The hell he doesn’t. By definition a bill doesn’t become law until he signs it, and that is the ultimate yes/no vote.
The president vetoes bills, dumbshit; reread that post and see if you can find the word “veto” anywhere in it.
In that sense you’re absolutely right. I just didn’t think of it as “voting” per se.
Not sure why you’re jumping on my ass though.
Huh? What’s the big deal? Even if he HAD delayed acceptance, it was for a svery simple reason…Bush is going to have, what, a nother 7 weeks? to raise and spend money. Kerry was considering waiting until the same time that Bush was going to be constrained by the rules. What’s the big crime in that?
Why should or would he make a point of talking about it when he actually does accept, and if he doesn’t, why is that wrong?
Mental exercise: Visualize the above post in your head. Got it? Good. Do it again, but this time change the word “wasn’t” to “was”, and “either” to “too”. See the difference? It’s bullshit no more!
Democratic financial parity is an affront to God.
Yeah like George Soros, the Kennedys, and well, the Heinz-Kerrys, can’t provide “financial parity.” Anyway, who the fuck cares?
Do you honestly think they’re entitled to it?