poopyhead??? :>)
Calpernia, let’s say that you oppose gay marriage. Let’s say that every time you’ve had a chance to vote on it that you’ve opposed gay marriage or supported natural marriage.
Now let’s say that someone says “Calper has a friend who is gay.” Someone else finds out that Calper goes to a church that had a gay in it. Someone else finds out that you’ve read a book of Andrew Sullivan.
Someone now comes along and says, “I think we should reinterpret all these anti-gay marriage votes that Calpernia cast.” I have reason to think they were made secretly to support the cause of gay marriage. Finally, this person announces: “I think Calpernia is actually a supporter of the thing she actually voted against.”
Now, has that person been fair with your record or have they allowed their “interpreting skills” to lead them down a rat hole?
I know you are looking at the votes that went on paper. And I can’t speak for everyone elses he said she said posts.
But it gets complicated all the way around because the votes on paper don’t match all the legislature which is further muddled by all the amendments that went with the legislature.
See this big post?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1924826/posts?page=138#138
That big post, the Title X funding replenished all the budgets for the Department of Energy. It also did it in incremental payouts that had budgets extend for a few years.
The department of Energy is a huge infrastructure that has many, many grant projects in it that covers THIS monster:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
This has many many more initiatives in it that covers everything from gay marriage to climate to NAIS to abortion.
So, saying a vote on paper is one thing. But funding what you are or are not for is another.
This is why everyone is bantering back and forth as to what is true.
It isn’t as simple as a recorded vote.
And it is also not bashing.