So I got this comment on my post-election post...
Honestly now, did you really think that John Kerry was the best thing for this country? You are in the minority on that one. All this election came down to really was choosing the lesser of two evils, better the one we know than the one we don't know. I know that personally the thought of John Kerry running this country made me sick, I would like to have a world where I can have children someday. I just saw mushroom clouds when I pictured Kerry as President. I'd rather our nation be on the offensive rather than a defensive position when it comes to terrorism. Back on September 11th I thanked God that we had a "crazy cowboy" in the White House, we needed to go and kick some a** and that's what he did. Do you think Gore or any other Democrat would have had the cojones to do that? NO!
This from Princess_1979. To which I respond:
Princess, Princess, Princess. Why in the hell do people think that a war will stop a war? What the hell kind of logic is that? Besides, using your strike-first logic, we should be worried about going on the offensive against nations that actually have the will and the ability to produce those future mushroom clouds you mentioned--like, say, North Korea? How about China? Did we go in and give a military bitch slap to India or Pakistan? Nope. Nope we didn't. Which just might indicate that this war, against a poor, sad little country--that had fuck all to do with the Sept. 11th attacks, or has everyone frigging forgotten that?--was little more than very expensive (in terms of lives and money) posturing on the part of a president who doesn't know what the sam hell he's doing. Period. Oh, sure, he's putting on a good show, with his tough talk and fancy bomber jackets and spin, but for what? Record deficits, job losses, lost lives, an underfunded education system, and he's hell-bent on screwing the poor in every which way--overtime pay, nope; an increase in minimum wage to match rising costs of living? uh-uh; and so on. Hell, let's not even deal with his big failings, let's talk about the little ones--he barely speaks English!
And yes, many of us, seeing Kerry's record (I happened to be in the hotel ballroom with him and his supporters the night he won the senate race in MA, as I was covering a story, and the man is both intelligent and eloquent, unlike Bush) believe he was the right man for this job, you know, having actually served in defense of this country and all, or has everyone chosen to ignore the fact that Shrub is a draft-dodger, too? How about Shrub's alcohol and cocaine abuse? Ignored. (Yet Clinton admits to smoking pot once, and Republicans act like he's satan incarnate. Of course, that is the republican way--it's wrong and unforgivable, unless they've done it. Then people need to pray for them. Hypocrites.) You know, changing your mind about something in the face of mounting evidence that you had bad information and made the wrong choice the first time around isn't flip-flopping, it's rational behavior. If you made three wrong turns and ended up on a road that led to a cliff, would you keep driving to stand by your decisions or back the hell up, turn around and look for gas and directions? I mean, damn.
And you know what? Yeah, the thought of Kerry being in office making you sick? Right, well four years of Bush actually has made nearly 56,000,000 of us sick, literally (since a whole hell of a lot of us have been unemployed or underemployed and thus, health-care free under his shite reign, or did you miss the fact that the number of uninsured Americans has grown under Bush, too?) and/or figuratively. We were just outnumbered by the inmates now running the asylum.
And the majority that voted for Bush, presumably, by your reasoning, because they believed we needed a "crazy cowboy" in the Whitehouse after 9/11? How 'bout the fact that those people were the ones in places not directly affected by the tragedy? Will al Qaeda be attacking Alabama any time soon? Not. Bloody. Likely. New York, D.C., Boston, L.A.? Maybe a slightly higher chance, there, huh? And somehow, all the states in which these cities lie went to Kerry, indicating that the 48% minority (which is a rather large minority, BTW), you know, the folks who've actually suffered and will likely be targets again? Yeah, those folks trusted Kerry, sweetie.
And last, but not bloody least--as any woman trying to conceive can tell you, having cojones doesn't count for shit if you can't shoot your load in the right fucking place.
posted by Sid @ 11/12/2004 01:16:00 PM
9 Comments:
*applause* I'm not going to attempt to add a thing to that, Sid. Just wanted to say GOOD POST, especially the last paragraph.
Don't hurt the girl's feelings! DAMN!
"You Go Girl!!!!!"
lol
and it doesn't get much better than that there. that's the best homie-don't-play-dat-three-tennis-balls-in-a-black-dress-sock bitch slap i've ever witnessed. game on...
-thizz-faced negromaticus
i do believe that douche got served.
although, with a username like "Princess_1979"...hell, she was just asking for it.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
She thinks that starting a vindictive war with a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 strikes was smart. That's scary.
What does she think, I wonder, about the fact that after the strikes, "Mr.-Crazy-Cowboy-that-we-should-be-thankful-was-in-office" lifted the no-fly rules and allowed guess who... yep, the entire Bin-Laden family that was here in the States to leave the country - without questioning them??? Hmmm... could that be because the crazy cowboy Bushes had EXTENSIVE ties to the Bin-Ladens dating WAYYYY back and didn't want to trouble them with bothersome questions like, "hey, when's the last time you spoke to Uncle Osama???" Or was it because the United States TRAINED Bin-Laden in the art of war? Hmm... And even though 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi - they have TRILLIONS of dollars in our banks and OWN about 7% of the US - so we attack Saddam. *shaking head* what a tangled web your crazy cowboy has woven.
Minority she says? Well, being in the minority isn't a bad thing. As I recall, it worked for Bush supporters last election. Poor thing, couldn't even swagger his "crazy cowboy" self into the White House via the regular route on the day he took office for all the protestors outside with picket signs who hated the fact that in the land of the free and home of the brave, where democracy reigns supreme, someone who lost the election could take office after problems counting votes in the state where his brother is Governor.
Then this election - miraculously - the votes of the military who are overseas were not counted (think maybe because these men are tired of fighting a war that has no basis and want to come home?) and 60,000 absentee ballots were mysteriously lost in the mail from guess what state? FLORIDA again??? Who wants to bet that next presidential election we don't get a PEEP out of Florida with respect to calculating votes. I got $87,000,000,000 on it. *chuckle* Princess, even God isn't pleased with the outcome - hence the back to back hurricanes.
They say now that what we need is acceptance, so I ACCEPT the defeat of our nation and want to be among the few people who voted for Kerry to congratulate George W. Bush on winning his FIRST presidential election. =)
Princess... please... use your head and come up with an informed opinion instead of spouting off the propaganda and spoon-fed republican rhetoric.
Sorry to blog on your blog Sid, you know that's SO out of character!!! LOL But that sh*t irked me.
Way to GO! Very very very well put!
Oh man, you need a lesson in international politics, economics and foreign policy.
You seldom attack the strong - you attack those that will give you strategic positioning during a war. Guess which was the country the US attacked after Pearl Harbor? It was the French colony (who were our buddies) of Morocco.
You cannot attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan directly - they are powerful, and attacking them would affect our (and the world’s) economy. You need to play your strategies out very carefully. The US is buddies with Pakistan, while holding on to their nukes, and making sure it does not fall over to Afghanistan or any of the Arab nations. And yeah, talking of which, I can understand Pakistan - but India? Why would any one want to attack India?
We’ve a presence in Israel, and (hopefully) soon in Iraq and Iran. We have already started out on North Korea, and that will soon be taken care of, too. Bush is an excellent choice. At times of war, you need someone able. There was a reason Winston Churchill was voted into power during WW-2.
And oh, speaking of Kerry. He wanted to “strongly warn” Pakistan. And do what? Attack them? So that Jihadis get hold of their nukes and they nuke India, India nukes Pakistan, China joins in and we all die? I do not want the highschool debate captain, I want someone who can stand his ground (and not change his decisions every other minute). I do not want someone who will make us into yet another welfare state, but rather someone who will reinforce an economic system that’s been proven to work - capitalism.
Bush ain’t the best President, but he sure as hell is _leagues_ ahead of Kerry. Lay off whatever crack that you’re smoking.
And yes, I must also add this -- even during the peak of the Cold War, we never attacked Russia directly, and neither did they attack us directly. We played out our enmity out there in other countries, such as Afghanistan. It is stupidity to face your enemy head on, especially when doing so involves very great risks. On the other hand, it is stupidity to ignore them, too. Kerry would have spent all his time changing his opinions on these issues, while Islamic fundamentalism would be on the rise -- he is too weak to control or take a stance.
Post a Comment
<< Home