Pre Vote Poll 2004

[c| Dr. NO]

One more thing....if you didn't see this part.

Quote from www.Michaelmoore.com

Today, MoveOn.org has put together its response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:


Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, ?The Lies of George W. Bush,? by David Corn.


1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.


2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant ? a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a ?weekend warrior? in Houston, where his father?s congressional district was centered.


A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn?s book, has Bush saying: ?I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.?


3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.


4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate?s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)


5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush?s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush ? son of a congressman ? ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush?s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, ?but I was there.?


6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again ? pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.


Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers? article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154.


In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth. And they?re not talking.


Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a ?deserter? -- also known as a DFR, for ?dropped from rolls? ? as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.


Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.


My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.


And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.


Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

...Ghostsniper you were saying something along the lines of...umm...

How bad the Bush administration handled the presidency?? Hell, I'm just glad that we don't still have a pussy in the White House that lets the rest of the world walk all over us.

Seems we do have a pussy in office already.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Look, I never argued that being the son of a Congressman doesn't get you special treatment....hell, I served with people in the military that had parents that were 4 Star Generals, Senators, and even one Governor's brat....and they are some of the largest recipients of "special" treatment.  But likewise, just because the Guard lets you off to take care of somebody's election campaign and then later lets you make up the service and then still later lets you out of your obligation early to go to Harvard....doesn't mean shit!  They do it all the freakin time, moron.  I would just like to hear one person....just ONE PERSON.....that has actually served in uniform ON THIS FORUM tell me there is a problem with President Bush's military service record.  Because I served my 8 years, and I don't have a bit of problem with it.  You guys are listening way to much to all the spin doctors out there and it is really distorting your views....probably has something to do with the fact that MOST of you have not actually lived in the real world (not all, but most), have not served in the military, have not actually voted in an election and then seen that person serve a complete term in office, have not started an actual career (not talking about working minimum wage in high school), and most of you have not completed college and started LIFE.  So, my views necessarily differ from the majority of the people on this forum....BUT....and this is a BIG BUT.....my views do tend to follow the MAJORITY of the people that live in the UNITED STATES.

So, take that tag under my picture there to heart....there are more of us than there are of YOU

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[Cutter]

lemme tell you kids a little something. michael moore is a fat and disgusting liar. plain and simple. honestly the man reminds me of a bitter gnagging 300 lbs. jewish grandmother with a score to settle. i've seen and heard other people being criticized for getting involved in politics for their own financial gain. well kids, what the hell do you think he's doing it for? to better mankind? i doubt it. check to see if he has any new books or movies coming out before posting his financially driven, lie filled quotes.
ever wonder why michael moore never went after gore for getting his special treatment in the army. gore claims to have been in vietnam, which he was. as a journalist that never saw a single bullet fly during his tour. because of who his father was. just like bush, he had special treatment, just like the sons of most congressmen and senators of the time. and what about bill clinton? where was he during vietnam? it wasn't vietnam. canada maybe?  
and what about john kerry? he had a very nice miltary record. then shortly after the war he came home and protested it. more important then that is why kerry voted against the first gulf war, voted for the current war in iraq, and voted against the 88 billion dollar war bill. most of which goes to the american soldiers. now he claims he voted for the current iraqi war because bush mislead him and lied to him. do i believe that such a smart man, a united states senator would vote for such an important matter like war without doing his own investigations or at least have the long time belief that his vote was absolutly the right thing to do? hell no. he want's the mans job that's all. plain and simple.
moore's job is to create spin, get his target audience (college students and butch lesbians) all riled up and go on the bill maher show to promote his books and movies. why? simple. to make more money. his stops at colleges, bookstores, and mcdonalds all over the nation are all about one thing. in fact when he speaks in favor of a canidate (as he's doing now with clark) he get's paid. paid to show up, paid to speak, and paid to lie.

[BTs_FahQ2]

Tell you the truth I am a staunch republican.  But there are some aspects of the Bush presidency that have made me question his administration also.  Besides the fact I just can't support a democratic president due to the excelled spending that they historically do on larger Government and Domestic Welfare.

I must say I plan to abstain from this presidency since there is no good candidate yet offered.  Cossack had a little truth in revolution.  Maybe not to the extreme of social anarchy, but politics in the U.S. has gotten mildly retarded and I am hoping that once the Baby Boomer Generation Dies out we get some fresh new thinking into the white house.  Until then we are stuck with a crusty old way of thinking in an era where it is no longer useful.

thanks and I hope I helped.

[tasty]

I'll be voting Democratic, regardless of the candidate. I simply can't fathom what Bush's supreme court picks would be like. Also, his endorsement of the FMA is in my opinion a new low in terms of policies proposed under his administration.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

The notion of Michael Moore being fiscally motivated is absolutely preposterous. If he was indeed in it for the money I assure you he would not openly criticize the Bush regime. The points brought to light in his movie Bowling for Columbine transcend party lines. No person before him has clarified the underlying truths of this country in the manner that he has. Whether you like him or not is a matter of opinion, but if you dare neglect to fathom the points he brings to light, you are ignoring a tremendous and resounding undertone of what this country is all about.

Military service in time of peace cannot be compared to the experience of combat. I have not been in actual combat, and hope to never experience the horrors that come along with the most primal of mans expressions. Neither has George W. Bush or Clinton. Kerry's been in the shit, and had the balls to come back and protest a war in which he participated, and you must respect him for that.

Cutter, Im willing to bet you think the media has a resounding liberal bias. This however is absolutely untrue. If Michael Moore wanted to get rich he would have pursued a different line of work, college kids and butch lesbians are not multi billion dollar corporations. Whatever Michael Moore makes from his work is miniscule compared to the corporate kick backs handed out on a daily basis in Washington. The real money is being made by Defense contractors and Big oil, of whom George W. Bush and many Democrates are pawns of.

Try to find a non-millionaire in the Bush Regime. It would be hard, because there isn't one.

I have come to the realization that both parties are plagued by the hand of Corporate America. Money is and will always come before humanity. Both Kerry and Bush are Yale Skull and Bones men, will one be better than the other and will real change come about with the election of a new President? I seriously doubt it.

I agree with Ghostsniper, in that most Americans are politically ill-informed, historically inept and disengaged from their governing bodies. Are there more illogical people than well informed logical people? Absolutely.

We are the ignorant nation with a Military capable of ending all humanity several times over. This combination of ignorance and a tendency towards violence will ultimately have a deplorable effect for everyone in this world.

[BFG]

Cutter i just don't think you want to live up to the fact that Michael Moore is prepared to say some things about america you just don't like.

well kids, what the hell do you think he's doing it for? to better mankind? i doubt it.

Just becasue you could never manage to do that kid dosn't mean that others might not. you really honestly think he went through all that just to make a few bucks? Im sorry i can't keep typing im laughing so hard

[Ace]

The notion of Michael Moore being fiscally motivated is absolutely preposterous. If he was indeed in it for the money I assure you he would not openly criticize the Bush regime. The points brought to light in his movie Bowling for Columbine transcend party lines. No person before him has clarified the underlying truths of this country in the manner that he has. Whether you like him or not is a matter of opinion, but if you dare neglect to fathom the points he brings to light, you are ignoring a tremendous and resounding undertone of what this country is all about.

Military service in time of peace cannot be compared to the experience of combat. I have not been in actual combat, and hope to never experience the horrors that come along with the most primal of mans expressions. Neither has George W. Bush or Clinton. Kerry's been in the shit, and had the balls to come back and protest a war in which he participated, and you must respect him for that.

Cutter, Im willing to bet you think the media has a resounding liberal bias. This however is absolutely untrue. If Michael Moore wanted to get rich he would have pursued a different line of work, college kids and butch lesbians are not multi billion dollar corporations. Whatever Michael Moore makes from his work is miniscule compared to the corporate kick backs handed out on a daily basis in Washington. The real money is being made by Defense contractors and Big oil, of whom George W. Bush and many Democrates are pawns of.

Try to find a non-millionaire in the Bush Regime. It would be hard, because there isn't one.

I have come to the realization that both parties are plagued by the hand of Corporate America. Money is and will always come before humanity. Both Kerry and Bush are Yale Skull and Bones men, will one be better than the other and will real change come about with the election of a new President? I seriously doubt it.

I agree with Ghostsniper, in that most Americans are politically ill-informed, historically inept and disengaged from their governing bodies. Are there more illogical people than well informed logical people? Absolutely.

We are the ignorant nation with a Military capable of ending all humanity several times over. This combination of ignorance and a tendency towards violence will ultimately have a deplorable effect for everyone in this world.

If you are so naive to believe that openly criticizing the Bush adminstration is not a way to get attention (and in this country, attention leads to money), I suggest you watch some television. Try the Daily Show, SNL, or any of major night shows like Letterman and Leno. The Bush adminstration has been an excellent source of material for them because there are a lot of people in this country who hate Bush.

Look, I never argued that being the son of a Congressman doesn't get you special treatment....hell, I served with people in the military that had parents that were 4 Star Generals, Senators, and even one Governor's brat....and they are some of the largest recipients of "special" treatment.  But likewise, just because the Guard lets you off to take care of somebody's election campaign and then later lets you make up the service and then still later lets you out of your obligation early to go to Harvard....doesn't mean shit!  They do it all the freakin time, moron.  I would just like to hear one person....just ONE PERSON.....that has actually served in uniform ON THIS FORUM tell me there is a problem with President Bush's military service record.  Because I served my 8 years, and I don't have a bit of problem with it.  You guys are listening way to much to all the spin doctors out there and it is really distorting your views....probably has something to do with the fact that MOST of you have not actually lived in the real world (not all, but most), have not served in the military, have not actually voted in an election and then seen that person serve a complete term in office, have not started an actual career (not talking about working minimum wage in high school), and most of you have not completed college and started LIFE.  So, my views necessarily differ from the majority of the people on this forum....BUT....and this is a BIG BUT.....my views do tend to follow the MAJORITY of the people that live in the UNITED STATES.

So, take that tag under my picture there to heart....there are more of us than there are of YOU

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

We still don't care about all that crap. This is the Internet, the great equalizer. You can go on and on about your life, but you better bring some facts and a good argument next time if you want to persuade people of your point of view.

[Cutter]

the idea of michael moore being fiscally motivated is preposterous? heh think about that for a second....what does he do? he writes books and makes movies. books and movies that exagerate and sensationalize matters to push his personal agenda. he's not the first to do it and he won't be the last. rush limbaugh is another worthless fat ass that made millions pushin his bullshit around the country. moore is on the left and limbaugh is on the right, thats the only difference. their both scum in my opinion. if you think they do it out of the kindness of their hearts then your silly, just plain silly.

what you guys might not get is that i didn't vote for bush, and infact i voted for clinton for his second term. i fall somewhere in the middle on most subjects. really depends on the canidate to be honest. bush has made some mistakes, just as all men and all presidents do. but what i see coming out of the democratic party in the last year is just disgusting. there are plenty of ways to win an election without having to stoop as low as the democrats have this time around.

they should have taken notes from bill clinton. he brought the people together with positive messages and his campains brought out record numbers of voters, especially young voters. voters that felt good about voting for him.
bush's military record was heavily scrutinized during the last election and he was still elected. i personally thought his cocaine use was a much bigger issue. but the people that are gonna vote for bush know what he's about and what his plans for the next four years are. they've known for months and months who they were voting for and they feel confident in having bush for another four years.

the people voting democratic this year aren't voting for their canidate. they're voting only to get bush out no matter who has to do it. out of blind hatred for bush and the republican party, millions of people would vote for whatever democrat is givin the nomination, even if it had been howard dean, dennis kucinich, or even al sharpton. don't deny it. you would have.

i honestly haven't decided yet, but i'm probably going to vote for bush, unless bob knight quits coaching basketball and decides to run. for me it boils down the the canidate, not the party. we've had great democratic presidents and bad ones, great republican presidents and bad ones. al gore was a much stronger opponent for bush in my opinion then any of the guys running against him now.
what i see nowadays is the democratic party trying to make bush look like the worst president in history, calling him a liar without any merit. if he were as bad as democrats say he was and he lied about going to war, we wouldn't be talking about an election we'd be talking about an impeachment. after clinton's impeachment hearings don't you think the democrats would have had bush impeached months ago?

politics, big business, and religion. funny how evil they all are. even funnier that they're all so closely intertwined.

[tasty]

Really ghostsniper, I think that the most distorted view is yours. You think that because of your older age and experience in the military that you have more credibility than others on the forum, which is Ace said simply isn't true. The best proof that you have a warped worldview is that you think somehow you are in the majority--perhaps that's true where you're from, but I suggest you come up north sometime to one of the traditional "blue states". Your views would get a lot of strange looks from my parents and the other adults I know, likewise from my friends or professors. The country is a lot more divided, both ideologically and geographically, than you might think.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

If you are so naive to believe that openly criticizing the Bush adminstration is not a way to get attention (and in this country, attention leads to money), I suggest you watch some television. Try the Daily Show, SNL, or any of major night shows like Letterman and Leno. The Bush adminstration has been an excellent source of material for them because there are a lot of people in this country who hate Bush.

 Political satire has existed for as long as we've been free. Presidential administrations always encounter numerous sources of criticism. I don't watch much prime time television, perhaps this is why I'm so naive.

[c| Dr. NO]

the idea of michael moore being fiscally motivated is preposterous? heh think about that for a second....what does he do? he writes books and makes movies. books and movies that exagerate and sensationalize matters to push his personal agenda. he's not the first to do it and he won't be the last. rush limbaugh is another worthless fat ass that made millions pushin his bullshit around the country. moore is on the left and limbaugh is on the right, thats the only difference. their both scum in my opinion. if you think they do it out of the kindness of their hearts then your silly, just plain silly.

what you guys might not get is that i didn't vote for bush, and infact i voted for clinton for his second term. i fall somewhere in the middle on most subjects. really depends on the canidate to be honest. bush has made some mistakes, just as all men and all presidents do. but what i see coming out of the democratic party in the last year is just disgusting. there are plenty of ways to win an election without having to stoop as low as the democrats have this time around.

they should have taken notes from bill clinton. he brought the people together with positive messages and his campains brought out record numbers of voters, especially young voters. voters that felt good about voting for him.
bush's military record was heavily scrutinized during the last election and he was still elected. i personally thought his cocaine use was a much bigger issue. but the people that are gonna vote for bush know what he's about and what his plans for the next four years are. they've known for months and months who they were voting for and they feel confident in having bush for another four years.

the people voting democratic this year aren't voting for their canidate. they're voting only to get bush out no matter who has to do it. out of blind hatred for bush and the republican party, millions of people would vote for whatever democrat is givin the nomination, even if it had been howard dean, dennis kucinich, or even al sharpton. don't deny it. you would have.

i honestly haven't decided yet, but i'm probably going to vote for bush, unless bob knight quits coaching basketball and decides to run. for me it boils down the the canidate, not the party. we've had great democratic presidents and bad ones, great republican presidents and bad ones. al gore was a much stronger opponent for bush in my opinion then any of the guys running against him now.
what i see nowadays is the democratic party trying to make bush look like the worst president in history, calling him a liar without any merit. if he were as bad as democrats say he was and he lied about going to war, we wouldn't be talking about an election we'd be talking about an impeachment. after clinton's impeachment hearings don't you think the democrats would have had bush impeached months ago?

politics, big business, and religion. funny how evil they all are. even funnier that they're all so closely intertwined.

Evil is how the media has so obviously shaped you view of this election and of it's candidates, not to mention people in general.

[c| Dr. NO]

This is worth the read:
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/11/17732.html

Chalmers Johnson if your interested:
http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/authors/ChalmersJohnson.php

[Cutter]

i would be in the 20% of "over agers" on the forum as you would put it dr. no. this isn't my first election nor my second. my views weren't formed by recent media or the internet. my beliefs i've held for years, however my opinions of people can be changed by their words and actions. and i happen to have quite an optimistic view of people and the world.

if the media has influenced my political chioces at all it's because i watch the debates, and ive seen what the canidates have to say for themselves. and so far with what ive seen from the democrats i don't think i'll be voting for any of them this time around. you said this will be your first election in america right? well some of them get nasty and some don't. this one looks like there's gonna be a lot of mudslinging. i almost don't want bush to win just so i don't have to listen to another four years of whiners crying about another stolen election.

like i said, to me it's the canidate, not the party. most of my views are liberal, but i find myself picking republican canidates more often than not. i voted for clinton when dole was the best the republicans could put forth, and i'd do it again. this time around i just don't feel that any of the democratic canidates have convinced me that they can do a better job than bush has. not only have they not convinced me to vote for them, the way in which the front runners have gone about their campains has probably convinced me more than before that bush should be in office for another four years.

[cO.Kuza]

The thing here that I can't see is how people can continue to support Bush. He really has done nothing to help this country. All he seems to want to do is blow shit up in other countries. Not to mention the debt that the future generation of americans will have to pay off. I mean this guy really FUCKED us over bad. I think the debt that we have to pay off is just a reminder not to hire retards for world leaders. And really...who the fuck is going to "walk over" the US? That ideal is so typical of most US people, they are so defensive of their own country they are blinded by ignorence for the rest of the world.

Second thing that really ticks me off is this whole abortion thing...
This is a womens right to choose wether or not she wants to have a child in her life and men are taking that away from women. I just dont think that he can call abortion "murder" when he is sending people to Iraq to their deaths. I'm just so in awe on how a country that bosts that its the best has a leader who is probably the most least qualified for the job.

Perpose of wars:
Desert storm-Oil
Desert storm2-Oil

HELLLOOOOOO

Greedy rebulicans = Fucked country and corrupt politicains


I hope you Bush followers are happy with the way things turn out in the next century if we last that long......
For you people who dont get wat im saying heres a graphic version

[alaric]

I've got a lot to say about this topic, but I have to be brief right now. Later I will post in more detail.

I hate to do this but I'm gonna have to defend Bush on this one. He wasn't a deserter he wasn't AWOL. He was just taking advantage of the system. Much like many others of his generation did. Much like many of you would I'm sure.

This article provides a very fair look at Bush's record. Yes, there are some gaps in his service record. Yes, he did get special treatment. But, No, I'm not surprised, nor do I think it's a major issue. What he's done as President is far more damaging to his chances for re-election than what he did (or didn't do) 35 years ago.

[Cutter]

nice article alaric.

John Kerry's frontrunner status among Democratic hopefuls for president has once again, as during the 2000 campaign, placed a spotlight on President Bush's military service during the Vietnam era. It has done so on two levels. First, did Mr. Bush meet all of his obligations as a member of the Texas Air National Guard? The charge here, recycled from 2000, was catapulted into the campaign by the odious Michael Moore, who in the course of endorsing Wesley Clark, called President Bush a "deserter."

note the word used to describe michael moore, odious. odious=deserving or causing hatred. highly offensive, disgusting.

A recent e-mail from FactCheck.org, the Annenberg Political Fact Check, corrects many of the other falsehoods circulated by MoveOn.org. FactCheck.org points out that these charges have been around since Bush's campaign against Al Gore, "when a Boston Globe story appeared saying the newspaper could find no record of Bush attending required Air National Guard drills for a full year in 1972-73." But an analysis of the facts paints a different picture.

The FactCheck.org e-mail cites the news outlets that pursued the story about Bush's Guard service. According to the Globe account, Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty over the next four years, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush's flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew."

The Globe also said that "those who trained and flew with Bush...said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called 'weekend warriors.'"

uh oh looks like somebody has been doing a little exagerating and sensationalizing to help get their canidate elected. or rather to get bush out of office. it didn't work four years ago, they're trying it again, and it doesn't look like it's gonna help them this time around either. shame michael moore and moveon.org, shame.

[BTs_FahQ2]

I would think that by now most people would have realized here in these forums that there is a long standing belief that you never argue politics and religion.  Most of the time it gets you as far as a square wheel and heated as hell.  I know progress can be made through debate, but you first have to work with people with open minds.  Most of the time, this place is stuffed with the I am right you are wrong complex supported by a link of some news some far off place.  In fact, these days with the abundance of news and the lack of credentials, cough* NY Times* cough, just do what's morally best for you.  Don't worry about the other guy, that is until he goes on your property, then you shoot him.

thank you, no charge.

[Brain]

so does that mean if i call you odious or bigoted or retarded, does that make it true?  if i call alaric a liar, does that make it true?  if i call rapid a flaming inbred homosexual does that make it true?

if so, i've gained incredible cosmic power and will be running for the office of God next week. VOTE FOR BRAIN!

i'm not insulting you (or anyone else) but i'm trying to make a point. back up such statements if you want to make an argument. all you have done is show that someone dislikes mr. moore. nothing more. nothing less


if you really want to make a convincing argument i suggest looking here

now, if you'll excuse me. i'm going to go fetch my Aspestos suit.

[cO.gabe]

using circular reasoning or an ad hominem isnt gonna convince me of anything brain.