Comments for Thursday, October 07, 2004

Rob (209 comments)
Anyone who watched the presidential and vice-presidential debates saw that Cheney is a more intelligent man than Bush. So who are the "ultra-conservative puppetmasters", and how do you know? This sounds suspiciously like a watered-down right-wing conspiracy theory to me. The fact is that Bush is taking responsibility for his policies, even if he didn't come up with them.

From your description, it sounds like the Controlled Apathy party is a bunch of douche bags. Why not do the research, learn what the historical consequences of certain types of policies have been, spend some time evaluating each candidate's policy against established economic theory, and then make a real decision?

The candidates indeed sound too much the same on too many issues, but their political records seem to say otherwise. Bush may well be guilty of pertenaciously clinging to unsubstantiated dogmata about such issues stem-cell research and gay marriage. But legislating one side of moral issues is never going to fly anyway, so I'm not worried about that.

I've never seen any real evidence that Bush's political support for business was intended solely to line his own pockets. I am more convinced that a tax cut on the middle class will do relatively little to create jobs because the poor man never gave anyone a job. Jobs are created when investors have the confidence to take risks and back companies that they think will grow (and create jobs). It seems to me that this is a more reasonable idea than the idea that somehow the President of the Unites States is going to sit down in the oval office one day and say "Hmm, I think I'll create 10,000 manufacturing jobs today."

John Kerry's promise to allow the purchase of cheaper prescription medications from Canada is idiotic. Canada has a socialized health care system. The reason drugs are cheaper is because the Canadian taxpayers are all footing the bill. The tax-paying Canadians will probably not be happy about paying for drugs that they will never see. Why would Kerry make such an unrealistic promise? It sounds good in a campaign ad (when left unsupported by any facts). Both candidates are guilty of spin doctoring their claims by leaving out crucial background information. This is why it is essential for the voter to take the time to research the issues, the candidates' voting records, and the real reasons behind them.

Just as Andy Rooney said on 60 Minutes last weekend: If you don't care about the issues, don't vote. If you don't know who your two senators are (or your local representative in Congress), don't vote. If you haven't done any background research on the candidates, their records, or their proposed policies, DONT VOTE!

Just my 2 cents; YMMV.
BU (1532 comments)
That's why I'm an apathetic douche bag and you're not.

To me, the issues are the least important facet of this specific election. I'm not voting for Kerry because he'll vote the way I want on issues, I'm voting for Kerry because it's time for Bush to go. If Bush returns to office for another four years, that legitimatizes all his actions from the past four years. He's made it clear that he'll stay his course because it's the right way to go, and that's what I disagree with -- not a specific issue, just the overall feel of his entire term.

Sure, Kerry may end up to be worse. And if that's the case, I'll vote against him in 2008. That's what terms are for.
BU (1532 comments)
This is from one of the emails I received yesterday:
    People have said that Bush (and Republicans) are a poor group in general with dealing with Foreign nations (the difference being that Republicans do not give a shit what they think of the US / want to reap in the benefits of their resources and the Democrats kissing their asses and throwing more money at them so they don't hate us)

    Sir, I do not support the war in Iraq (but I support doing some policing to terrorism, even if it is minimum). The problem with Democrats is they want to tax the hell out of everyone in hopes that throwing money at the problem will fix it. Well, I'm sick and tired of seeing my money being wasted. The only difference is that Bush is more honest in how well waste our money than Kerry.

    As of every election, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. While I don't support gay marriage but am for abortion, the latter is more important and thus well less likely be overturned anytime soon.

    But the bottom line is, politicians are soulless idiots and only care about having their prestigious job more than "rocking the boat" and really actually making a difference.

    But what you really care about, is unknown. My key issue, has always been taxes..and that the Government is too stupid to know how to spend it, and takes it for granted. Generally, the lower taxes are, thus the more money people will have to spend to use it whatever way they choose. People who's jobs are Government funded really have no right to the sense of bias. The whole agenda of every politician is to get as much Government involvement into people's lives as much as possible... and why in the hell should any of us actually care or give a shit about the elections?

    Neither Kerry or Bush will rock the boat. Nobody likes seeing a radical change. Unless, of course, it's the extremists. And who the hell likes them? Not I.
BU (1532 comments)
I agree with much of what is said here. When it comes to taxes, I'm already resigned to pay a decent chunk of my wages, so I'd rather have that money directed back into the country rather than dumped into the military and foreign countries.

The Democrats, with all their roses and sunshine, will throw enough money at some vague societal woe that they actually might end up helping one or two real people in the process. I'm economically able to support myself, so it won't affect me either way.
anti-political/pro-morality (1 comment)
It is outrageous that there can be a total lack of morality in politics. I understand that there must be separation of church and state, but it is ridiculous to say that someone is a "shadowy ultra-conservative" or is relying on their gut, when they are simply allowing a basic moral code to guide their actions. It's stupid to say that Bush will support other amendments about gays when he is just using common sense and protecting the sanctity of a natural marriage. Besides, if you're such an apathetic person, why do you care about gays anyway? That doesn't affect the economy. I think you should do some serious searching about what morality means and figure out that some things really do matter. I don't think Bush is not intelligent enough to tackle issues, I think the general public is not intelligent enough to understand the importance of the things he stands for.

Add a Comment

Have a blog or a Facebook page you would like linked to your posts? Need a new avatar? Email me at .