| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| therippa |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 5:15:39 PM
From: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/
With hard work and superb organization, you have triumphed over John Kerry and the forces of Blue-state paternalism. Congratulations. The multinational corporations that hold you in bondage remain free to profit off your sweat nearly tax free, while their overpaid senior execs continue to pay a pittance in personal income tax.
Your primary and secondary schools will continue to turn out third-rate pupils with limited opportunities, while you enjoy the satisfaction of making it on your own without health care when a catastrophic illness bankrupts your family.
Your agricultural universities will continue issuing Ph.D.s in football, and bogus Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology, and how to jerk off a bull safely. Your children will learn to borrow enough money to erect chicken houses so that they, like you, can take custody -- not possession, but custody -- of Tyson's chicks, feed them, rear them, assume losses from those that fail to thrive, and in the end earn just enough money to service their endless debt, and realize a profit of perhaps $12K a year. Your bank thanks you; Tyson thanks you; George W. Bush thanks you; and I thank you.
You can continue sending your sons to die in Iraq on a fool's errand. When you bury them, you can console yourselves with Bush's platitudes about their heroic mission to defend America from weapons of mass destruction.
You can savor the deficit spending that stimulates commerce today, but will cripple the US economy in ten or fifteen years' time when the bills come due with interest. Perhaps a Democrat will be in office at that time, who can be blamed for W's delayed economic fiasco.
You can continue believing, as Republican Party brainwashing has persuaded you, that we, your neighbors, are your enemies. You can believe that we have no morals; that we pimp out our teenage daughters for Internet porn; that we eat babies; that we are all gay; that we are cowards on the battlefield; and that we want to run your lives and give you AIDS.
Here's a clue: we are not your enemies; we are your countrymen. Your enemies are the greedy multinationals that the Republican Party bends over backwards to accommodate. Incidentally, most of them are based in Blue states, as are their Republican owners and major shareholders.
Here in the Blue States, Democrats and Republicans alike generate the lion's share of America's wealth, although it is you Reds who provide the lion's share of the stoop labor. You are our Mexicans, so to speak. We could not have accomplished the economic miracle that is America without your willing capitulation to a system that lies to you and fucks you over at every turn.
Look at economic output and educational achievement on a state-by-state basis: it's painfully evident that we Blues are immensely more productive and better educated than you Reds. We have lots more money. We live longer. We eat better. We work less. We fuck more. We do cocaine and smoke fine Canadian buds, not the homebrew crank and cheap Mexican headache reefer you guys are stuck with. We drink French wine and Stoli martinis, not Budweiser. Our children rarely bother us: we've got them on Ritalin and Prozac. Our teeth are straighter and whiter, our necks longer, and our fingernails cleaner. And many of us are the Republican elite who have just punked you.
It's good to be a Blue, regardless of which party you join.
Understandably, you resent us, so you've fabricated an imaginary measure of superiority: Christian "values." Yet you talk about values the way a pre-teen girl talks about "love" in fan letters to Ashton Kutcher. You recycle quasi-religious platitudes and received slogans. You know nothing of moral theology, a rigorous philosophical pursuit that hardly exists outside the Catholic Church and its elite universities. You make of the Bible what you will; you attend prayer meetings with other semi-literates, where you reinforce each other's sloppy understandings of the text, and combine them with half-digested bits of old-timey Hallmark-card "wisdom." And when you spout gibberish, you call it "speaking in tongues." You actually fancy that you're saints, you silly, narcissistic creatures.
Nevertheless, you are fellow Americans. The Blue Republican elite encouraged you to vote for George W Bush, because they quite simply own him, and they know that his administration will make policies that help them, even if hurt you. We Blue Democrats voted for John Kerry because we believed he would minister to your needs better than Bush. A President Kerry would have shared some of our wealth with you, assured your health care, raised the minimum wage, and checked the rapacious greed of the multinationals that hold you in thrall.
President Kerry would have helped us to help you, which is all that we ask. It pains us to see you in wage slavery. It pains us to see you so ignorant and uneducated, and so eager to place yourselves in bondage. Yes, we live better; but we wish you to live better too, even if it means sacrifice on our part.
What we wanted for you would have been far better than that which you, in your ignorant pride, demanded for yourselves. Oh, you defeated us all right, but only to your detriment.
We Blues will come out of the Bush era no worse for wear, although you Reds will come out very much diminished, deeper in debt, and less able to improve your circumstances by your own powers. But because you wish to be flattered more than helped, you will be grateful for your ass fucking from the Blue-state Republican elite that is laughing behind your backs today.
We did not wish it so. We honestly did want to help.
On 2 November, you thanked us by electing a shrewd, manipulative handmaiden to corporate America who panders to you while ruthlessly exploiting your ignorance and weakness for the benefit of his patrons in the national plutocracy. There is nothing we can do about that. You won fair and square.
We should let you rot. We should secede and leave you to fend for yourselves. Then you will see firsthand just how dependent you are. We are sick of fighting for you by fighting against you. Perhaps, when you see how dreary your lives have become without us, you will finally develop the spine to fight for your basic, human rights. And then we will gladly confront the plutocracy alongside you. We need your help to defeat the Blue Republicans, who, I assure you, are just as decadent as we are, though often richer.
But until you finally learn to respect yourselves, we can't respect you, and we therefore can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about you.
So let us secede, Blue America and Red America. We can handle the Blue state Republicans, so long as we don't have a lot of ignorant Red state lemmings frustrating our efforts and screwing themselves in the bargain. Secession will enable us both to live as we have chosen without the other's interference. We will prosper, and you will get a clue.
But do stay in touch after the borders slam shut. When you finally tire of living on the modern, corporate plantations of Cargill, Tyson, ConAgra and Smithfield; when you tire of shopping at Wal-Mart and sending your daughters to sling hash at Denny's in hopes that they'll meet the nicer sort of truck driver; when you tire of sneaking into Blue America as illegal white-trash wetbacks eager for casual work dusting our parlors; and when, like men, you finally rise up in rebellion against this immoral usury -- then, and only then, let us talk.
We'll gladly get your backs. But first you must grow the brains and the balls needed to profit from our help.
Debate, discuss, etc... |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| therippa |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 1:42:59 PM
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045 |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/10/2004 : 12:22:31 AM
Silky, you don't post often, but when you do, I always look forward to reading them. |
| Jimiforrest |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 11:53:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i've been using "cock in mouth" turns of phrase for years now, but "cock in mouth attitude" is new and confusing.
that said, i think i'm more or less along same lines as zach here about third party stuff. and also about the presiden acting on his own narrow moral crusade. the president of the united states is an elected official, and as such he's supposed to represent the mind and will of the majority of america, be that majority 99 percent or 51 percent. it isn't about the president and his divine calling. it's about doing what the majority put him in there to do. when he ceases to do that, he ceases to do his job. i'm not saying one way or another if that's what he did these last 4 years or not. that's up for debate, and besides the point since the majority didn't vote him in last time.
I completely agree, for a President to be ousted in his reelection race there needs to be some sort of antagonizing feature about him (foreign policy in this case) so that the other party can say this man is not doing his job, and therefore he needs to get off his bull and stop prodding other countries with his (here it comes guys, high school analogy #2) annoyingly pointy butt-probing horns of foreign policy.
So we've credited the reason for the "get this man out of the office" theory, and we've discredited the reasons for voting for him (danke Silky). But I'm actually a lot more interested in the human behavioral aspect of seeing this theory crumble, and as I said above, I think I would be able to realize that I was voting for this theory, and that I wouldn't be so mean to other people because I was able to realize this stigma. I'm not sure if I'm representative of the rest of the population, but it makes logical sense.
I wonder though, being so below you guys in this whole political scene, how a "real president" would've gone about creating a foreign policy while still being able to do most of the things Bush is (or isn't) able to do, and whether what Bush is able to do is even important or significant. You'd make my day  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 11:27:03 PM
i've been saying kerry wasn't any good. that's part of why i didn't vote. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 10:55:34 PM
*yawn*  I'm too tired Bush won. Kerry lost. Debate on which would have made a better president is moot. Republicans: relax, you won. Democrats: Spend the next 4 years in search of a candidate better than Kerry. Heaven help us all.
I've never heard of a "cock-in-mouth attitude" either, but then again I don't get out much. |
| Silky The Pimp |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 10:27:17 PM
This whole letter made me laugh. "Red" and "Blue" ... the election didn't come down to that. If Kerry had been a truly suitable candidate, he'd have won by a landslide.
I have yet to hear even ONE person say that they voted for Kerry because of HIS merit and credentials. When I say not one, I mean that 100% literally. Not a single person has mentioned Kerry's tax plan, his healthcare policy, his budget proposal, his deficit proposal etc.. Whenever I ask anyone why they voted for Kerry, they start telling me what Bush did wrong and what a slime bag they think he is.
Kerry had such an advantage going into this election... he had a good 15-20% of the votes locked in simply because of the mindset of "anyone but Bush." Talk about a head start. Now I know that most of you here hate bush with a maniacal passion, but just be honest... did you really look into Kerry's plans and believe that, on the assumption that it was, indeed, POSSIBLE to accomplish what he claimed, that he would actually follow through? I looked at every plan he had on his website. What I saw was a stereotypical politician saying what he thinks people want to hear. It's no surprise, then, that I agreed with just about everything he said. I liked what he had to say on national security, taxes, healthcare, education, the national budget, the national deficit, foreign policy, the military and on and on. But if you look at him, NOT just as the guy running opposite the person who you would sooner poke your eyes out with forks than vote for, but as a presidential candidate running for office on his OWN MERIT, you would see that things did not add up.
He made several very large claims. 1) To lower taxes for the middle class, while rolling back the cuts from Bush's administration. 2) Pay down the deficit in 4 years. 3) Pay-as-you-go budget policy. 4) National healthcare and insurance plans. 5) More funding for no child left behind and other educational programs. 6) Get the economy boosted and create jobs. 7) Increase military (and intelligence) resources.
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see each and every one of these things happen, but where the hell is the money going to come from? To pay down the deficit in 4 years means a vastly significant decrease in spending. To go back to a pay-as-you-go budget policy means another significant decrease in spending. To cut taxes means to decrease the in-flow of capital which would, in turn, pay for above mentioned programs and policies. This all sounds great, but to pay for his programs requires a MASSIVE increase in spending. The numbers don't even come close to matching up. Something would have to give, and we all know where it would come from first. I read a breakdown (I wish I had a link to the article for you guys) that showed how his tax plan worked. It was a cut for x number of dollars if you have this, that, and this. Great. But by the time the cuts that Bush gave are rolled back, the net was about +$1500 per household. This is all before you take into consideration the fact that because his numbers never added up in the first place, he would need to either run up the deficit, back-burn his healthcare, military, environmental, and education reforms, or raise taxes. My personal opinion is that it would have been a little bit of everything, but his senate voting record lets me take an educated guess as to what he'd do.
When you stop looking at it through rose-colored glasses, Kerry's campaign was truly pandering at its worst. I've said it before, but I found the whole thing terribly insulting. If you let go of trying to back him because you don't want to believe that he wasn't the country's messiah, ready to rescue the nation from Lucifer himself, his credibility on his proposed policies is already shaky based upon his senate voting record before you ever even hear him speak. His campaign counted on people not actually taking the time to look at his voting record, which, again, to me seemed very insulting. If you really think he would have lowered taxes, look at his voting record and get back to me (what I wrote in the previous paragraph not withstanding). This has never been a man who has been empathetic to the middle class. If you think he was going to support our military and intelligence community, again, have a look and come back to me.
Enough for domestic issues, you all get the point. His promises were so far fetched that you'de have to be wearing blinders, in a manner of speaking, not to see it. His promises involving foreign policy, though, were so outlandish he almost had me laughing during the debates. Almost. I already covered a couple of examples of why I think his leadership qualities were in question in another thread. Here's that diatribe (in direct response to his performance in the first debate) in case you missed it.
quote:
Kerry was certainly the better speaker; more eloquent and articulate, but that means nothing without substance. I'm a bit disturbed to read that so many of you feel that he came out on top. His continued unwillingness to take a stance is in no way confidence inspiring. I know it's not what many of you would like to hear, but Kerry comes off as pure politician to me, but in no way a leader. To vote someone into office, regardless of credibility, only because you don't like the person in office right now is just not wise. Even if you despise Bush, at least look at Kerry's qualities, both good and bad, before placing your vote simply for anyone who isn't Bush. If you watched the debate and tried even a little to take it in from a neutral point of view, I cannot imagine how you would feel that Kerry displayed the necessary qualities to be the leader of this country. He contradicted himself so many times within the course of the debate that it became blatantly obvious that he was just pandering to the audience, which I personally found extremely insulting to my intelligence.
He tried to gain support of the Bush advocates by emphasizing that he would strengthen the military and finish the job in Iraq, while at the same time appeasing the anti-Bush crowds by saying that the war was at the wrong place, and the wrong time, and a "grand diversion," and also how Bush mislead the country. He then turns around in the next breath to say that based upon the intelligence that Bush had at the time, it was, indeed, the right call. Furthermore, Kerry himself saw the same intelligence and supported the war, only to turn around later, of course only in hindsight, to say that he only would have supported the war if it were waged after giving in to Saddam's games and going through another round of resolutions... That he was for the use of military force, but only if it were more planned. If you ask me, he's just putting an arbitrary caveat on his reverse time-line stance so that he can claim to have had the decision making ability that Bush supporters like, but also the better judgment in patience and tact that anti-Bush supporters criticize so much. It's just insulting. Bush put it very well when he said that it is lunacy to think that after notorious disobedience with regard to some 16 UN resolutions that Saddam would have just said, "OK" and disarmed had they drawn it out another 1 or 2.
Another contradiction that drove me nuts was when he was talking about the extremely poor living conditions and state of supply for our troops in Iraq. His story about the troops coming up to him and saying, "Save us, we need your help Mr. Kerry" was total bullshit. If that happened, then I'm Donald Duck. He claimed that needless lives are being lost because the soldiers do not have adequate body armor. He cited the Hummers over there being unarmored as a specific example. He went on and on about how it's atrocious that we have soldiers over there without the necessary equipment and supplies that they need. But what he doesn't say, that Bush had to point out, is that he voted AGAINST the budget proposal that would have allowed the troops to get all the necessary supplies that they needed! Again, I just found that extremely insulting to my intelligence. How would anyone not pick up on the fact that he's trying to one-up Bush in saying that he wants our troops to be better outfitted (which implies empathy, but more importantly, SUPPORT above and beyond what the current president has shown), but at the same time contradicting himself, having been accountable for the current problems that he complains about and blames on his opponent.
Here's what really made me want to pull my hair out though. It happened in 3 parts.
1) Kerry finally took a stance on that what he wants for this country is to bring the world leaders of other nations back to the table. He wants to undo the alienation that occurred through the war in Iraq and proceed with a coalition, no ifs ands or buts. Great. I agree wholeheartedly that that would be ideal, however to think that leaders from countries such as France are going to just spring up into action because Kerry is at the table instead of Bush is ridiculous. I'd like to know just how it is that he is planning on persuading them to come to the table with regard to this subject. All the charisma in the world won't accomplish that.
2) When asked what the single most serious threat to America is, Kerry said, unhesitatingly, the proliferation of nuclear arms. Once again I cannot disagree. He was adamant that countries such as North Korea and Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons and that it is the current administration's fault that the former now is a nuclear power. He made it very clear, that one of his immediate goals in the White House would be to disarm North Korea. Wonderful, but when asked how, he completed the triangle as such:
3) Kerry's answer to disarming North Korea was to begin BILATERAL talks with North Korea given that the existing coalition of nations, currently trying to resolve the problem diplomatically, has been unsuccessful. Again, let me repeat the word "bilateral." Now, reread number 1 if you can't remember what it was and why this is a HUGE contradiction... as in, the 2 things that he said were his top priorities and most solid stances, weave in and out like a pretzel. He basically said that he wants the US to put the pressure on North Korea in separate bilateral talks to the current talks. Has he no concept for what this would do? This would cause China and the other countries currently in talks to walk away... Bush even called him out about that. This would be the EXACT same move that he criticizes Bush for with regard to the Iraqi war: basically saying to the other countries involved in the talks that we don't really care. They can keep trying, but the US is going to take charge and do whatever they deem necessary anyway. Again... bilateral is the key word here.
Lastly, both Bush and Kerry each had one major point that seemed to really stick with me, though again, I found Bush's to be far more compelling. Kerry's was that if you are not satisfied with how the Bush administration has run the country over the past 4 years, you can only expect more of the same. Quite obvious, but fair enough. It gets the point across. Bush's major point was that if the troops are to succeed oversees, they MUST have the support of their leader. One cannot call the war a grand diversion, or say that it is in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet turn around and lead the military and expect the troops to perform. It would be unbelievably disheartening and that is not the quality of a leader. Not only that, but what kind of message does this send to the other countries that Kerry is thinking he will recruit?! "Come join us in this fight in the wrong place at the wrong time... Come join us in this grand distraction!" Is he out of his mind? That's leadership?! It's a huge contradiction, an unrealistic promise, and a recipe for disaster and embarrassment. We've seen enough of that already without his help.
I guess the point of my diatribe here is that regardless of how much you may hate Bush, voting in someone because they're "anyone other than Bush" could be a big mistake. I am not trying to proselytize to you all at all... quite the opposite. I'm only asking for you to make informed, realistic decisions instead of emotional ones. Honestly consider BOTH sides instead of having made up your mind a year ago before you even knew who the democratic candidate was going to be. I am not a big Bush fan at all, but I would be scared stiff to have a man like Kerry in office. He has slimy politician written all over him.
As I said in that post, my point is not at all to proselytize to you. I'm just trying to balance the coin. We ALL know, in great detail, why Bush should not have had another crack at the presidency. But I've seen little to no mention of why Kerry lost this election, except in threads like these, which tend to place blame on the American people, or the evil brainwashing government, or on the insurmountable influence of evil corporations... but none that question the candidate. That seems a bit suspect to me. If you were honestly trying to follow this election as unbiased as possible, like I was, you wouldn't have to question how Bush could be re-elected. You would know that had the candidate been right, this wouldn't even have been close.
I guess what got me to respond to this particular thread was this attitude that I've seen not only here, but in the other politically minded threads on the board, that Bush was elected because of the "red" states. Because of dumb rednecks looking to the conservative Christian values candidate. I disagree. I think ANY republican candidate has those votes to start with, just like any democratic candidate has the democratic votes. I think this election came down to people like me. I don't share the same views that most here do, that Bush is some war-mongering power-hungry dictator liar scum. I would have liked a change. I'm not pro-Bush. I'm not really pro-anyone. Though I may live in the South, I can't exactly call myself a redneck. Though I'd like to think I might hit just to the right of center on the intelligence curve, I can't claim genius, nor can I claim complete moron. I'm just one of those people that were in the middle. From my perspective, Kerry just didn't have it on his own, and I knew what I could expect from Bush. On the flip side of what I said above, that had the democratic candidate been someone who was more qualified, the election would have been a landslide... had the republican candidate been someone other than Bush (meaning no "anyone but him" votes to factor), the election would have been equally as skewed in the opposite direction.
Agree or not, I really think you all should take a collective deep breath and start to let a little of this election tension go. While it's a big deal, at the same time, in the grand scheme of things, it's really not. It's one presidential term. 4 years my friends, that's it. You have to be pretty out there say a lot of the things that have been said on this board... moving to other countries, ashamed of the American people, all the dictator talk, all the talk of how we need to go more toward a Marxist way of life etc. etc. He's just one President, and he'll be gone come Jan. 2009. For all the talk that you guys go on with about people needing to get together and stop all the conflict, you should give it a try yourselves. Standing behind the majority decision of your fellow countrymen at a time of division like this seems like it could be more valuable and beneficial than enlessly complaining. Maybe let up on the throttle a little on bashing Bush, and, e'hem... those who might have cast their vote in his direction. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 2:44:50 PM
i've been using "cock in mouth" turns of phrase for years now, but "cock in mouth attitude" is new and confusing.
that said, i think i'm more or less along same lines as zach here about third party stuff. and also about the presiden acting on his own narrow moral crusade. the president of the united states is an elected official, and as such he's supposed to represent the mind and will of the majority of america, be that majority 99 percent or 51 percent. it isn't about the president and his divine calling. it's about doing what the majority put him in there to do. when he ceases to do that, he ceases to do his job. i'm not saying one way or another if that's what he did these last 4 years or not. that's up for debate, and besides the point since the majority didn't vote him in last time. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 1:57:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jimiforrest
What the fuck makes everybody think John Kerry would do any better than George Bush? I'm sorry, I'm 16 and my opinions really don't mean anything but as somebody who is percieving political controversies for the first time in preperation for the next election so I have a clue of what's going on, it seems as though people are epitomizing John Kerry as the "bringer of hope" and the "switch that needs to be flicked." I agree that this country needed a flick to switch, just what makes John Kerry so damned flickable that makes people so pissed that he didn't win? I'm not saying that's necassarily the sentiment of anybody in these forum, I'm just saying that in general, people actually are voting JOHN KERRY - He's not Bush! Which if it came down to it, I would vote that way as well, but at least I'd be able to see that that was the way I'm voting and not go about with this pompous I have a cock in my mouth attitude about it.
While I still hold that neither of the two candidates were great choices there is a reason I voted Kerry. I was undecided as what to do in the elections. I knew Kerry wasn't ready to change the fundamental things that are hurting this country and Bush of course wasn't going to either. It all came down to a a five minute decision though. Bush and his administration made some leaps toward threating mans surrvival. The guy supports militirizing space, and the continued testing of nuclear weapons. They also have instituted a new chapter in america's foreign policy in which we reserve the right to pre-emptively strike and invade countries at will. So needless to say I also don't agree with killing 100,000 inocent people when the people who benifit the most from the war are from the corporate sector. So then you look at Kerry and you can see some differences. They both are very similar outside of the homosexuality and abortion categories and some slight differences in foreign policy and Kerry did speak out about the militirization of space.
So if you vote for a third party you have to realize that your candidate isn't really going to win being as the entire country follows the 2 party system. So you have to realize that change will be incurred not by voting in one rich white guy or another it comes by people working on the grass roots level to change the way our culture views the world and the way they act in it. Real change is not probably going to be voted in anytime soon. So don't spend a huge deal of effort on it. I think I wasted a lot of time on the presidency race that could have just been spent trying to help educate others on some issues this country faces. It's just sad that america chose a president who has acted the way he did based mostly on his moral values and such. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 11/09/2004 : 12:15:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jimiforrest
What the fuck makes everybody think John Kerry would do any better than George Bush? I'm sorry, I'm 16 and my opinions really don't mean anything but as somebody who is percieving political controversies for the first time in preperation for the next election so I have a clue of what's going on, it seems as though people are epitomizing John Kerry as the "bringer of hope" and the "switch that needs to be flicked." I agree that this country needed a flick to switch, just what makes John Kerry so damned flickable that makes people so pissed that he didn't win? I'm not saying that's necassarily the sentiment of anybody in these forum, I'm just saying that in general, people actually are voting JOHN KERRY - He's not Bush! Which if it came down to it, I would vote that way as well, but at least I'd be able to see that that was the way I'm voting and not go about with this pompous I have a cock in my mouth attitude about it.
"cock-in-my-mouth-attitude?" Is that a new saying that the kids made up?
I think Kerry was a good candidate, at first I though he was boring and was going to be voting on the "ABB" ticket, but then I researched his past and the guy is a very intelligent and very thoughtful person. I would rather have someone like Kerry, who thinks of 5 or 6 different possibilities to solve a problem, and then 5 or 6 more possible outcomes to the result of those solutions, than a president who seems to act on divine inspiration. If you are just watching political ads, Hardball, and The Daily Show to get your information on him, then yeah, why would he be so great? But if you take the time to actually look deeper than the spin and counter-spin, you might find something worth considering, either for the good or bad. I looked at Bush's history too, I wasn't as impressed, so that is how I reached my decision to vote for Kerry.
You asked what makes anybody think Kerry would do better? Well, better is a relative term. What could be better for me, might not seem better for you. In the long run though, you're voting for a big douche and a shit sandwich, and you have to pick one, cuz if you don't you get exiled. |
| Jimiforrest |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 11:43:56 PM
What the fuck makes everybody think John Kerry would do any better than George Bush? I'm sorry, I'm 16 and my opinions really don't mean anything but as somebody who is percieving political controversies for the first time in preperation for the next election so I have a clue of what's going on, it seems as though people are epitomizing John Kerry as the "bringer of hope" and the "switch that needs to be flicked." I agree that this country needed a flick to switch, just what makes John Kerry so damned flickable that makes people so pissed that he didn't win? I'm not saying that's necassarily the sentiment of anybody in these forum, I'm just saying that in general, people actually are voting JOHN KERRY - He's not Bush! Which if it came down to it, I would vote that way as well, but at least I'd be able to see that that was the way I'm voting and not go about with this pompous I have a cock in my mouth attitude about it. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 11:31:56 PM
I think the civil war was good for the native americans as it bought them some time. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 11:20:06 PM
plus dividing the country at all doesn't seem to be much good. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 7:53:54 PM
I agreed with alot of what he/she said, but there is one problem. Dividing the nation into red and blue would be a bit hard considering that as with most things in life, nothing is clear cut:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004b.gif |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 6:20:59 PM
some of that is absolutely hilariously worded. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/08/2004 : 5:38:38 PM
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak. |
|
|
