I don't know if Kerry got more special interest money than any other candidate, but if Bush "lied" then he would be sued for slander.

While it may be true, politics is taking facts out of context to make your side seem more proper.

Misleading is not a lie. Look at Bowling for.... By mike moore.

Anyway, it's nothing new is this campaign. People have been slandering Bush for months.

Note:this is not an endorsement for Bush

Ok, kegs, let's disect what I said so you can understand it.

I don't know if Kerry got more special interest money than any other candidate, but if Bush "lied" then he would be sued for slander.

You could also say this, although I thought it was self explanitory, "If Moore lied then he would be sued." Make sense?

While it may be true, politics is taking facts out of context to make your side seem more proper.

Out of context is not always what it seems. Out of context could be what Bush or Moore did, which was what I was alluding to. To take a number of facts that resemble on another, then make assumptions of pose "questions" that allude to a point.

Misleading is not a lie. Look at Bowling for.... By mike moore.

I do not subscribe to those sites which bash moore. I don't think he was lying. But there is a great deal of misrepresentation going on.

When looking at the Bush ad, which does not lie, it would appear that Kerry was a nasty lier. But when compaired to other related facts, it might seem so.

Same goes with Mike Moore.

....that you & I are governed by.
Jethro, if you learn that simple fact, I think it will flavor your perceptions to be more in line with the reality of history.
"If he did that, he'd be in jail........If he said that he'd be sued for slander...."

No.

If you look at everything from SEC investigations stopping their due process over Arbusto, to being allowed reduced service time to work on campaigns, to lying repeatedly about a push for war, you'll see that he HAS been above the law his whole life. No different from a Kennedy/Rothchild/Rockerfeller or any of the other old money clans.

Bush received more special interest money than Kerry. That fact would alone make me more likely to vote for Bush, since special interest money mostly comes from big business, who provide jobs for the working man. There does not need to be a disconnect between big business and the working man. This is what the Democratic party has forgotten over the years, and why they are losing elections.

Do you really think Big Business gives two #s about the common man? All they look at is their bottom line. If you ever work in any factory, count the number of Mexicans that work their. Alot of companies employ Illegal Aliens to do labor for less than minimum wage. If any business could get away with having nothing but illegal labor, they would.

This ain't no lovefest. Business has an obligation to the stockholders. Many "common men" also p*ss in their own nest. I have worked for telco installation crews and have seen my co-workers stick straight pins in telephone cables and cutting the head off, thus destroying an entire run. I have worked for a computer company that was once second in size behind IBM, run by one of the greatest engineers of his time. The man would not lay off workers in spite of bad times and plummeting profits. He truly cared for his employees. Still does not make special interest money bad in and of itself. Where is the sense of paying a worker $15/hour to make shoes that sell for $10? How can you compete?

Originally posted by OXmanK
Do you really think Big Business gives two #s about the common man? All they look at is their bottom line. If you ever work in any factory, count the number of Mexicans that work their. Alot of companies employ Illegal Aliens to do labor for less than minimum wage. If any business could get away with having nothing but illegal labor, they would.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. I pretty sure that it would depend on who you talked to.

The fact is, is that big business IS important and DOES require consideration due to the fact that they have the jobs you, your mother, father, son, daughter has (barring civil or self started work).

They are the ones that #ed up and lost millions of jobs.

"to being allowed reduced service time to work on campaigns"

This may or may not be legal depending on the situation which you nor I will ever know. This I do know, that records kept today in the reserves are bad, but 30 years ago they were terrible. This is what you ASSUME due to your agenda.

"to lying repeatedly about a push for war"

Again, that agenda thing. You will probably never know if he lied or not. But you will say he did because it is that interpritation that suits your agenda.

About the SEC, I don't know much about that so i won't comment about it. If you have some non-partisan links I'd read them