CDR: Re: From LibertyWire: 8 Fallacies in the Presidential Debates

[Sean Roach]

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