Politics and the state of affairs
LAUREN I LOVE YOU AND YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT READ THE FOLLOWING
First-- if you guys haven't read Tsurara's entry regarding Republican and conservative criticism of President Bush and care at all, you should. I dunno if her journal's friends-only, but if you can see it, it's worth reading. It did a lot of adding to suspicions or ideas that had cropped up in my mind, and it's important to me that these are coming from conservative publications and people... I hope they're substantial. I might yoink them for my own reference-- Tsurara, if you read this, THANK YOU MADAM.
I really am glad I can't vote. I really really am. Because... well, it's like a cartoon I saw said-- a man and his wife were talking about supporting a presidential cadidate, and he didn't like Kerry because he couldn't tell whether or not he was lying and he kept changing what he said. "That's why I support Bush! When he tells a lie-- by God, he sticks to it!"
I feel like this race is like that sometimes. I really do. Kerry is full of it. I believe this. It was evidenced in the third debate, when he told an outright lie-- that Bush had never met with the black caucus or the NAACP and he had. If that's the only lie he's ever told, which I doubt but is possible, it's too bad really, because something like that will definitely tarnish his reputation when people care about it. Like I do. (WHY DID NO ONE REPORT THAT THE NEXT DAY?]
Bush is also full of it. The difference is that the BS he's feeding us isn't all about knocking his opponent, because he's already president and has that to rest on-- such as it is. He's telling us how rosy the future of Iraq is, and how grateful the people are, and how we are succeeding, while Allawi makes his own "speech" that is essentially the same thing. I cannot comprehend how he can say these things without the entire world saying OH BULLHOCKEY.
I wonder sometimes if they both are given a factsheet and an assurance that everything on it is true, so they just say things without knowing one way or another.
Mama says the important thing isn't whether or not it's proved wrong, it's that it was out there in the first place. Like the Swift Boat business, or the he-shirked-duty-beyond-not-going-overseas business. It doesn't matter whether either or neither or both of those have been discredited-- what matters is that everyone has this question of Kerry's military past and Bush's serving at all floating around in their minds, and a simple "oh we were wrong" will change very little. That's how people work. Just SAYING STUFF will put forward ideas that you want to be out there regardless of accuracy.
So what do I do? If they're both full of it, then do I go with the one whose own campaign member friend advisor man says he wants everyone to like him and his words reflect that, or the one who doesn't give a flying rat's you-know-what who likes him or if he's really right, because he's going to stick with what he says and does, because it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, darnit?
I'm really afraid of the outcome of the election. Either way I am afraid.
On that note, there are about five ways the election could end in a tie, and if that happens, the House of Representatives votes, each representative getting together with other members from that state to choose how to cast that state's one vote, and Bush wins.
Both sides have lawyers out the wahoo, and Whitaker predicts that come Wednesday we will not know who our President is. He also says, "I don't care who wins-- well, I do, but I would rather the candidate I don't want to win, win, than not have a president on November 3rd."
I love Mister Whitaker.
AND ALSO
"One of the managers was later fired by the company and is part of a lawsuit charging Custer Battles with defrauding the federal government of tens of millions of dollars. The other manager, who has since been appointed to a high-level position with the company, recently declared that after further research, he believed that any questionable practices were the fault of a few individuals and had not been condoned by the owners." --NYTimes article from today, I'll edit with details later.
Does that sound like a coincidence? Am I just paranoid? You guys read it-- it's the article about Custer Battles.
I'll rant more after school. Now is lunch.
First-- if you guys haven't read Tsurara's entry regarding Republican and conservative criticism of President Bush and care at all, you should. I dunno if her journal's friends-only, but if you can see it, it's worth reading. It did a lot of adding to suspicions or ideas that had cropped up in my mind, and it's important to me that these are coming from conservative publications and people... I hope they're substantial. I might yoink them for my own reference-- Tsurara, if you read this, THANK YOU MADAM.
I really am glad I can't vote. I really really am. Because... well, it's like a cartoon I saw said-- a man and his wife were talking about supporting a presidential cadidate, and he didn't like Kerry because he couldn't tell whether or not he was lying and he kept changing what he said. "That's why I support Bush! When he tells a lie-- by God, he sticks to it!"
I feel like this race is like that sometimes. I really do. Kerry is full of it. I believe this. It was evidenced in the third debate, when he told an outright lie-- that Bush had never met with the black caucus or the NAACP and he had. If that's the only lie he's ever told, which I doubt but is possible, it's too bad really, because something like that will definitely tarnish his reputation when people care about it. Like I do. (WHY DID NO ONE REPORT THAT THE NEXT DAY?]
Bush is also full of it. The difference is that the BS he's feeding us isn't all about knocking his opponent, because he's already president and has that to rest on-- such as it is. He's telling us how rosy the future of Iraq is, and how grateful the people are, and how we are succeeding, while Allawi makes his own "speech" that is essentially the same thing. I cannot comprehend how he can say these things without the entire world saying OH BULLHOCKEY.
I wonder sometimes if they both are given a factsheet and an assurance that everything on it is true, so they just say things without knowing one way or another.
Mama says the important thing isn't whether or not it's proved wrong, it's that it was out there in the first place. Like the Swift Boat business, or the he-shirked-duty-beyond-not-going-overseas business. It doesn't matter whether either or neither or both of those have been discredited-- what matters is that everyone has this question of Kerry's military past and Bush's serving at all floating around in their minds, and a simple "oh we were wrong" will change very little. That's how people work. Just SAYING STUFF will put forward ideas that you want to be out there regardless of accuracy.
So what do I do? If they're both full of it, then do I go with the one whose own campaign member friend advisor man says he wants everyone to like him and his words reflect that, or the one who doesn't give a flying rat's you-know-what who likes him or if he's really right, because he's going to stick with what he says and does, because it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, darnit?
I'm really afraid of the outcome of the election. Either way I am afraid.
On that note, there are about five ways the election could end in a tie, and if that happens, the House of Representatives votes, each representative getting together with other members from that state to choose how to cast that state's one vote, and Bush wins.
Both sides have lawyers out the wahoo, and Whitaker predicts that come Wednesday we will not know who our President is. He also says, "I don't care who wins-- well, I do, but I would rather the candidate I don't want to win, win, than not have a president on November 3rd."
I love Mister Whitaker.
AND ALSO
"One of the managers was later fired by the company and is part of a lawsuit charging Custer Battles with defrauding the federal government of tens of millions of dollars. The other manager, who has since been appointed to a high-level position with the company, recently declared that after further research, he believed that any questionable practices were the fault of a few individuals and had not been condoned by the owners." --NYTimes article from today, I'll edit with details later.
Does that sound like a coincidence? Am I just paranoid? You guys read it-- it's the article about Custer Battles.
I'll rant more after school. Now is lunch.