Originally posted by neformore
Now where I come from, people who actively support things tend to vote for them.
So. McCain didn't vote. Bush opposed the Bill.
Where I come from "McCain didn't vote" and "voted against" are mutually exclusive realities. I.e., it's false to state that a person voted
against something when in fact they didn't vote. Likewise, it's false to say Bush voted against the bill when in fact Bush SIGNED the bill.
Seriously, where I come from, that would be called a flat out lie. E.g., thread title: "voted against". Truth: did not vote.
See the difference?
One version of reality imagines McCain on the Senate floor saying the word "NO" when his name is called. The truth is McCain wasn't there when
the vote was taken. If a person tried doing this in court it would be called "perjury" where I come from.
Whilst the wording is slightly wrong, the premise of the thread is correct. Its not a lie. Its not getting deleted
This is a very slippery slope that you as a mod might want to think carefully about.
McCain did NOT vote against this bill. It's more than slightly wrong wording to say that he voted against it, unless of course you don't understand
what the word "vote" means. And I'm not being facetious when I say that. Some people might think "vote" means supports it. "Vote" in this
case specifically means to vote in the Senate.
Bush doesn't vote for bills. Both McCain and Bush preferred a different bill, but after debating their side, were happy to accept that Webb's bill
was passed. That's a far cry from stating that they voted against it.
And maybe you should leave the moderating to the moderators?
Maybe if the moderators consistently applied the T&C it might help people understand what's acceptable and what's not.
One mode gave me applause for the same thread another mod gave me a warning. I was scolded and told not to post sensationalized post titles that were
not factually accurate. My title was "Obama planned kickback to Perseus and Goldman Sachs?" and then showed links between Obama's planned energy
policy and his supporters from Goldman Sachs and Perseus who stand to benefit from the energy policy. At least there was a rationale to raising the
question as to whether kickbacks were planned.
This thread is factually wrong. The thread title is flat out wrong. Some might call it a lie to say that somebody did something when they didn't
McCain did NOT vote against the GI bill.
Bush did NOT vote against the GI bill.
Bush signed the GI bill.
According to your logic, it would be ok for me to post something like:
"Obama votes to strike down 2nd Amendment" because he agreed with the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court decision.
Is this really the direction you want this board to take? I thought the idea was to move AWAY from misleading sensationalized thread topics.