Something struck me the other day as I read GW's remarks to the U.N. on Tuesday. Not only is he lying, I realized, he knows he's lying, and so do all the diplomats. These remarks aren't even for the diplomats. They're for the most highly prized demographic in all of democracy - the 'swing voters'. Lets get something straight right here and now. You can be a republican and be smart. You can definitely be a democrat and be smart. But there is no way on God's green earth that you can be a swing voter and be smart. If, after the last four years, a time of disaster, war, and fiscal irresponsibility, you can't make up your mind, you're a moron. I mean, really. What's it gonna take? Is there anything that can be said in these last few weeks that would change your mind if the preceeding thousand days hasn't? How self involved or just plain clueless are these people that they're still waiting for one of these candidates to 'better make their case?'
If any of you swingers are reading. allow me to lay it out for you.
Bush is for pre-emptive war against people he deems to be our enemies. He pulled thousands of troops out of a country that had attacked us (Afghanistan) and threw them into a country that hadn't (that would be Iraq). He did this because he claimed he knew Iraq had baaaaad, baaaad weapons. It didn't. Incidentally, both countries are now falling apart.
Bush is also for incarcerating people without trial, many of which have never even been charged with a crime. he does this by keeping the prisoners on foriegn soil rather than here in the US.
Bush gave the wealthiest one percent 80% of his touted tax cut - a tax cut we can't afford with a 475 BILLION dollar deficit. (By the way, swinger, pre W, Clinton posted 2 straight surpluses.)
Bush is for deregulating the energy industry. Yep, that's right, the Enron boys, who incidentally, were his biggest corporate contributor in the 2000 campaign. Bush is for amending our most sacred national document (the constitution) to legalize disctimination against gay americans.
Bush is for giving the finger to the rest of the world including (but not limited to) Germany, France, Turkey, the United Nations, and anyone else who asks tricky questions.
Ok, thats what Bush is for. So, what's Kerry for?
WHO CARES???? HE AIN'T BUSH!!!! Seriously, Bush makes Nixon look good! If you need any more convincing, I can't help you. Your help should rest in the hands of mental health professionals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
All very nice and well there moondog. I enjoyed the rant (man, do I loooooove rants!). Careful though, as it would be very easy to label someone who voted for a candidate which they admitted sad ignorance of (I dunno this Kerry guy), just to ensure that another candidate lost (but I HATE that Bush fella), as equally moronic. One might say that you appear, from upon your soap-box, to be recommending that the undecided vote to lose (voting for Bush's loss rather than another specific candidate's win). When one's vote becomes AGAINST rather than FOR a specific candidate, things get abstracted even further from the logic behind elections. The only rational vote is FOR something. Voting AGAINST only ensures that you will be forced to do the same thing next election (to oust the idiot you helped elect, because you never researched their idiotic tendencies), and the one after that, and the one after that... without ever knowing what you WANT, only what you don't.
Waste. Of. Time.
Any stance on those who aren't voting Ass or Tusk? Just curious.
In response to c-: I can agree with your general point that when one makes a decision, it's generally best to be certain about your choice. I also agree that in an either or case it is preferable to be affirming something rather than vote against something else. However, I don't believe a vote against has an inherent flaw as it seemed you indicated. Your logic stated that the other choice would also be flawed and that is not necessarily always going to be the case. In fact, if one is uncertain/unable to cast an affirming vote it is actually WISE to at least cast a vote against.
For example, imagine you were lost in the woods and faced with only two possible paths out. You knew one would only lead you into a continuing labyrinth and possible death and you were unsure of the outcome of the other. You could deduce logically that the "other" path could only have three general types of outcome. 1) Certain death, 2) you’ll remain lost, 3) you find your way out. Which one do you choose and why? Easy answer right?
Now of course my argument makes some assumptions. 1) That you must be relatively certain Bush has done a poor job (thus is equivalent to continued uncertainty at best...poorer conditions at worst). Moondog has enumerated the reasons he believes this to be true. Now reasonable people (no check that).....idiots could disagree and I respect their right, as idiots, to do so. However, if you concur with Moondog...then the wise things to do is select path B (Kerry). As long as....of course you could be certain that path B won't result in a worse outcome. Now again, one could argue Kerry would be worse. I would again refer them to Bush's record which Moondog has illustrated and ask them...how and in what way he could/would be worse. I think they'd be hard pressed to make that argument. And if they said the were not sure or even had an idea that there was at least a 51 percent Kerry would not be worse (NOTICE: they don't even have to say he'd be better.) Then...it is WISE to vote against.
As an aside...one could argue there are other potential paths available (3rd candidates). Because I live in the realm of reality, I disagree. Funny....my grasp on rational thought is also why I don't support Bush-Cheney but I digress. Back to my point...I agree it's unfortunate only 2 paths exist and certainly support efforts to blaze new trails but until those routes can actually produce an outcome...I'm still lost in the woods and thus forced to take one of the paths that will POTENTIALLY save me.
Another twist to the forest analogy -
I imagine voting for a third party candidate as refusing the two well-worn paths and clearing out a new trail in the woods. I'm all for changing the system through campaign reform and grassroots organizing. I've voted for third party candidates and plan to again in the future, especially on a local level. However, if the forest is completely ablaze, making a new path just seems crazy silly.
Post a Comment