On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:04:38 -0500, Al Spohn wrote:
In article ,
says...
(massive snip)

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie?

Yes.

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

OK, perhaps, but
if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues
matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your
beliefs.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff
is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no
problem with it shaping your voting decision.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents
what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because
I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he
says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when
he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't),
it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics
I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning
to find out.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing
say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at
are a total waste of time.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241 ,
Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee
while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the
meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think
that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in
fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the
slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to
be checked.

In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors
more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the
meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but
it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily
mean not working.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important,
and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_
important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time,
he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Why should I take for granted that Bush is working
while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport)
but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared
about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's
easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that.

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the
possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not
attending meetings in Washington.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of
them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having
meetings that don't mean anything? "I lost interest and didn't
feel it was important, until it became politically necessary
to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going
to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and
make room for someone else.

But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for
you then?

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that
you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's
notorious vacation times.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.

Dave Hinz