I was reading along until shortly after this point. Then it started talking about truth or ignorance of the two dominant candidates. At 08:01 AM 10/13/2000, First Name Last Name wrote: >This is in reference to the most recent debate, but it has important >points for cpunks to consider (though some of these will be pretty obvious). >--------------------------- >L i b e r t y W i r e ... > Smaller Government ... And don't look to either party to pressure its >candidate to reduce government. The Republicans >have increased spending during their five years in >control of Congress at a rate of 3.2% per year, >while the Democrats in the previous five years >increased spending by 3.9% a year -- hardly a >significant difference. Spending during George >Bush, Sr.'s four years as President increased by >4.3% per year, while spending during Clinton's >seven years in office has increased by 3.2% per >year. I did the math. ((3.2*5)+(3.9*3))/8~=3.5 (3.4625) 3.5 !=3.2 I don't have but two years documented here to figure the spending increase for Bush Sr. but I imagine it too will not add up. If I got my math severly wrong, be sure to let me know. ... >Fallacy #8: "There's a difference in character >between the candidates." > >This may be the biggest fallacy of all. Bush and >Gore are each trying to sell you on the idea that >his character is superior to Bill Clinton's. > >But Clinton's biggest moral flaw is his inability >to tell the truth. And neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. >Gore has demonstrated any regard for the truth. >The fallacies I've listed here (and a more >complete listing would make this article far too >long) show that neither one is reluctant to >perpetuate fraudulent assumptions. The only excuse >either can offer is that he isn't aware that the >assumptions are false -- in which case his >ignorance makes him unfit to be President. > >It's simple: both Al Gore and George Bush are too >dishonest to be considered, or too ignorant to be >qualified. You aren't going to get what you by >electing a politician won't even tell the truth >about the current state of government or his >intentions for the Presidency. ... At this point, based on the above math, I stopped reading. Good luck, Sean Roach
