« enormous cheese flavor | Main | one of those days »

Thursday, July 29, 2004


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Oh, this is an easy one K.Beth.
It isn't that the country is full of people that support Bush. It is just that the people who support ousting Bush don't report to the polls in the numbers that they are needed. Almost no one that I know ever votes because they are pretty convinced that their votes don't count. All the Republicans I know will be at the polls on election day whether there be rain, snow, or tidal wave. Everybody else is busy saying, "Saw it off, bitches", but at the same time failing to realize that they are the ones losing by not participating. Get out there and spread the word. Get people to vote. I find it to be a noble task to help persuade people to cast their votes.


you are so funny. john kerry is WAY different than bush. they are all panderers. they have no ideals. it is ludicrous to listen to people thinking they are enlightened or caring or even DIFFERENT and then going out and voting for John Kerry.

you are all duped.

ever notice how vegas doesnt really care who wins a football game? they just set the line where they will get action on either side. yeah DC is just like that. i love the idea that JK would swoop in and there would be some sort of revolution.

here's a tip geniuses; they are all the same.

not similar, close, or "moderate".


people who vote for JK are exactly like the people who vote for GW, except they are slightly more deluded because they think something is going to change. you are all being played.

the only option for someone wanting to "make a difference" is to vote libertarian. really. sure its an impotent gesture... kind of a "fuck off" to JK and GW and the various corp's that own BOTH OF THEM COME ON PEOPLE! maybe someday the LP will look like a viable alternative, but i'm not holding my breath.


no. they are not the same. i'm not saying jk is perfect, far from it. but bush is a travesty and needs to be removed.

i can't vote for the libertarians, not only because i don't really agree with them, but also because i can't take the chance (the -shudder- too real chance) that bush will remain in office. you're the one who is deluded if you can't see how dangerous that man is. you are too idealistic, you don't see the need for actual change NOW instead of just making some 'statement'. your "fuck you" to the parties is all well and good but i want to see some change, and realistically having the democrats in power will help a bit. not enough. but you're lying to yourself if you think kerry is just as dangerous as bush.

bush has got people like aunt sandy convinced that he is god's special appointed christian leader of the USA (it's a christian nation, you know... oh wait. ) and he has done veryverybadthings with that power, like the stupid war and stonewalling about the prison that i can't spell and rolling back decades of environmental legislation and putting a timber lobbyist as head of the forestry division.

i KNOW kerry is not much better but at least he supports my civil rights. bush would see me burn in hell. no thanks. he needs to be removed, and quickly.


plus, i'm sick of hearing him talk.


To elsoybean:

I agree with the indenticality of the political parties. (It's the Britteny-Avril question: same message, different dressing.)

a) A vote for Kerry isn't a vote for massive (or even partial) reversion of the state of the country, it's a vote for not making it worse. (Remembering the political r e a l i t y that term-limited leaders in their final term are nearly always more extreme.)

b) The LIBERTARIANS!?!?!?!?!?!?! Are you insane? Has the free-market economy been so good to the international working class that we want to turn over basic public health safty and defense to it? Vote socialist if you have to, but the libertarians scare the hell out ot me: they are the major parties only more so.

c) All politics is local. Meaning little issues are important to voters: in this case, politics is local to my bedroom. 'nuff said.

d) I admire your idealism; a lot. Take up Marxism, we could use you. :)

Send all hate mail to my LJ at atonalist


I don't give a shit about any of the bitches, but you can be damn sure that I'll be voting on election day. Elsoybean has one thing right. Everyone is duped. But you gotta make a choice. Some bitch has to lead the country. You have to decide between the better of two evils. I don't say which one that is. I simply say that people need to decide which candidate they want instead of refraining from voting and complaining about the outcome for the next four frickin years!
Vote for Mickey Mouse for all I care, just VOTE.


why is blindly casting a ballot on the strength of, for instance, how nice one candidate's smile is any better than not voting at all?


Good girl. Slick response.
Voting blindly and not voting are the same thing.
That is why I always hope that people WON'T vote blindly( in a perfect world, right?). People going to the polls oft times have a strong support and belief in the promises of their candidates. I have yet to meet the person who rolled into the polls for the heck of it. I am afraid of both Bush and Kerry. Wait a minute. I'm not just afraid. I'm terrified. I still have research to do for myself before I come to the "proper" conclusion (but I won't be votin' for Bush). I always say vote for Mickey Mouse because just like casting a vote for the libertarian ticket, it is a bold statement by saying an animated character could do a better job than the choices we have for leaders today.
People NEED to vote. If I hear one more person that didn't vote complain about the candidates or president elects, I will scream in pitches that no mammal will ever understand. I advise people to do research and pick the candidate that is best for them (Repubs, Dems, Shephards, Crackwhores, whatever party. Just find yours). But VOTE for the LOVE OF GOD. Opinions of a person who didn't participate in the election process are oft times equivalent to pissin' the the wind.
(Is that your brother postin' comments callin' people obtuse and "geniuses"? Man, he's a slick article.)


that is indeed my brother up there. we have lively discussions. i'm the token liberal in the family. it's unfortunate that i'm not better at arguing, because i would like to change his mind about some things. i think when i go down for my birthday i will make a powerpoint presentation to my family about why, even though he's nominally a demoncrat, they should vote for kerry.


come on and give some credit. you make it sound like you're the black sheep for being liberal. dad and i are both libertarians, although i am the only one who will vote that way. everyone else except RDL and SKL are republicans the same way you are a democrat--a handful of high visibility issues make them scared of what will happen if they DONT vote republican. nobody stuck down here in the sticks (except the aforementioned SAVED! exceptions) actually thinks that GW is anything special; they just feel strongly about not being taxed to oblivion and maybe being able to pay their own money for a decent doctor.

also, i hafta point out that almost all my posts are after 2 am when i am tired and pissed at the world... so go easy :)

Racil: THE SOCIALISTS???? are you insane? has the government of any country anywhere ever been good at anything period? now, to concede a point, i am a federal and state libertarian, and a locality social liberal and economic conservative. basically, i dont want the federal or state governments deciding much of anything. (btw, these are the only candidates i trust because they are the only ones wanting to take office and make their position LESS powerful... all others want to take office and accumulate power... the marxists and socialists are just honest about it). I want all decisions that affect my life made right here in duval county where i can conceivably make a huge difference all by myself if i have to. what we have right now is a degredation of our consitutional republic into a mob rule democracy where all decisions are enacted at the federal level. why the hell should the federal government be talking about nationalized health care, or even worse, mandatory nationalized savings accounts (social securty). if something like that is required, let the states or even better the counties decide how and to what extent. BTW this matches up pretty well with the "all politics is local". hell even Socialism can work if its enacted by a small enough locality--just don't go trying to make it work on a federal level, we already know it doesn't work.


brudder, if everyone were like you then maybe i would be a libtertarian. but you can only be in one locality at one time, and i fear for the localities that end up as feudal states - you know, one guy with charisma and intimidation skills shows up and bullies everyone until they're paying half their income in taxes to him, until they rebel and half of them die in battle. great. also, what about interstate infrastructure? it would be hopelessly disorganized if it existed at all. national corporations would start being just as hard to hold accountable as multinational ones are today. pollution would be rampant, because Duval wouldn't be able to force a paper company, based in another locality, to do anything about the run-off from their mill. you are an idealist. maybe my view of what would happen is a bit apocalyptic, but really, democracy is mob rule no matter on what level that mob acts. and if a mob from california can balance out a mob from alabama, and vice versa, i think that's better. but please, please, please vote for kerry, just so someone who doesn't want to take your sister's rights away is in office. where's your big-brotherthly protective instinct? i'm not afraid to use it to get votes.


oh and no, of course i'm not the black sheep... but you know i get a lot of shit.

The comments to this entry are closed.