all this bush supporter (bs) talk about how we should vote for bush because we
haven't been attacked (since the big one happened on his watch) brings up an interesting question. does this mean
we shouldn't vote for him if we are attacked? that's what logic dictates. not that we can expect bs'ers to follow their own strange brand of it here. if there is another attack they'll certainly use it as the most important reason of all to vote for him, while insisting kerry's the one who waffles.
"vote for bush - we haven't been attacked!
- or -
vote for bush - we have been attacked!
like, whatever dude. don't think, just vote for him."
no thanks.
- js.