Persuasion 101.

I read the whole thing through. Sadly, it was a waste of my time. Gone forever.

The “facts” you state may or may not have validity. Your clear one sidedness, however, along with the lack of writing skills, makes any thinking person, Bush fan or foe, inclined to dismiss the entire rant as just that. A rant.
In addition it would appear you shamelessly just copied and pasted from Michael Moore’s book. Tsk, tsk. Lost points there. You might try doing some original research instead of merely repeating rhetoric.

Use that noodle.

As Emerson said, “What’s the hardest thing to do? To think.”

All the best,
Tom
Tokyo, Japan

Well, Tom, you certainly haven’t done much thinking or checking on the post you say you read. First off, I have never read Moore’s book. I did not even have any idea that he wrote on Bush’s past in that detail. But if what you say is true, and if he and I independently collected and wrote on the exact same information, that speaks more to its veracity.

As for your insults, they are vague and entirely unsupported–what did you say about “lack of writing skills”? I am teaching a college writing class right now and even my non-native students know you support what you say. You, however, do not. If the structure and vocabulary is not up to academic standards, it is because this is a blog, not a research paper. Context: deal with it.

As for one-sidedness, what do you expect? For me to say that, despite the fact that he is an AWOL draft-dodging, drunk-driving, cocaine-sniffing, foul-mouthed hypocrite who lied under oath and is guilty of many SEC violations, that he is, nonetheless, a nice guy?

If you know anything about the writing skills you profess to judge me by, then you would know that persuasive arguments may express antithetical views, but primarily for the purpose of arguing against them; or that points may be granted to the other side, but (a) that is not required, and (b) I see nothing to grant. Bush is reprehensible; that is my point, sir. I have produced a great deal of evidence which would suggest this. Either you have knowledge of evidence which repudiates this and are unwilling to bring it forth, or you are willing to accept a president with such a frightening past–or you are too lazy to find out either way, and choose rather just to look the other way.

The third option seems most likely, as you scoff at the extensive evidence while providing none of your own.

Unless, of course, you could work up the courage to answer the arguments as a writer, point by point, fully supported by evidence, spoken on intelligently.

But coming forth, dismissing the argument outright with no support and insulting the person you address to persuade?

Don’t waste *my* time, sir. Unless you can ante up, don’t bother to write.

Best Regards,
Luis
Tokyo, Japan

Read the whole thing. I’m a Bush supporter and it does nothing to change my mind. Would you have Jeanna flogged for her crimes? Who cares about what happened in the ’60’s or ’70’s? What do you think Clinton was doing then? Opps, don’t want to get off topic. With all the misrepresentations and things out of context in Moore’s movie I wouldn’t put much stock in his book being accurate either. I’ve seen most of what his movie is about discredited by much more noted and trustworthy people that don’t have Millions to make from it one way or the other like he does. He has just fed off the Bush haters in America from the far Left. I’m sure a movie on Kerry’s civilian Murders in Vietnam (which is a FACT admitted by him) would be more interesting. And if you want to involve family members, what of Theresa Kerry’s lie right on TV yesterday? Incredible. I guess she thought the camera wasn’t on. In my World everything is relative, and relative to Kerry, Bush is a far better choice. Why? I’ve seen Kerry 100 times on TV already, and I still don’t know where the guy stands on ANYthing. I don’t have that feeling about Bush. I’m a converted ex-Democrat. I voted for both Carter and Clinton (first term) I don’t need to go into all the failings of those two, as they are well documented. Clinton said it all in his speech last night when he boasted of what HE left behind. The way I see it, he left behind a pending 9/11 because of his failure to do anything about terrorism for 8 years, an already tanked stock market and an economy reeling from all the Corporate CEO scandal that festered under his watch. (In case you didn’t know, they are all going to Jail now under Bush) He was the luckiest guy ever with what he “inherited”. Can anyone say the same thing for GWB? I think not. It’s so easy to just blame Bush for everything, but many informed Americans know the real deal. And look what Carter left behind. 20%+ interest rates, gas lines and rationing, 440 days of hostages in Iran, want more? Talk about Misery. I had just gotten Married back then, and any hopes of buying a house were eliminated by him for Decades. That’s how long it took us to recover. I just finally got enough money together to buy one 3 years ago at age 46. What’s my point? Why would I be so stupid to vote for yet ANOTHER Democrat? They fooled me twice and I payed for it dearly, but never again. Bush might not be perfect, but 75% of the Terrorist leaders are DEAD, Millions of people are liberated and the economy is doing fine. In the words of a noted political commentator: “If Bush is a one term President, he’ll be the most sucsessful one in History” AMEN. You can go to Moore, Whoopie and all the other far left Hollywood leftys for your opinions on who should be President of America if you choose, but remember these are the SAME people that said Reagan was a total wacko with his finger on the button. Consider the source and their past opinions that couldn’t have been MORE WRONG.

I find it interesting that Kerry’s lawyers are hard at work trying to silence the Vietnam vets that wrote the book “Unfit for command” tying to get their commercials pulled from TV. I thought Bush was the one against free speech…

John: Bush tried to stop MoveOn and other organizations pulled on bogus grounds, on trumped up, inaccurate technical violations which were not applicable to the situation. Kerry’s lawyer is getting the Vets ad pulled simply because they’re lying their asses off, and demonstrably so–it’s called “libel”–and they are in clear violation of election regs. Not exactly the same thing.