Two brief reminders
That Kerry really sucks:
Kerry vs. Kerry-lite
Bush vs. Bush-lite
Both via Left I On the News.
And the "Democratic" repression machine is out in full force trying to silence anyone who tries to point this out. The insults and name-calling towards a Nader supporter in Atrios' comments were repellent.
I don't know what I'm going to do. I think we owe it to the world to stop meddling with their politics, stealing their resources, and exploiting their labor while destroying the world environment in the process. In foreign and economic policy terms, Kerry only promises to do what Bush is doing more efficiently, and with more help. I don't know about you, but I prefer an incompetent criminal acting on his own to a brilliant gang leader intent on the same crimes. Here's a choice quote from the first of those two articles:
As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he didn't drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring to strike a grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's divide up the loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a gang rape is better than a rape carried out by a lone assailant, which, I gather, would make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and therefore more worthy of our backing than a rapist who goes it alone.
But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq, managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking France, Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted twist of reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of Iraq with legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned rapists into a gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral weight.
Since neither Bush nor Kerry has any intention of addressing the real problems with this country, I'm seriously considering moving to another one. With the agreed-upon goals of Bush and Kerry, no place is safe from American meddling. If Kerry's going to meddle more efficiently and ruin my sanctuary sooner, why should I care if my vote for Nader would actually be a vote for Bush?
[Note: This is angry lashing out, not a reasoned statement about what I'm going to do nor a suggestion about what you should do. But I do think everybody should know exactly what Anybody-but-Bush Kerry is offering: Better-managed wars.]
That Kerry really sucks:
Kerry vs. Kerry-lite
Bush vs. Bush-lite
Both via Left I On the News.
And the "Democratic" repression machine is out in full force trying to silence anyone who tries to point this out. The insults and name-calling towards a Nader supporter in Atrios' comments were repellent.
I don't know what I'm going to do. I think we owe it to the world to stop meddling with their politics, stealing their resources, and exploiting their labor while destroying the world environment in the process. In foreign and economic policy terms, Kerry only promises to do what Bush is doing more efficiently, and with more help. I don't know about you, but I prefer an incompetent criminal acting on his own to a brilliant gang leader intent on the same crimes. Here's a choice quote from the first of those two articles:
As for Iraq, if Kerry has a problem with Bush, it's that he didn't drag France, Germany and Russia into the war, preferring to strike a grabby, it's all mine, pose, rather than the "let's divide up the loot" approach the Democrats favor. Apparently, a gang rape is better than a rape carried out by a lone assailant, which, I gather, would make a gang rapist a rapist-lite, and therefore more worthy of our backing than a rapist who goes it alone.
But, for the record, Washington hasn't gone it alone in Iraq, managing to cobble together a coalition, though one lacking France, Germany and Russia, whose backing, in some perverted twist of reasoning, is supposed to have invested the rape of Iraq with legitimacy. Apparently, if you can lure other renowned rapists into a gang rape, it gives the whole sordid affair moral weight.
Since neither Bush nor Kerry has any intention of addressing the real problems with this country, I'm seriously considering moving to another one. With the agreed-upon goals of Bush and Kerry, no place is safe from American meddling. If Kerry's going to meddle more efficiently and ruin my sanctuary sooner, why should I care if my vote for Nader would actually be a vote for Bush?
[Note: This is angry lashing out, not a reasoned statement about what I'm going to do nor a suggestion about what you should do. But I do think everybody should know exactly what Anybody-but-Bush Kerry is offering: Better-managed wars.]
<< Home