...,719231,00.html


dumbass conservatives

Seeing as how it's the conservatives who want to believe in their perfect, all powerful leader against all the evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's you and people like you who would be more comfortable living under a theocracy or a secular dictatorship.

I see that Adult.com doesn't have common sense listed as employment criteria..This is the biggest crock of shit in this whole thread...Jesus christ some of y'all are straight ignorant.

Where do you get your news at Diggy?

Bush and circle NEVER made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11 -- They made the BROADER

Name calling always just kills me....

Who would you put into office and just what the hell are they going to do?

So easy to just point call names....and not have any freakin clue

:angrysoap

I'm afraid all this proves is that the extremists who back Bush are incapable of a reasoned response to argument.

Michael Moore apparently takes his patriotism seriously enough to challenge his President, which is far more than Bush's apologists are doing. In a Republic, we are supposed to question authority and kick its tires. Michael Moore may well be part hype, but as I've said, if a portion is true, George Bush should be part of the prison system. I'm much more concerned about the virulent attacks against Michael Moore than I am about any shakiness in his treatise. You can't attack his arguments, because you don't know the facts, so instead you assault him personally.

The simple fact of the matter is, Bush has far more contacts with the bin Laden family than did Hussein. What the Bush apologists cite as "inconclusive proof" of contacts between Bush and the family bin Laden, they are marching out as "conclusive proof" of Hussein's links to the family bin Laden. It's laughable.

These people are all cut out of the same bolt of cloth. For one of the struggling hordes or the working rich in this industry to be defending Geroge Bush is somewhat like a pilgrim arguing for clemency for attacking Indians.

Where do you get your news at Diggy?

Bush and circle NEVER made the claim that Saddam was linked to 9/11 -- They made the BROADER claim that Saddam had links to AL-QUAEDA

The 9/11 commission re-iterated the above right after the New York Times MIS-QUOTED them. The said there was no compelling evidence that Saddam and 9/11 were linked, but they did agree with Bush that there were links between Saddam and Al-Quaeda.

Let the girl speak her mind...and 3 cheers for doing so....and all the haters...can kiss hers and my ass too!:1orglaugh

You go girl! I like your style....shut all the dumb ass's up out there with there heads up there big fat butts.....hahahahhahaha

Moores movies is like the food line at a restaurant people just line up to eat his shit...some because they think its cool, most because the could not find themselves out a paper bag, clueless.

:thumbsup

If telling the truth about Moore is *making personal attacks on Moore* then Moore has a lot of explaining to do.

Michael Moore doesn't resemble a *patriot* by any twisted interpretation of the word. He has been overseas calling Americans *possibly the dumbest people on the planet.*

Yet here is man of the people.

He advocates re-destribution of the wealth in the US for the sake of *social justic* yet brags about his wealth and pushed for the R over the PG13 rating simply because of the higher monetary returns (can a person under 18 vote?).

A day after 9/11, his website puts the blame on Bush rather than the actual terrorists for the WTC attack.

I have heard merely emotional arguments from the anti-Bush.

Images are emotional--they appeal to the right-half of the brain much more than the left, thus emotional people find it very moving, but of course the logical, left-half of the brain has been entirely left out of the process.

too busy to get all the way into this at the moment.

Ill only take up ONE ISSUE now.

** the Saudi flghts out of the country **
http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/Clarke.aspx

Excerpt:
------------------------------------------------------------

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission?s March hearing, ?Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ?Yes, you?re clear to go, it?s all right with the United States government,?? Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

?I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,? Clarke testified. ?I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don?t know. The two ? since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff?s office.?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

How far off base is Moore about this subject?

correction: *pushed for the PG13 over the R*

I think it makes a lot of sense that if Saudi Arabia really has investments in the US that total 5-6% of the total wealth in the US... that they would be very well protected... and hustled out of the country.

A trillion dollar run on the banks and financial system, causing a complete collapse not be a better or more responsible solution for the nation.'

Life is often unfair and full of shitty choices.

Also... I clearly remember that several Bin Laden family members were in the states well after 9/11... which Moore does not mention.

wow.

you are so far over the edge, its scary. the article rebuts almost every MM point with an argument or explanation, not with "so what". you don't have to agree with it, or like it.. but you should at least find the maturity to recognize it as such.

you once criticized MikeAI characterizing his views as "my country, right or wrong" as not being patriotic... yet your views are ALWAYS "democratic/liberal party, right or wrong" and you really can't see that where any other opinion might have the slightest bit of validity. that fact really highlights the absurdity of your position on any political issue.

Interesting.

Clarke states

Why would Clarke have ever have stated that if he didn't believe it? He didn't appear to have any interest in making Bush look good especially during his initial testimonies with the commission. I would have thought he would have chosen to say whatever it is he thought might cast suspicious glances toward Bush -- if only to help sales of his book?

Clarke is quoted as saying about Roemer's speculation:

Also note that Roemer is a Democrat and Moore's book is the best ally the Dems have at the moment. If they can help to plug one of it's many holes by rampant posturing suspicious *maybe* speculation .....

The problem is people are taking Moore to task over his assessments of various events. Dispute his contentions all you like, but at least attack the man on his material, not on personal remarks that have nothing to do with the film. Even if it's nothing but a polemic, it's still a terrific film.

If we're going to go stone paranoid about anyone, better to aim it at somebody who has power in the world, not at a filmmaker.

My primary problem with Bush has nothing to do with anything in this film - it's solely because the man has the intelligence of a muskmelon. His cumulative SAT score was 600. That's *terrifying*. I don't even care that he was a bad businessman....I care that he's a moron.

John Kerry is the same breed of animal, only with a slightly higher IQ (this is not saying much).

I still wish Harry Browne had a shot at the office, but sadly, he doesn't...

All right, fire up the flamethrowers, I'm out of here.

Although one last thing, I'm always confused by diehard business people who are avowed Democrats (as allied as they are with Democratic Socialism), but what confuses me as much is how can an adult webmaster belong to the party of Pat Robertson who wants to see all of us stoned till death? I suppose the Dems have leaned away from their extremists, but George Bush went to school with their ilk. So....?

Just asking.

oh is that right?

"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 21, 2003

Are you going to tell me he never claimed that Iraq DEFINITELY had WMD's as well?

No, to rebut something means that you show it's factually inaccurate. This article doesn't do that. It repeats a MM claim, says 'so what?' and then tries to show that whatever action they're defending i.e. his vacation time doesn't matter.

They don't ever say MM is a liar because they can't show anywhere he actually lies.

how the hell is Kerry the same animal? He went to Vietnam when he didn't have to and served his country honorably, even heroically. Bush's daddy pulled strings to get him into the NG and he couldn't even handle that, had to go awol.

I haven't heard any stories of Kerry drunkenly crashing cars or threatening to beat up his father.

How the fuck is Kerry like Bush? I can't stand it when people try to put on this world weary 'oh they're all the same' face. It's just not true.

Where did you find that SAT score at?

Whether that is true or not, he is surrounded by extremely bright people. Rumsfeld not only attended an Ivy League college but did so by SCHOLARSHIP. Many people would just like to be *admitted* to an Ivy League college, but would never dream of doing so by scholarship.

Wolfowitz was Dean of International Relations at Rutgers.

http://www.capmag.com/ represents an atheistic *Right* that I believe is gaining more influence and power every day.

Most of them can be called Social Liberals and Fiscal Conservative.

But Pat Robertson is anathema to them -- and myself.

Notice COPA did not pass

:winkwink:

Diggy, am I going to have to put you my *unable to reason list*?

Iraq could have aided the terrorists indirectly, without having any conscious knowledge or material involvement in the execution of 9/11.

Both Clinton and the inspectors stated that Saddam had WMD that was unaccounted for.

Didn't Rumsfeld get an athletic, rather than academic, scholarship?

Regardless, yes he's a bright guy. So are several of the other neocons, but the fact is that they've built their entire career around bad policy.

Not all republicans are bad. I like John McCain and a few others, but the repubs are not the party of Trustbuster Teddy Roosevelt or The Great Emancipator anymore. The GOP is practically owned, lock stock and barrel, by the religious right. 'Social liberals' have NO power in the GOP and NO say in the direction of the party. Saying you're a social liberal and still a republican is about as smart as being a Log Cabin Republican, which is to say, not very. Democrats are better for the economy than republicans, and the current deficit is shining proof, unless you're the type that wants to blame it on Clinton :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

If you're socially liberal, you have NO REASON at all to be in the GOP, and GWB should be your worst enemy.

yeah except nobody's ever been able to find one shred of evidence that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with AQ. Sure, they COULD have. And I could be Queen of England, dreaming about being an online pornographer.

We know he had WMD's at one time, because we still have the receipt from when we sold them to him, but you don't go to war and lose billions of american dollars and thousands of american and iraqi lives because you think he might still have some stockpiles of the stuff we gave him buried in the desert. You don't waste American lives and money unless you're damn sure of what you're doing.

now THIS guy did some RESEARCH!

LOL

It was both, academic and liberal.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by social liberal--it means morally liberal, and has nothing to do with Socialistic programs.

You're wrong about the economy as well, Dig -- Reagan brought the economy back after a terrible recession under Carter.

Jobs are booming right now, and the economy is improving daily.

Kerry has lost all of his running points.

You need to read something besides the Guardian Dig.

The 9/11 commission agrees that there is ample evidence of ties between Al-Quaeda and Saddam.