vp debate

i hate politics. i wouldn't touch them with a 20 foot pole. but this election we really can't afford to sit around and hope the rest of the nation is not a bunch of gullible morons. because 4 years ago those morons voted the biggest fucktard of all into office. and now look at us.

jesus. i avoided the presidential debate because i knew it would just upset me. i didn't mean to watch the vp debate, but i flipped to it for 10 minutes or so. in that time, the VPs talked about 4 topics. hmm, what do i remember? capturing osama bin laden, the current state of affairs in afghanistan today, and kerry's voting record in terms of defense.

every time, one of them would answer the question posed. then the rebuttal: no, you have your facts wrong. then the rebuttal: no, you have your facts wrong. let me reiterate what i just said 90 seconds ago.

i listened to them cite facts from two apparently completely different sets of facts that blatantly contradicted each other. jesus. how upsetting is that? i was so distraught that i emailed my friend ariel (a very involved kerry supporter) and asked him how i'm supposed to know who is telling the truth.

he sent me back some really useful links. check this out if you're interested, which you really ought to be. especially you people in swing states. i'm in mass, so i'm not worried, but if your state is about half composed of god-fearing christian gay-hating easily-mislead idiots, then you need to read this.

i figure everyone voting kerry (or not bush, because you can't waste your vote on nader) will believe edwards. and everyone voting bush will believe cheney (although i don't see how, the man looks like a fucking snake). so i won't be changing anyone's minds... but maybe someday you'll, god forbid, find yourself in a political discussion at a party, and you'll have some facts to back you up, instead of the airy bullshit faux intelligence that most columbia students rely on.

from slate.com: John Kerry's Defense Defense.

also from slate: If He Can't Stand Up to Cheney. good article about cheney's bald lies (if slate says it it must be true?) and how edwards failed to counter them. read it read it read it. please.

from the same article:

Edwards was not without clear victories. Toward the end of the debate, he noted that, three years after 9/11, this administration has still not created a unified terrorist watch list. "What are we waiting for?" Edwards blasted. We have to be strong, but "we also have to be smart."

The moderator gave Cheney 30 seconds to rebut—and, amazingly, he declined the opportunity. What was that about? The Kerry campaign should put that moment of silence in a thousand ads. It's devastating.

from the nytimes: when points weren't personal, liberties were taken with the truth. less detail than slate, but it covers a lot of points that i knew nothing about.

from the washington post: misleading assertions cover Iraq war and voting records. i'm not registered for the damn washington post.

and more from ariel:

I forgot to mention, last night Cheney mentioned a fact check website. He said www.factcheck.com, which, up to last night did not exist. He meant to say www.factcheck.org, which is a legitimate independent website supported by UPenn.

It's interesting to mention that factcheck.com was snatched by George Soros, the billionaire raising and spending millions to oust Bush. If you go to that website, it redirects you to www.georgesoros.com, which greets you with a "Why you shouldn't vote for George Bush" personal message.

why does the nytimes or washington post require registration? it's free, right? if i register and post the login and password here, will they somehow know and invalidate it? or better yet, can someone give me their info so i don't have to register?