so, zell claimed that kerry was against a whole litany of weapons systems. in fact, i loved his spitball line, fwiw. however, i just checked factcheck.org and was able to find evidence that zell and republicans are really misrepresenting the facts. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=147">link here</a> -- worth a visit if you happen to believe what you're hearing. kerry has been a best buddy of the military for the past 8 years and some of his votes in the early 90s were votes to reduce federal spending across the board to reduce the deficit -- and, they did reduce the deficit.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Miller's getting grilled on CNN right now. When confronted with the facts that Cheney and other Republicans voted against some of the same weapons as Kerry, he keeps dodging and dismissing the questions, saying he doesn't know anything about that. <br><br>
yup, this is one of those things that I don't think Zel should have talked about. The obvious questions of "well why did many republicans voted against it also?" are very telling. The democrat party has done a good job on this issue, I think, of letting people know that it's not so one sided.<br><br>
I read the fact check link, and as you know I call on them and trust what they write. I think this article was very interesting, and I see that many of his votes were across the board cuts, but the fact remains he did try to cut the military budgets. Yes he added other cuts too, but he still voted FOR the military spending cuts. He then did a flip in 1997 and suddenly started voting to spend money on the military. I honestly wonder why, after years of voting for military spending cuts, why suddenly in 1997 he started supporting the military. <br><br><br>Salus populi suprema lex
Salus populi suprema lex
well, i can't answer that question. i think there was a huge increase in the military budget in the reagan years and kerry probably didn't agree with that strategy at the expense of so much else. why he changed in the later clinton years is not in my knowledge bank. perhaps that's when he joined the senate intelligence committee and started seeing some needs that he wasn't privy to previously??? honestly, i don't know, but i would guess the larger reason is that we had so much extra money to spend. perhaps he wasn't "against" the military even when he voted against it . . . as you mentioned, he was voting for many cuts across the board. kerry has been a very strong advocate for balancing the budget during his career. but, when the money is available, the military is on his priority list.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.