A few responses:

I. Subject of Memo to President Bush from August 6, 2001: "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US." It's nice to see that we increased airline security or took other precautionary measures before that. Perhaps Moore's film, although completely biased, reveals a bit too much.

II. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." I'd suggest reading a little document that some people call the "Bill of Rights." Michael Moore is allowed to express his opinions (political or otherwise) however he wants, just as you are. You don't have to agree with them, but you can't do anything to stop him. If you don't like it, make your own movie.

III. We are a divided nation, and this is terrible. Now, we are more divided than ever, and I doubt that we will become any more unified under the current Bush Administration. We need a CHANGE in this country. We need to move FORWARD.

IV. The Bush Administration isn't LEADING. If anything, they're MISLEADING.

V. I'd suggest boycotting the Oscars, and getting all of the other Bush-brainwashed folks like you to boycott them as well.

VI. If someone made a film about how great the war in Iraq was, and TRIED (albeit unsuccessfuly) to prove that there WERE, in fact, weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam WAS, in fact, a legitimate threat to the United States (moreso than any other nation in the world), would that be low? Would that person be using celebrity status as a soapbox to reach the masses? Would you hate that film for its spin? I doubt you would. In fact, I think you would make a post praising that film for being 200% Patriotic for supporting a President who has done nothing but get us into more trouble (both domestically and internationally) than we could ever possibly imagine.

Cheers,
S.A.R.

IV. The Bush Administration isn't LEADING. If anything, they're MISLEADING.

Wow. Been sitting on that one for a while, have you sammy? I have to say, it really is quite a clever play on words. Next time try backing up your arguments. Ass.

I deeply apologize for not backing up my arguments. I guess I did kind of briefly touch upon some kind of a base under point number VI, but at your request, I shall elaborate.

I think that the Bush administration is misleading us on nearly every issue on which he is campaigning. I'm not saying all, but I am saying most. Take, for example, the war in Iraq. All along, after September 11, all that we heard about was Iraq having the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction. Alright then, where are they? And let's not go around post facto and pretend like there was doubt from the beginning or that we were going in as a humanitarian effort. I think that the speeches from the administration speak for themselves. For example:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." --President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." --Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." --Bush, Feb. 8, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." --Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." --Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

...Wait a second... Did Rumsfeld just flip-flop? OH. MY. GOD. What happens now?

Of course, we now know for a fact that all of these statements (with perhaps the exception of the last) were false.

The truth of the matter is that the American people were mislead into blindly supporting a war which was entirely unjustified from the onset. The President and Vice-President looked at intelligence that said otherwise, and then tossed it out, because it was detrimental to their case. In my opinion, before we spend BILLIONS of dollars destroying and then rebuilding a country which has no connection to the proclaimed "War on Terror," then we'd better know what the hell we're doing. We'd better have rock solid evidence for this war, and nothing that gives us any shadow of doubt that we shouldn't be there. America has enough problems without getting the bulk of the Middle East and the rest of the world against us as well. There are a number of other nations that pose a greater threat to the United States, but we haven't even mentioned them. 15 of 18 hijackers on the September 11 flights were Saudi Arabian, but not once since 9-11 did President Bush mention Saudi Arabia as a harbor of terrorists and terrorism. We couldn't find Bin Laden, and Bush Sr. had already effectively demonized Saddam during his presidency, so he became an easy target. The fact that he killed Iraqis is irrelevant. The only real relevant fact was that he was not a threat to us, and did not have the weapons that the cherry-picked intelligence claimed he did.

That's just one issue. I've got more if you want them.

Regards,
Sammy

I deeply apologize for not backing up my arguments. I guess I did kind of briefly touch upon some kind of a base under point number VI, but at your request, I shall elaborate.

I think that the Bush administration is misleading us on nearly every issue on which he is campaigning. I'm not saying all, but I am saying most. Take, for example, the war in Iraq. All along, after September 11, all that we heard about was Iraq having the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction. Alright then, where are they? And let's not go around post facto and pretend like there was doubt from the beginning or that we were going in as a humanitarian effort. I think that the speeches from the administration speak for themselves. For example:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." --President Bush, Sept. 12, 2002

"The Iraqi regime possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." --Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of Sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." --Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." --Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons--the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." --Bush, Feb. 8, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." --Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

"I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." --Rumsfeld, May 4, 2003

...Wait a second... Did Rumsfeld just flip-flop? OH. MY. GOD. What happens now?

Of course, we now know for a fact that all of these statements (with perhaps the exception of the last) were false.

The truth of the matter is that the American people were mislead into blindly supporting a war which was entirely unjustified from the onset. The President and Vice-President looked at intelligence that said otherwise, and then tossed it out, because it was detrimental to their case. In my opinion, before we spend BILLIONS of dollars destroying and then rebuilding a country which has no connection to the proclaimed "War on Terror," then we'd better know what the hell we're doing. We'd better have rock solid evidence for this war, and nothing that gives us any shadow of doubt that we shouldn't be there. America has enough problems without getting the bulk of the Middle East and the rest of the world against us as well. There are a number of other nations that pose a greater threat to the United States, but we haven't even mentioned them. 15 of 18 hijackers on the September 11 flights were Saudi Arabian, but not once since 9-11 did President Bush mention Saudi Arabia as a harbor of terrorists and terrorism. We couldn't find Bin Laden, and Bush Sr. had already effectively demonized Saddam during his presidency, so he became an easy target. The fact that he killed Iraqis is irrelevant. The only real relevant fact was that he was not a threat to us, and did not have the weapons that the cherry-picked intelligence claimed he did.

That's just one issue. I've got more if you want them.

Regards,
Sammy

Gee, Samson, you forgot to put the quote from Bill Clinton in 1998. You know the one where CLINTON announced that he was BOMBING IRAQ because he knew they had CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS of Mass Destruction. Yeah, you left that out. But of course, any liberal who attacks Bush always seems to forget the stuff his own people do.

And let me also just say how easy it is to sit there and say "This war was a hoax because the found no weapons." Congrats, you are able to make the argument that every other anti-war buff makes. But think about it: President Bush and his administration took months to actually attack Iraq. During these months, he was playing nice and trying to go through the totally useless puppet show (the U.N.) and everyone in the whole world knew that we were going to invade Iraq. Since you seem to be such a supporter of Sadaam, give the guy a little credit! Do you think he just sat there with these weapons under his ass? No. He sold them, he gave them away, and he got them the hell outta his country. Once the country was both shocked and in awe, don't you think it's at all possible that these weapons were smuggled out of there, even if Sadaam didn't tell anyone to? Everyone across the board knew he had them, and I find it a little scary that they are all gone. Who knows who has them now.

But you know what we did find? American troops found factories and laboratories that were used to make weapons. So, logic says "You don't just have a fully operation weapons factory for show." What's even more disturbing than the WMDs that everyone is making a big deal about, is the mass graves that we found. I view this war as much as a humanitarian effort as it was a exercise in American national security. And our troops found mass graves with hundreds of thousands of Sadaam's own people murdered, gassed, and tortured. We found torture chambers and records of the cruel and inhumane things done to the people of Iraq. (Do your best not to turn around and say something about the asses at Abu Ghraib prison here.) And we also found millions of dollars, hidden from the people of Iraq, who were told that the government was too poor to help them. Iraqis were oppressed, paranoid, and afraid of their government. And so if you are trying to tell me that they are NOT better off now that Sadaam is gone, then you have lost every shred of your common sense and morals.

It takes alot of courage to do what is right in this world. Bush has that courage. It has always been America's message (even during those cloudy Clinton years) to defeat despots and promote democracy. Bush is doing just that, and at the same time he has realized what the US's number one priority must be: national security. Because without national security, nothing else can even survive.

One more thing- don't say a word about Rumsfeld flip-flopping... the dem's are being lead by John "Waffle House" Kerry. No room to talk there.

Please allow me to retort:

Every Republican in support of this war is now touting it as the great humanitarian effort that it is and was. But of course, every brainwashed soul that defends Bush always seems to forget the stuff his own people do. We absolutely did NOT go to Iraq as a humanitarian effort. We did not go to topple the regime of Saddam in order to make life better for the Iraqi people. We went (or so we were told all along) because Saddam was an IMMINENT threat to the United States. We went (or so we were told all along) because Saddam not only HAD chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, but because he was looking to continue producing them. At one point, someone (I believe it was Cheney) said that they were seeking nuclear weapons. Look at the facts. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Re-read it: There were no weapons of mass destruction. Now, in order to justify the blatant MISTAKE that entering this war in the first place was, all of its supporters are playing the "Humanitarian" card. Last I checked, Bush was the president of The United States of America, and not Iraq. We need a president who is going to focus on humanitarian issues here in The United States of America, because God knows that we have enough of them. Education systems are crumbling. Millions of AMERICANS have no health care. Millions of AMERICANS have no jobs, and it's not because all of them are unwilling to work; it's because there's no work to be had. Those are just a few.

You claim that the U.N. was a "totally useless puppet show." How was it totally useless? They (the U.N. Inspectors) said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they were RIGHT. I'm not seeing how that's useless.

[Sarcasm ON] Oh yes. I love Saddam. Saddam for President in 2004. [Sarcasm OFF]

But in all seriousness, I do have to give Saddam a little credit. He destroyed all of his weapons. Take it from David Kay: "They gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990's. Somewhere in the mid-1990's the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated." What? He destroyed them in the Mid-1990's? I don't believe it! If he did that, then why did we go to war in the first place?! Ohhhh... that's right. Weapons of Mass Distraction.

Blah, blah, blah... Saddam was evil. Nobody is disputing that. But our job is not to be the policemen or guardians of the rest of the world. We went to Iraq because Saddam was (supposedly) a threat to OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. Not because he was evil.

One more thing... Thanks for missing the Rumsfeld joke.

Best,
SAR

Did you purposefully ignore every argument Mike made? Or was that just blatant stupidity? The weapons of mass destruction were gone, and regardless of when they were destroyed, Sadam still had the capability to mass produce them. Factories were found that were completely capable of making the weapons that the U.N. never found. If Sadam was capable of making these weapons at his liesure, how is that any less of a threat to the United States than if he already had them in his possesion? Here's a clue: it's not.

As for the UN being useless...they told the US that they would not support a war on Iraq. America said fuck it and went ahead and did it anyway. If the UN can make a declaration, and any country that doesn't feel like agreeing can just ignore it, I'd say thats pretty useless.

Just a side note:
Are you saying it's right for America, the most powerful nation in the world to sit back and let the very same atrocities that occured during the Holocaust happen again,just because we're having some trouble with our school systems? Human beings were being slaughtered, but since they weren't Americans it didn't matter? Or at least not as much as health care taxes apparenty. Get a sense of proportion man. Do you think this wouldn't have come back around to kick America in the ass if we didn't do anything about it?

As long as we're not making any sense whatsoever, why don't we start bitching about how illegal immigrants are stealing good wholesome American careers? Forget about those pesky minimum wage and equal opportunity laws, the damn Mexicans are stealing our jobs! Geez, why doesn't George Bush do something? Oh wait.

Get your shit together and come back when you have something intelligent to say.

Damn boys....calm yourselves....Mike and Paul to your corner....Sam I suggest you leave this little debate before someone comes to find you....

Paul...congrats....you blogged....

Tiff

Actually, Pauly, I feel that I fully and successfully answered and countered every argument that Mike made. To insinuate that I am in some way stupid because you can't handle the fact that my argument is in a lot of ways much stronger than yours is both inappropriate and ridiculous. And in all honesty, I would say that my replies are actually more coherent, logical, sensical, and have better arguments than any of yours do. Unfortunately, you feel the need to attack me, rather than try to get a broader perspective and see my viewpoint. I can entirely see your viewpoint, but unfortunately, factual evidence points the other way.

Even if Saddam DID have the capabilities to produce the weapons of mass destruction, that doesn't mean that he was doing it or was planning to do it. I'm sure that there are many countries around the world with the CAPABILITY to produce weapons, and I'm sure that there are some that are more of an imminent threat. Hell, if I really wanted to, I could come up with something that would kill a lot of innocent people. That doesn't mean I'm going to, but is there going to be military action against me?

The U.N. Said that they would not support a war on Iraq. America said fuck it and went ahead and did it anyway. That doesn't mean that the U.N. is useless. That means that we (The USA) have become so stubborn that we think that we can go at this alone. That means that we think that we can completely ignore what the rest of the world thinks. What does that say about us? The United Nations was created in order to cooperate on certain issues and endeavors. If the United Nations thought this was such a bad idea, maybe we should have thought it over and reconsidered. Then, maybe we wouldn't be in this huge mess that we're in today. Judging from your "Argument" (and it's not really an argument, since there is absolutely no backing to it), you don't even know what the United Nations is or what it's suppossed to be doing.

Regarding your side note:
No, I'm not saying that it's right for America, the most powerful nation in the world to let these kinds of atrocities happen. But what you need to realize is that Iraq isn't the only place in the world where these kinds of atrocities are happening. By the same token, I don't think it's right that we're spending Billions and billions of dollars on a war which is entirely unjustified, when there are too many problems in AMERICA. I think that YOU need to get a sense of proportion. The president of AMERICA should put AMERICA first, before we get into a mess that's causing us more money, lives, and trouble than it's worth. Don't you think that the lack of proper education for AMERICANS is going to come and kick America in the ass moreso than humans being slaughtered? If you can't even see that point, then you must be entirely stupid. I really dislike personal attacks, but that's the truth.

The subject of illegal immigrants stealing good, wholesome American careers is completely irrelevant to this argument. However, I agree with you that illegal immigration and illegal immigrants stealing our jobs is a big problem, and one that is becoming worse.

Now, you get YOUR shit together, and come back when YOU have something intelligent to say.

-SR

P.S. Tiffany, I don't plan on leaving this debate or remaining silent at any time soon. This is a very important issue to both America and the rest of the world, and the stakes of this election are so high, that I simply cannot give up.

Now, Sam, let's not get angry with my friend Paul. And while having a debate in the comments sections of my blog isn't my idea of the "right place at the right time" I am one who can defend my beliefs, my blog, my political party, and the President of the United States.

First of all, you aren't doing your homework very well. Sadaam did actually make WMDs (I'm talking bio and chem weapons). We know for a fact that he did. Remember all of those graves I was talking about? And remember during the 90's when he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mainly Kurds. Yeah, he certainly didn't kill them with kindness or Big Macs. He used chemical warfare. And I don't mean to put you down, because I'm sure you've convinced yourself that you are right... but you are speaking like so many other democrats that refuse to listen to reason. If you would cool out and think about the things I'm saying instead of trying to refute every one of them, you may see why Dubyah did what he did.

When I said the UN was useless, I meant it for reasons far greater than them saying no to this war. The UN is a poor decision-making machine. It's no better than the League of Nations was. It's a way for all countries to get together to create some illusion of friendship. Of course, there are so many backdoor-deals going on within the UN that they have not only become corrupt, but also a stalemate in terms of decisions. They don't want a war, they don't want any conflicts, and they are willing to overlook things and lie to get them. You can send in as many inspectors as you want, the UN can keep telling itself that Sadaam isn't that bad of a guy, but that is just going to give him more time, and allow him to get more support for his devious cause. The UN is a poor fighting machine as well. Their decisions are as about as timely and non-partisan as a unionized teacher negotiating a contract. If the UN wants to do what it does best, then it best stick with peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.

Another thing that you are promoting here on my blog is multilateralism. You make it seem so terrible that the US has gone out on their own to defend itself and to rid the world of a huge evil. Oh shame on America for not holding the UN's sticky hand. The UN needs America, but America doesn't need the UN. We are the only superpower around, and so the UN can sit there and think they got something going for it. They have Russia and France and Germany... great, the three stooges. But what the UN lacks is balls. They lack the testicular fortitude to do anything that needs to be done right. Unilateralism isn't a bad thing! Democrats all around say "America can't just go out on its own and fight this war!" Well why the hell not? And truthfully, we didn't! We have our good friends the Brits, we have Italy, we had Spain (until inner politics took over), we have Japan, and we have a slew of other great countries behind us.

As for America's inner woes, well those are being worked on. There are alot of things going on that can't necessarily be helped right now, and there are alot of other things that GW is fixing. The economy is on the rise once again, and the only reason it was in a recession was not because of Bush. In fact, it was on its way downhill when Clinton was leaving office. Bush, like the Iraq problem, inherited it from the Clinton presidency... but let's not give Slick Willie too much credit, because the only reason his presidency saw such a booming economy was because Reaganomics finally kicked in.

Then there is the job market. Well Bush can only do so much... but do you really think Kerry is going to do any better? Kerry wants to tax the rich quite alot. Sure this sounds good to all of the middle class guys out there, but it's not at all. Who supplies the jobs in this country? The rich. If you take more money from the rich, do you think they are going to want to create MORE jobs? Hell no! Kerry wants to tax the rich and put all of that money into the government programs wheel, which is going to split it up, waste it, and throw hot air back at the american people. In actuality, there isn't a great deal that the president can do about the job situation. He can't go out there and MAKE managers and business owners create more jobs. All he can do is make it easier for him to do that... and with the unions overrunning this country, that's kind of hard.

Sam, you are right when saying this is an important topic of debate within this country. And the election next November is going to be a close one, for sure. But I am certain, with all of my very lovable heart, that John Kerry is the wrong man for the job. You talk about a mess in Iraq right now? Think about what's going to happen when he takes office:

Kerry is going to cut the military budget big time. That means a huge decrease of troops in Iraq, that means less military research, and MOST IMPORTANT that means less national security. Homeland security isn't going to be able to stop every terrorist attack. That would be an impossible feat. However, after an attack happens, you decide who would handle it better. George W would get to it and find the SOBs who did it (ie Afghanistan after 9/11). Kerry would blame America for being so cocky and ignorant to other cultures. The last thing America needs, when the world already isn't so fond of us, is a president who isn't so fond of us.

Of course, Sam, above all else... if you are a God-fearing man, and a loving Christian, no man in his moral mind could vote for John Kerry strictly on his Pro-Abortion stance.

And so I can continue this discussion until I'm blue in the face, and until my blog bursts with comments, but above all us, Bush is a Christian leader, a moral leader, and a man who knows where he stands on ALL issues. And unfortunately we can't say any of those things about Mr. Kerry.

God bless.

Mike...

I have been on the border between Kerry and Bush for a long time now. I do not have any alligence to any party, although I am registered to vote. I researched both candidates and until following your discussion here in the blog I had no clue who I was voting for. And now, you can say you have won someone over...

Bush For Pres 2004!!!!

Sam...there is a wonderful feature call email in which you should continue your discussion with Mike. I agree with him. The comments section is not meant for the email sized comments you and Mike have been leaving for each other. Although I respect your right to comment, you guys just seem to be resaying everything you have already said. It gets kind of boring...

Tiff

Mike,

By no means am I angry with anyone. I don't know that having this debate here is really that big of a deal, but if you'd just like to end it, then by all means, do so. I, also, am one who can defend MY beliefs and what I write. There are some policies of the Democratic party that I will defend tirelessly. Others I do not agree with. Calling myself a Democrat is by no means an indication that I agree with the entire party platform. I will flat out say that John Kerry was not my first choice as the Democratic nominee. I, personally, would have liked to see Sen. John Edwards as the nominee. BUT, I think that John Kerry would do a fine job leading this country, and I am pretty sure that this election will be a close one to the end.

Yes, Saddam DID make WMD's. But the key words in your argument are "during the 90's." Even if he had WMD's and used them "during the 90's," that does not mean that he was manufacturing them or planning to use them against America today. To imply that all Democrats refuse to listen to reason is preposterous. Granted, there are some Democrats who are pretty irrational, but you cannot claim that all Republicans are innocent of irrationality. I can see WHY Dubyah did what he did, but I do not agree with it for many reasons.

I think that the UN, while it has its share of problems, is important. However, it has a lot of potential. In today's world, it is increasingly more important to be willing and able to work with other countries all over the world and on every continent. While we are the greatest nation and the most powerful, we MUST work together. This is another reason why I feel that multilateralism is important. It shows that we have support from other countries.

I feel that it is more important that we worry about and take care of America's inner woes before we worry about the woes of other countries. You feel the other way. We obviously disagree, and obviously, neither of us are going to change our minds.

You are certain that John Kerry is the wrong man for the job. I am certain, with all of my Heart, Mind, and Soul that another four years of Bush will mean terrible terrible things for not only this country, but the rest of the world as well. I truly believe that the Bush administration is one of the most dishonest and corrupt administrations of all time, for many reasons.

Your statement about abortion is entirely ridiculous. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he himself is against abortion. However, he feels that it is not his role to tell people what to do with their lives. He feels that abortion is a personal choice, and while he would suggest that women considering it pursue other, healthier options, he ultimately feels that it is a choice that needs to be made between a woman, her conscience, and her God. While I do not agree with abortion, I can see and understand Senator Kerry's position. There is a big difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, and it's important to realize and understand that difference.

One thing about Bush is that he is too stubborn and bullheaded to admit mistakes, and too stubborn to go back and reevaluate things that have happened and gone wrong. Sometimes, you make the wrong choice, and sometimes, you have to go back, change your mind, and try something else. Bush, however, refuses to do this.

I won't even get into the issue of Separation of Church and State. While I think it is important to have a moral leader, it is important to not make political decisions based strictly upon your individual faith. I feel strongly that people are and should be allowed to believe what they want. They are ultimately responsible for their own souls, and thus, the president should not be able to make laws based upon the tenets of his own faith. This is unfair to people who choose to believe differently, and it is in many ways a violation of First Amendment Rights.

This shall be my last comment on this issue with you Mr. Richards, Because neither of us are moving on our positions. I have, however, shown here why people need to vote for Bush, and some people, unlike yourself, are listening. So I will make this brief.

The UN: "they are sooo great" and yet are you aware they are screwing the world over with their corrupt Oil for Food program? How's that for a good natured organization.

Kerry: who knows what position this man holds anymore. Yes, I am aware he has said he is against abortion, but this man lacks any sort of conviction. If you are against something, then you vote against it. You don't believe one thing and do another, its dishonest and contradictory. Giving someone the right to choose to have an abortion is the same thing as giving a man the right to murder someone. Murder is murder. You talk about separation of church and state... secularism is the ideal that is going to bring this country to the ground, Mr. Richards... not GW Bush. Our country was founded on Christianity, our laws were built on the TEN COMMANDMENTS. You want to separate church from state, then you separate morals from actions. I would never vote for a man who does not bring his religion and morals into his presidency. And I think it's a real shame that anyone who believes in a Judeo/Christian God would vote for someone who goes against Him.

Pro Choice is Pro Abortion. Because if you aren't whole heartily against abortion, then you have nothing left to be than for it. You make think there is some kind of in between, but there is not.

And don't even try and say that the Bush Administration is more corrupt than the Clintons. Nuff said.

This debate is over, and like all things in life, morals and religion must take precedence. Nothing comes before God, not even in politics, Mr. Richards. One nation under God... if you don't like it, move to Canada.

Why buy a toaster if you don't plan to make toast? Do you think Sadam had those factories built merely for shits and giggles? The difference we are looking at here is that Sadam not only had the ability to make these weapons, he had the factories to make them. Other countries may have the ability to build these factories, and in effect the weapons themselves, but the fact is that they choose not to even take the first step. Sadam did. But, as Mike said, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, so after this entry I give up trying. For someone who can see all sides of the issue, you certainly repeat yourself enough.

As for foreigners taking our jobs...I only added that to accentuate your stupidity. Minimum wage and equal opportunity laws make it so that American employers can't pay immigrants, illegal or otherwise, any less than they can pay Americans. If they can't pay them less money, what incentive do employers have to hire them? Funny accents? Somehow I doubt it.

I think you've "fully and successfully" proven yourself a dumbass. What you obviously consider eloquent is really just overly wordy and uneeded filler. You use 12 words when 5 will do, in order to make yourself seem smarter. After congratulating yourself on your wordy entry you probably proceed to lock yourself in your room, listen to Michael Bolton, and masturbate to anti-Bush websites. We all know your type.

P.S.- No one can hear your silly inflection online. Give your shift key a rest.

For a Better Tomorrow...Today.