The idiocy of the morally-correct Republicans knows no bounds ... The longer this is in the news, the more likely the students that registered will vote. Moore hails 'success' of political campaign October 07 2004 at 07:02PM Washington - Filmmaker-activist Michael Moore says his tongue-in-cheek voter registration efforts - including offering young people free underwear and soup - have been such a hit that Republicans are up in arms. Reflecting on his campaign to register voters, which has spent weeks in Michigan, Fahrenheit 9/11 director Moore says on his website "it seems to have worked as each night the volunteer tables are swamped after" his populist offer of a three-pack of briefs for men and Ramen noodles, often a staple for struggling students, for young women. "The state of Michigan (where we spent most of last week) reported that over 100 000 young people recently registered to vote, a record that no one saw coming," Moore claims. That, Moore says, has led the Michigan Republican Party to call for his arrest, having "filed a criminal complaint with prosecutors in each of the counties where I spoke last week" in the midwestern US state. Moore's smash documentary, an unflattering portrayal of US President George Bush's handling of September 11, raked in almost $120-million at US theatres.
So all of these new voters registered because of Moore and his underwear? I doubt it. Nice to see Moore taking credit for it though. I would venture to say that voter registration is up all over the country and it ain't because of Michael Moore's briefs. Also, does anyone have a link (besides Michael Moore's blog site) that proves Republicans in Michigan are trying to arrest him because he is (supposedly) getting more people to register?
First-time student voters are offered gag prizes such as clean underwear. The conservatives always seem to be a humorless crowd that always wind up the butt of Moore's jokes after they don't get them. Incredible. Maybe Moore will get lucky and Bush or Ashcroft themselves can threaten to prosecute him. I suppose in their day Stalin and Mussolini also couldnt take mild jokes at their expense.
Glynch, Bush said categorically that he would NOT institute a draft. The draft is a Democratic (Charlie Rangel) project. There is a lot in Mr. Bush's campaign to be outraged about, but this is NOT one of them. If you are honest, you must lay this one on Mr. Kerry's doorstep.
Glynch, Bush said categorically that he would NOT institute a draft. The draft is a Democratic (Charlie Rangel) project. There is a lot in Mr. Bush's campaign to be outraged about, but this is NOT one of them. If you are honest, you must lay this one on Mr. Kerry's doorstep Nope, the problem is that Bush has shown not to be honest, so many just don't believe his denials. See the other draft thread. There are a lot of objective indications that Bush will either have to change his war like ways or have a draft as the all volunteer army is crumbling with needless overuse. See the other draft thread. It is understandable that Bush would deny this as he thinks it hurts his reelection chances.
I cannot in good conscience agree. This type of Democratic strategy (and thinking) pushes me into the Bush camp. I get tugged back and forth, but I clearly do not like the deceptions tossed out by both sides. This is a big negative for me.
thumbs, I'm completely against a return of the Draft. What we need is to do exactly what Kerry suggests, which is to increase the Army by 2 divisions (40,000 troops), and to double the size of the Special Forces. That is a minimum, and certainly doable whether recinding Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year supplies the necessary funds or not. We won't have a balanced budget within the next several years anyway, so why not spend what is needed for our security? I wish we hadn't the albatross of Iraq around our military neck, but we do, and we'll have to deal with it regardless of who wins. Think about this... reports keep coming out that Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were non-existent. So Bush keeps changing his reasons. There was no clear and present danger from Iraq, but Bush invaded anyway. He has a pattern of bad judgement and making excuses. Now, I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries, and I wish we (my party, the Democrats) had a different man heading the ticket, but Kerry is that person, regardless, and he has shown himself to be at least as capable of being President as Bush. Should Bush be rewarded for his record? It is time for a change. And, beyond Iraq and Bush's mad tax cuts during a war, the only time, to my knowledge, that that has happened in modern American history, consider this... do you want Bush appointing the next members of the Supreme Court? Or more lifetime appointments to the Federal bench? Food for thought. Keep D&D Civil!!
Yours is a lucid, logical argument for Mr. Kerry. Unfortunately, we are barraged with deceptions from both sides. That's why I get exercised about attributing a draft (and I too am opposed) to Bush rather than the bill's actual source, Democrat Charlie Rangel. Both presidential aspirants have seriously flawed histories. I'm old enough to remember the really hurtful Vietnam testimony of Mr. Kerry, but I am also old enough to remember the really hurtful economic policies of Mr. Bush the Younger. All I want from them in the last debate is to forget the past -- as I have said, they both bear seriously flawed histories -- and show me their respective visions for the future, i.e., "we are here, and in four years I plan to take us here by doing this." In 1940 we had a President who, despite the looming war, gave us a vision. In 1960 we had a President who, despite the crisis of The Bomb, gave us a vision. In 1980 we had a President who, despite the crisis of an Evil Empire, gave us a vision. I want the vision. I want to be proud of our American President.
Kerry's such a scumbag. How dare he tell the truth about and come out against a war that he fought in? He should have shut his trap and not tried to make the world a better place.
Thanks for the kind words. I can't find anything to disagree with in your post. I may not have voted for Reagan, but he did have a vision for the future, whether you agreed with that vision or not. And he looks positively moderate compared to the extreme domestic policies of Bush, and more than competent in foreign policy... heck, positively a genius, compared to the unbelievable foreign policy of this President. I hope both candidates can give us their finest, most coherent performances in this last debate. From my perspective, I hope that Kerry finally makes it plain to those who are still sitting on the fence that he is the better candidate. I could say that he just needs to show that he is, without a doubt, capable of being a decent President, able to do the job, even if he doesn't stand out from the crowd. That will be enough to win the election for him, in my opinion. But I hope for more than that... I want him to make it clear that he is the candidate that the majority of Americans can rally behind. There is so much at stake. Keep D&D Civil!!
If they do as you ask -- thereby providing their respective visions for the country -- they will have finally given us something important. Hope.
