byron13
Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Xargun Hey I resemble that remark.. Uhmm... Wait.. I am a self proclaimed Anti-Bush fan and am 99% likely to vote Kerry... As for all the propaganda enough with it.. Both sides use it to their best advantage... For those who are not well versed in our politics, when Bush says Kerry voted for taxes XXX times - he did.. But what you don't know is that a single bill in congress can have 100 different things on it with some of them very small in comparrison to the real issue - so voting for say Ban on WMD you could also be voting to raise taxes on widgets... So these numbers are true, but skewd... Xargun Yup. I heard one of Bush's speeches earlier in the week claiming that Kerry voted against the B-1, B-2, upgrades to F-14D, and several other things. You know the speech: Kerry is for cutting the size of the military in half and then cutting pay in half in addition. Then the analyst from factcheck.org got on and explained, as did Xargun, that Kerry had voted against three out of something like twenty defense budgets he'd votedon. If these three bills happen to have some line item for the B-1, then Bush can say Kerry voted against it. Of course, Kerry may voted against the bill because it did not provide enough money for the military or maybe had a rider that provided $10 million to buy condoms for antarctic penguins, but that doesn't matter, does it? And, of course, the same BS spews forth from Kerry and Edwards as well. Just listening to the ridiculous claims of both sides during the debates made me ill. Cheney was the only one in the bunch that seemed worthy of being president based on what I saw in the debates. Something's broken with the system - probably the primaries - for us to have gotten the Hobbesian choice between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dummer for the past two election cycles. Something is preventing serious and moderate candidates from getting far enough in the process. Or is it simply the fact that, as Colin Powell stated as his circumstances, that a serious candidate doesn't want to stomach the BS necessary to become president? By the way, I invite all of you to visit factcheck.org to see how blatantly preposterous both sides' claims are. As best I can tell, the site appears to be fairly neutral - it calls them both liars. Personally, I resent having my future president, whichever candidate that happens to be, shovel so much manure down my throat. If we could convert all that manure into fuel or natural gas, America would be energy independent. I only hope that this recent trend is not what is truly required to be elected in 21st century America, and that a serious candidate with serious ideas honestly presented can still be elected. Me? I'll be voting against the candidate I consider the greater of two evils and hoping the damage isn't too great by the time 2008 rolls around.
|