Brino said:
Did you even read what I posted? Can you even read?
You asked why nobody brought up Kerry's past while he was running for a seat in the Senate (funny, I could ask why nobody brought up Bush's time in the Air National Guard when he was running for Governor of the State of Texas, a far more powerful position then a lowly Senate job).
The point is, you think that running for a seat in the Senate is on the same level as running to be the President of the United States. Why did no one look into Kerry's war record? Because, to my knowledge, he had yet to say he was a better candidate to be POTUS because he was a war hero, because he was running to be in the Senate.
Listen, I really don't care what either one of them did back then, it's a non starter with me. But when a guy say's he'd be better at the job because of what he did back then, only to find out he was lying, then it becomes an issue. You know Bush wasn't going to bring it up, but when Kerry did, he was fair game. And instead of saying, hey, we made a mistake, they start going after Bush's record. Hello, Bush never once used that time in his life as a reason you should vote for him.
bigdan1110 said:
What do you mean exactly by that ?
I'm sorry, i'm stupid, i don't understand what you said...
Dan, people from Quebec, who vote either Liberal or Bloc don't have the right to call anybody else stupid for who they voted for. Now, if you say you didn't vote for either of those two, and the vote you cast was for someone else, please, let me know and I might pull a Kerry and reverse my position. Of course, I'm doing it because of new information I might receive, not because it's Thursday.