In all fairness I will have to admit, again, that I am a registered Republican but, I would also have to say that I am not real happy with either party.
In an earlier post I quoted a man who said that Florida was one of the most corrupt states in the Union. He wasn’t talking about the people he was referring to out Politicians….Check out my article titled Florida is #1 in corrupt Government?
As we head into the vote for out next President, President Obama or Gov. Romney, I tend to not trust any of what they say. To give you an example, in the second presidential debate Romney points out that Obama’s administration could not claim credit for increases in oil production as most if the increase took place on private land and that the production on public lands actually decreased due to Obama wiping out a percentage of the permits to drill.. He said this resulted in a %14 drop in production… There was an argument over this as Romney tried to get Obama to admit he cut the number of permits, and therefor decreased the production. Obama replied that what they did was take away the leases from companies who had the leases for public lands but, were not using them. This brings me to my question : if you only cut out the companies that were NOT producing, then where does the %14 drop come from?
The Democratic Party of Florida recently sent us a political mailer that announced Vern Buchanan to be the “most corrupt politician in America“. Really? They point out the number of investigations that had targeted him, though none have, so far, found anything.
Now that is interesting. Are they saying that an investigation, no matter how unprovable, is more damning than a actually conviction, and that he is more corrupt, even though they can’t show corruption, then those people who have been convicted? Does the “innocent until proven guilty” only apply to Democrats?
Sure Vern in a public figure and they can report that he is under investigations by some agency but, with no charges made, or likely to be made since most of the people who investigated him said they could NOT find any proof, wouldn’t an accusation such this be considered as libelous?
As a voter I get tired of these accusation that led nowhere about incidents that happen sometime in the past and suddenly become important just before an election. Politics is not only annoying but it is getting downright mean..
When Bill McCollum debated Rick Scott in Miami he did everything but call him a crook, then he went on to support him for Governor. This, to me, is proof that in politics today their support for the party is more important than their duty to the voters, and I don’t see that as a problem with just the Republicans. If Bill McCullom really thought that Rick Scott was that much of a crook, and so should NOT be our Governor, then why didn’t he either refuse to support him, or support the best person even from the other party?
I don’t think that truth can be found in politics, or politicians, and it is up to us to weed through the abundant lies to find the REAL truth.
I always remember a quote from an economics professor who said “figures don’t lie but, liars figure”. The other saying I always liked what in the form of a question. How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving…
The people you vote for will not only have an effect, in some way, on you but, they will represent you, so the next time you look in the mirror see if you can see him there.
That Joe Guy.
- Obama, Romney gear up for final debate – News24 (news24.com)
- Removed from spotlight, Bill McCollum has his moment in the high court (tampabay.com)
- The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Glenn Greenwald (guardian.co.uk)
- Obama, Romney Clash Over Who’d Drill More Oil, Burn More Coal (treehugger.com)
- Truth Squad: The second presidential debate (firstread.nbcnews.com)
- Oil And Gas Production (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Fact Check: Romney Is Wrong About Energy Development On Public Lands (thinkprogress.org)