I am actually going to put up a double post today because I got this email this morning.
Now I am SUPER confused. The problem with me (and probably majority of the voting public) is that we are severly uninformed and probably misguided through the news/media.
Admittedly, the media has everything to do with influence on the usual person who has no party affiliation (if you are passionately a liberal or a conservative, you won't believe what the media says anyway).
I try to look at things OBJECTIVELY and I try to do the research but I find it very difficult with everyone with their agenda in mind.
I recently sent out an email in support of Howard Dean. Kerbang sent me this email, a snippet of his speech in Idaho (I believe Idaho) and his link. I went to his link and read up on him and he seemed pretty legit and a viable candidate.
Then my friend Steve (also well-versed in poltical events and knowledge) sent me THIS email and now I don't know WHAT to think because this sounds pretty good to me to.
You're probably thinking I'm some sort of empty vessel who will believe everything a person says but no. The case is that these are TWO very well-informed individuals who make TWO very good points.
Anyway, here's what Steve said:
Sharon, I'm dissappointed. I don't understand why you describe our current President as a "dumbass". Howard Dean would be a dangerously foolish choice for President. With the economy just beginning to turn around, the repeal of the tax cut would destroy even more jobs than have already been lost and cause the recently upturned job market to crash out again. This would in turn result in a loss of tax revenue for the federal and state governments, causing widespread financial crisis and budget deficits again. Coupled with Dean's insistence on a grossly overpriced healthcare system, price estimates for prescription drug benefits alone dwarf the $87 billion cost of Bush's recent request of Congress. Low estimates run around $400 billion/year while some go as high as $1 trillion / year.
Fiscal matters aside, we come to the more important issue. Howard Dean is not committed to the eradication of global terrorism. This unwillingness to lead the country to do good for the entire world, and fulfill the President's first duty to protect the United States and Constitution, completely negates any value he could have as President. Fueled by a liberal media unwilling to show successful scenes in Iraq, Dean has attacked the war repeatedly calling the effort a misguided failure. The disbelief that terrorism is a genuine threat to the U.S. and the willingness to sacrifice millions of innocent people to "avoid war" is either dangerously misguided or outright treasonous. Howard Dean is either grossly incompetent and unaware of the United States' role in history, or he is a power-mad politician willing to endanger the entire world for personal gain.
The truth is, for whatever reason, no Democratic candidate for president would have acted as President Bush did after 9/11. They would have acted as Clinton did in '93, and '98. They would have ignored the problem, and allowed more people to die and strengthen the terrorists' belief that America is a weak country that backs away from danger.
Know what and who you are voting for Sharon. Look into Dean's background. He's not a small town guy from Vermont. Don't believe the hype.
AHHHH!!!!!! I sent it out to people who I thought would help me out on this topic (Kerbang and Datchery) I'll post up their response shortly and I'll try to compare and contrast who is bullshitting and who is not (although they both are non-bullshitters to begin with so this is going to be a difficult topic)
over and out. roger that.
