Can we have a Pro-bush vs. Anti-Bush thread please?

Am I missing something? Link?

see above for link, which I forgot to include previously (and, I should mention, was borrowed from someone's sig (thanks for a great website, whoever you are!)

Oh, and to clarify with the ladies in the pro-bush thread, I would also never make a political decision based strictly on a Michael Moore movie (I do fully understand the concept of creative editing ), but you MUST understand that the mainstream media is incapable of presenting all the dirt on Bush, and that is why I'm so grateful to people like Michael Moore and the people at http://www.bushlies.net/pages/4/
for presenting the world with all the dirt that I personally don't have the resources to dig for myself.
It's pretty telling when Bush's own people are turning against him (leaks)because he (and cohorts) is such a scary #%*$&$!!!!!

Oh yah! This is going to be a balanced discussion!

Next we'll have a rebuttal from Fox News!

:

Texassuz

We have had actual debates before....

But generally people's tendancy to post low blows and pot shots tend to make people wary of actual debating and it turns into a brawl.

We don't really tell people they can't post a thread, er..well within reason of course ( )

Can people debate without posting low blows and not laughing at each other's links? Not of course that it doesn't happen on a lot of threads here but it wouldn't really be debating IMO. What do y'all think?

I think it's odd to come to Activism to post about how debate in Activism is worthless & then continue posting elsewhere that you would never post in Activism because it is so worthless.

I agree. What a great sentence...

I would love to have a debate. I'm new to MDC, so I don't know the whole fight that's between the con and libs, but I think having a debate would be neat. I don't have any conservatives friends or family (my dad is conservative, but he doesn't really talk about politics), so I would love to hear "the other side".

Too bad we can't do it in a civil manner.

In a nutshell, I'd like to debate civilly, but it's frustrating to me when people make important political decisions without having all the information they need to make an informed vote.
I can respect someone who wants to vote only for pro-lifers (even though I am pro-choice) but I can't really, in this important election, see why one would make that their deciding factor, when it isn't a 'hot-plate item' right now. I'd vote for Nader if I could, but in this election is too important to get bush/cheney/rumsfeld out of the white house. I suppose bush supporters just don't believe what they've heard about Haliburton, Project (plan?) for a New American Century, etc, or they agree with America trying to take over the world -- in this, the information age, it's harder for politicians to keep their dirty little secrets, and we KNOW FOR A FACT that Bush is trying to impose american values on the middle east, and making a quick buck for himself and his cronies in the meantime. This is a matter of public record, not leftist fantasy, or the creation of moveon.org.
I also find it erroneous to vote for a man because he is "nice" or "cute", but I know you guys were sort of joking, I hope