« bleary eyed hackerboy | Main | i'm stuck with the tinyblog »

i have to say something

Please do not vote for George Bush.

I know that his confident leadership seems very important in such a hellish time. He seems to send such a confident, common-sense, one-pointed message.

Really though, it's a message of being confidently willing to murder and torture tens of thousands of people to protect the interests of he, his family and his direct constituency.

I know that John Kerry represents a much less surefooted path. We all wish there was a strong, compassionate, realistic leader with vision and grace to lead us.

You may complain that we only have two choices, and that they both seem so similar. But in this situation, by selecting one of them you are sending a message about how the next to choices need to position themselves.

John Kerry saw firsthand what it was like to be involved in the business of killing and fear for money. He's trying to sell his heroism, but frankly I wish he could sell his inner conflict. I wish he could talk about why he threw his medals (ribbons, whatever).

I'd rather see America enter into a less confident negotiation with the world, and would be willing to accept a decreased standard of living if it means that my tax money would have less blood on it.

To my friends in Rockford, I ask you to reconsider your position.

George Bush being president is physically harmful to the people of the world and I think that John Kerry and his conflicted standpoints are less harmful.

I endorse John Kerry for president.


Dan, tho I have always thought of you as a very intelligent person (and still do), I have to say that I for one can not agree with you. John Kerry has not only flip flopped on so much, but he insulted every father,son,mother, daughter that gave their life in that horrible war. Some of them even got to come back home to a horrible existance. Tho I understand your point and also feel Bush to be extreme, I would rather error on the side of safety. I am sure everyone who buried a loved one after 9-11 would agree with that view point.

I, too, endorse John Kerry for president.
Having a president who is so confident about the need to kill; who has a joyful look when he speaks on destruction; who can say we'll never win the war on terror, and continues to fight it - that is dangerous.

And really, how can we war on a noun? I thought war involved fighting back. Is terror warring on America?

for those of you with broadband, i highly recommend watching Comedy Central's _George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Actions_

In answer to your question Suki, yes terror is warring on America. I know it's fun to make fun of the way things are worded sometimes, but be realistic, we were attacked by terrorists who want nothing les than to see the destruction of our way of life.

I do not have the space to explain my entire view on John Kerry here, so I will refer you to my blog, read some of my posts about Kerry. In short, Kerry represents whatever it is you want to hear. On every major issue he has changed his mind at least once, usually more. In the 70's John Kerry DID talk about why he threw his medals/ribbons/whatever, on the Whitehouse lawn, and those reasons disgust me.
George Bush has proven he has what it takes to put America first. I DO NOT want us to enter into less confident negotiations with the world, because frankly, the rest of the world should strive to be more like us, rather than us trying to lower ourselves to them.
There is so much more to say, but I do not have the time right now to start.

Bush 2004 =s uicide bombers at burger king 2005. Please don't vote for Bush. Please.

Plus, most people don't have terror proof sunglasses like I do. Props to Suki.

Sorry Dan, but there is not a shot in hell John Kerry will get a vote out of me at this time. However I'm also not sold on bush. And I disagree on their being only two choices. Unfortunantly the two reining political parties (Democrats and Republicans) do have control of our political system so the American Sheep feel that if you vote for a third party you are throwing your vote away. I however say that if enough of America wakes up and starts voting for other candidates then maybe the Dems and Reps (who like it are not are in bed with each other to keep it a two party system) might wake up and start giving us candidates that actually are worth voting for. An Example: Illinois senate race. I can't stand either Obama or Keyes... So I'm writing in my vote.

Right off the bat I�d like to say that this response has far more to do with previous discussions and debates I�ve had with Daniel than with the content of this post or Daniel�s reasons for endorsing John Kerry for president. I mention several things here that were in e-mails and discussions Daniel and I have had, and several of my references will be lost on anyone but Daniel. I apologize for that. I also decided to post this here instead of in an e-mail because I feel it�s something I need to say publicly.
Respect or condemn me for that as you will.

In our e-mail discussion of that Harper�s Article, you mentioned that I should know how painful direct conflict can be, seeing as how often in the past I had used deception (lies) to avoid such.
You were only half-right. I also have learned through hard lessons how such actions never end up making a situation better in the long run, and usually end up causing several times more harm than a direct conflict would. As such, I decided to stop pretending things didn�t bother me on a fundamental level and just air this in the open.

I stand for everything you despise.

I�m one of those people you sneeringly refer to as a �common sense type� (your using �common sense� as an attribute worthy of derision speaks volumes).
I�m an agnostic, but lean pro-Christian, and while I�m not rabid about it I tend to support the pro-life viewpoint.
I oppose activist judges making sweeping societal changes independent from an elected legislature, be it regarding gay marriage or any other issue.
I respect my country, and it�s symbols.
I believe that posting a link to the full �Star Spangled Banner�, including the less known �4th stanza� on my website is not �jingoistic�, or worthy of derision.
I am a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment.
I don�t believe that kids are starving in Somalia because I�m eating a Big Mac here.
I believe that personal responsibility is the main factor in people�s health choices, and I do not blame the food industry one bit for my being a fat ass.
I believe the UN is a parasitical organization that has far outlived its usefulness, and is corrupt to its core. Our politicians are rife with corruption, but at least we can vote the bastards out.
I support a strong military, and while I don�t think all the world�s problems can be solved by letting the army go in and �Kick ass old school � like you seem to believe I do, I know from history that when a ruthless dictator who murders and rapes people for sport ignores dozens of un-enforced resolutions from UN diplomats, they won�t ignore dozens of cruise missiles.
I believe that there are Fundamentalist Islamic religious leaders who have huge amounts of people willing to die as long as they take a westerner with them. Not because of Bush. Not because of anything we�ve done, but because of the fact that we�re not converts to Fundamentalist Islam. These murderers are even butchering other Muslims who don�t adhere to their strict interpretation of their faith.
I think these people need to be killed.

You stand for everything I despise.

You dismiss the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as being written to benefit rich, white, slaveholders.
You see America as being the main source of the world�s ills, and hope (as evidenced by this post) we become weak so we can�t harm the rest of the planet anymore.
You see no harm in burning a US flag on a lark.
You think America is an imperialistic force, but not (in your own words as we sat on mom�s deck several weeks back) �the old definition of imperialism� which consists of annexing territory and exacting tribute from it. I�m not exactly sure what the �new� definition is, but judging by how much people on the left bandy that word about it seems to mean �anything done overseas by a conservative administration�.
You believe Bush is a complete idiot, yet at the same time a mastermind capable of hatching dark conspiracies to deceive the American public. You didn�t come right out and say it, but from things you�ve sent me you seem to say you believe that Bush & Halliburton had something to do with 9/11 (apologies if I�m wrong on that point).
You dismiss personal responsibility as the main factor in people�s poor health decisions, and choose to blame big business instead.
You believe that the UN is an altruistic organization that does more good than harm.
You endorse a man for president who was directly responsible for thousands of our troops being spit upon and insulted when returning from Viet Nam, because he (with a whole four months in country, two of those on ship) had enough experience to label every man and woman in uniform as a �murdering war criminal� in front of congress to further his political career.
You believe that the reason Islamic terrorists attack us is because of the policies of conservatives in our government, and by appeasing them the attacks will stop.

I�ve sat in the last month on and off looking at the e-mail debate we�ve been having, trying to get my points across. I had reams of evidence, points I wanted to make, etc.
All pointless. Neither of us is going to budge. The fact that you can take my statement that I think everyone in the UN building should be shot as serious when you know me so well punctuates that point (granted it�s kind of hard to relay snarkiness in an e-mail, but you should have known better. To then ask me if I thought a little ethnic cleansing was next was over the top).

I�ve given up trying to reconcile our differing beliefs. Call me a cop out and claim �victory� as you will, I no longer care. I read your viewpoints on certain things and they blast through my hardened layers of detachment and actually make me physically ill. I�ve sat in the last month on and off looking
at the e-mail debate we�ve been having, trying to get my points across. I had reams of evidence, points I wanted to make, etc.
All pointless.
I�ve never been the type to take up a cause, but I will do everything within my power to make sure my children do not end up living in the neutered country you endorse. I�ve never felt this strongly about anything in my life. I�ve seen the historical consequences of the path of appeasement you endorse, and (unlike most people on the left) choose to learn from those lessons. For me this upcoming election has far more to do with two differing philosophies on how our government should be structured down to it�s core than it does about which career politician happens to be sitting in the oval office.
You often refer to me as a childhood friend, and you�re right. Even though I was older than you, I was still a child. We�re both grown up now, and we�ve chosen our paths. I wish I could let things slide off me without caring like I could when I was a child, but I find that I no longer can.
It�s kind of poetic that I spent most of the early hours of 9/11 agonizing over this.
Now I have two things to mourn on that date. One a national tragedy and the other the day when I realized I couldn�t, in my heart, consider someone who is so deeply opposed to everything I believe in, on so many levels, to be a friend.
It fucking hurts.
I bear you no ill will. I hope you lead a long and fruitful (but politically frustrated) life.
I�m through with you.

I admire your desire for peace and calm. That is not reality. You and I don't want to find violence, but violence is looking for us. We cannot pretend it does not exist and pretend that we will not face it. It is our moral obligation to defend ourselves, and others that are our friends. Even if we have to give our lives. So...who would Jesus bomb? Not sure He would, but there is a time for peace and a time for war. We are at war!