Leaving the total confusion of your post aside, Xen, the weapons of mass destruction didn't even exist, at least not in the extent that the british government and the american intelligence proposed. It was infact an excuse to attack Iraq. I would have voted for Kerry, not because he is the better candidate(his plan is sound actually) but because Bush is the worse. I'd vote for anyone to replace Bush's corrupt, rich-protecting government.

Should have said something Jorath,

I only found out the photos of people who make up that picture are soldiers who died in the Iraq war, by reading it on another message board. It has a whole new meaning now!

The image can be viewed in greater detail, against a black backdrop on http://www.michaelmoore.com/

[ 11-04-2004, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

That is a horribly dishonest thing Michael Moore did, since every one of those brave men and women was a volunteer and their comrades overwhelmingly supported the Republican ticket. But, I guess I should get used to it. Once again, this thrread belongs in CE.

Micheal Moore has the ability to bend the truth like The Hulk bends an iron girder! :D

Bias documentary filmmaking at it's best.

[ 11-04-2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Sigmar ]

Thats were I got the picture from and I just felt no word were nessesary.

Had they fought for a better cause, it would be dishonest, but until this does get moved to CE, I'll leave this discussion at that.

Hey it's good for Australia that Bush won considering his relationship with Howard, but hey, sucks to be America. Could be worse i guess.....
maybe.... ;)

But Bush isn't a totally new leadership, Kerry would be if he'd won. Your post is a bit confusing, Xen. ;)

I should have written in my vote for Choc... :(

Seriously, I was pretty bummed for a few minutes that America once more voted with their easily manipulated morals again, rather than their heads...all the polls say that. Humanitarianism failed in this election, it really did. We apparently don't really care about people too much as a nation...

Oh well...can't screw it up too badly in four years, can you?

First, Attalus is absolutely right: wrong forum.

Moving on, I know and respect many Republicans. But not in their support for Bush.

On this issue, I am forced to believe they either knowingly chose evil (disguised as morality) or made a horrible mistake and failed to recognize evil. It's sad, but I have to admit that IMO to support four more years of our past actions is to support a paradigm of immorality. My main charges are the immorality of: (1) environmental destruction; (2) preemptive war; and (3) profligate spending of the publicly entrusted funds, especially when 1-3 are influenced by (4) support for big corporate backing.

Note that my concern for immorality does not presume the President seeks to be immoral. Like his voters, I think he just gets it wrong a lot. His moral compass is set circa 1940, when we were much more amoral as a society on many levels, whether we were aware of it or not.

And, I think that picture of Bush is meaningful. They may be volunteers, but he decided where and when and why to send them to die. I know he prayed, I know he cared, but many people who have prayed and cared got it WRONG.