Draft Dodging Scarecrow
Year of Mao Zedong
Vote third party. Or Mickey Mouse. That's what I'll do. Well, if there is a third party guy who I like, I'll vote him, if not, Mickey Mouse.
Girl Encourages Voting; Provokes Me
- Thread starter 0sm0se
- Start date
Draft Dodging Scarecrow
Year of Mao Zedong
avi
W3RK3R
lizard
Member
Nils, just food for thought, read this post from Bobharris.com on why voting even if you feel there is no choice is important. The much vaunted youth vote did not materialize and they are going to pay for that for the next 20 years as Bush will fill at least several supreme court seats with lunatics.
.........................
The Nine Most Important Reasons To Vote For Kerry
Monday, 25 October 2004
NOTE -- this post will stay here until after the election. New posts are below.
ELECTION EVE UPDATE: Instead of returning to the bench, Rehnquist is now undergoing heavy-duty chemo and radiation, the course of treatment experts say you'd expect if he is, indeed, far worse off than has so far been acknowledged.
UPDATE: Salon reports that, despite most media accounts, Rehnquist may be gravely ill:
Numerous medical studies only mention tracheotomy -- in which surgeons cut a hole into a patient's windpipe to aid breathing -- as a treatment for a rare form of thyroid cancer called anaplastic carcinoma. According to the University of Virginia Health Center, "anaplastic carcinoma is an extremely serious and aggressive thyroid cancer which often results in the death of the patient within several months of diagnosis."
And from the Los Angeles Times:
The most dangerous form is anaplastic... "one of the most malignant types of cancer known to humans," said Dr. Yuri Nikiforov, a pathologist and thyroid expert at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine... Fatality rates top 95 percent in the first year after diagnosis...
A tracheotomy indicates that the tumor threatened to obstruct Rehnquist's windpipe, and that the tumor is fast-growing, according to several outside thyroid specialists. "At his age, having had a tracheotomy, the first thing that comes to mind is... anaplastic thyroid cancer," said Dr. Peter Singer, chief of clinical endocrinology at USC's Keck School of Medicine.
Make no mistake: we are likely about to decide the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation.
John Paul Stevens, age 84. Cancer survivor.
William Rehnquist, age 80. Currently hospitalized for thyroid cancer.
Sandra Day O'Connor, age 74. Cancer survivor.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 71. Cancer survivor.
Antonin Scalia, age 68
Anthony Kennedy, age 68
Stephen Breyer, age 66
David Souter, age 65
Clarence Thomas, age 56
Only Thomas is below conventional retirement age. And while Bush has played coy about whom he would appoint, his record is clear.
Charles Pickering, for example, has been consistently hostile to civil rights and voting rights issues while siding with cross-burners (literally) and advocating increased enforcement of Mississippi's laws making interracial marriage a crime.
Bush announced his appointment, in defiance of Congress while they were recessed, on the Martin Luther King holiday weekend.
Bush's other recess appointment that weekend was Alabama's William Pryor, who has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history" -- even when pressed to consider the Plessy v. Ferguson separate-but-equal ruling or the Dred Scott black-have-no-rights-at-all decision.
Spend a little time researching Pickering and Pryor. Please don't take my word for it. Google around. See what Bush really considers important in his judges.
And don't lose sight of the wink-at-his-base symbolism involved: Bush appointed these two horrific nutjobs... on the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. You can almost hear him snickering.
Fortunately, because Pickering and Pryor were end-run recess appointments, they expire at the end of the year. We're not stuck with them forever... yet.
Giving George W. Bush another shot at one, two, or three seats on this court would change the course of civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, and every issue most Americans dear for a generation.
.........................
The Nine Most Important Reasons To Vote For Kerry
Monday, 25 October 2004
NOTE -- this post will stay here until after the election. New posts are below.
ELECTION EVE UPDATE: Instead of returning to the bench, Rehnquist is now undergoing heavy-duty chemo and radiation, the course of treatment experts say you'd expect if he is, indeed, far worse off than has so far been acknowledged.
UPDATE: Salon reports that, despite most media accounts, Rehnquist may be gravely ill:
Numerous medical studies only mention tracheotomy -- in which surgeons cut a hole into a patient's windpipe to aid breathing -- as a treatment for a rare form of thyroid cancer called anaplastic carcinoma. According to the University of Virginia Health Center, "anaplastic carcinoma is an extremely serious and aggressive thyroid cancer which often results in the death of the patient within several months of diagnosis."
And from the Los Angeles Times:
The most dangerous form is anaplastic... "one of the most malignant types of cancer known to humans," said Dr. Yuri Nikiforov, a pathologist and thyroid expert at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine... Fatality rates top 95 percent in the first year after diagnosis...
A tracheotomy indicates that the tumor threatened to obstruct Rehnquist's windpipe, and that the tumor is fast-growing, according to several outside thyroid specialists. "At his age, having had a tracheotomy, the first thing that comes to mind is... anaplastic thyroid cancer," said Dr. Peter Singer, chief of clinical endocrinology at USC's Keck School of Medicine.
Make no mistake: we are likely about to decide the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation.
John Paul Stevens, age 84. Cancer survivor.
William Rehnquist, age 80. Currently hospitalized for thyroid cancer.
Sandra Day O'Connor, age 74. Cancer survivor.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 71. Cancer survivor.
Antonin Scalia, age 68
Anthony Kennedy, age 68
Stephen Breyer, age 66
David Souter, age 65
Clarence Thomas, age 56
Only Thomas is below conventional retirement age. And while Bush has played coy about whom he would appoint, his record is clear.
Charles Pickering, for example, has been consistently hostile to civil rights and voting rights issues while siding with cross-burners (literally) and advocating increased enforcement of Mississippi's laws making interracial marriage a crime.
Bush announced his appointment, in defiance of Congress while they were recessed, on the Martin Luther King holiday weekend.
Bush's other recess appointment that weekend was Alabama's William Pryor, who has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history" -- even when pressed to consider the Plessy v. Ferguson separate-but-equal ruling or the Dred Scott black-have-no-rights-at-all decision.
Spend a little time researching Pickering and Pryor. Please don't take my word for it. Google around. See what Bush really considers important in his judges.
And don't lose sight of the wink-at-his-base symbolism involved: Bush appointed these two horrific nutjobs... on the Martin Luther King holiday weekend. You can almost hear him snickering.
Fortunately, because Pickering and Pryor were end-run recess appointments, they expire at the end of the year. We're not stuck with them forever... yet.
Giving George W. Bush another shot at one, two, or three seats on this court would change the course of civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, and every issue most Americans dear for a generation.
minxnim
meow
what do you guys care about him voting? he'd probably have gone all corky and voted for bush anyway so be glad he stayed home.
The Dope
Hi.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
lizard
Member
because 1) I'm a stupid dreamer and 2) I think it kind of sucks that the lethargy exhibited by the youngest eligible voters punishes ME as much as it does them.
it's all about ME. MEMMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME
it's all about ME. MEMMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME
minxnim
meow
it's not necessarily WRONG to not vote or because of LETHARGY but if you want to see it that way (which is to say, b/c they are not doing what you want) that's cool. everyone has the option to dig their own grave the way they want to dig it.
lizard
Member
I agree with why do you care so much, but Alex and Amanda, do I really seem dumb enough to vote for Bush? As a future medical professional, can you see me turning my back on abortion and stem cell research? Likewise, I can't vote for the socialization of medical care, which was coupled with voting for Kerry. That was my problem with the election was the packaging of the party platforms. If one candidate had a policy I agreed with, voting for him came with an unfortunate consequence in some other area on some other issue. So I was left to choose between the lesser of two evils, to decide which package of horrendous policies I was willing to put up with for the next 4 years. I was strongly considering Kerry for a little while before election day but to be honest, the commentary of other Democrats turned me off. The constant Bush-bashing as opposed to any discourse on issues and the constant insult I received upon saying that I didn't know if I was gonna vote for Kerry turned me away from the idea. Just because I'm not a frothing ideologue, capable of disregarding everything about a candidate because of the one positive that he isn't the other guy was not going to convert me to voting for him. Define yourself not by what you aren't, but by what you are. The Democrats ran such a miserable campaign that they couldn't even convince a nation that has had such miserable circumstances since the last election to vote them back into office. The main reason is the condescension, the same crap I'm getting right on this very board. Give me a fucking break, you are not going to win any votes by pointing to an event and screaming at the top of your lungs "LOOK BUSH IS A RETARD AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THEN YOU MUST BE TOO!" The fault of Democrats is that they don't believe they are right and better for this country KNOW that they are right and better for this country, even if they aren't, and feel no need to justify any of their conclusions to anyone because if you can't see it in the first place, you are too stupid to associate with anyways. Not to mention you expect international support to somehow affect the vote, that's like looking to your buddy who is in the cell next to yours for help defending yourself from anal rape. As much as he'd like to help you out, you're still gonna get fucked domestically in a most uncomfortable fashion.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
the "the left/Democrats need to stop being condescending or they're going to lose elections" argument is one that Bush's campaign advisor, among many other Republicans, made some time ago, and it's yet another GOP fiction designed to make people think of the Dems--and Kerry, the wealthy, windsailin' Boston Brahmin, seem "aloof" "superior" "condescending" "out of touch" "arrogant" etc. That's part of the handout the GOP gives to their supporters. It's talking points. And like many of the others, it ain't true.
gekko
Much less calm than you
- Sep 14, 2004
- 352
- 0
- 16
I am going to have to agree with Nils on this one. I actually did vote for Kerry because I do happen to have a preference. But if he truly has no preference on who is in office then I see no reason why he should have an obligation to vote. Also, I agree with the statement that a large portion of hardcore liberals are incredibly arrogent and condescending (notice my lack of quotation marks). Although both extremes have a certain amount of this I have not met nearly so many people on the Republican side (the people on another thread who said they don't want fags in the white house) who are of the opinion that "I am right and if you don't agree with me you must be a moron." I have been directly assaulted by liberals like this when expressing concern over who to vote for at the point when I wasn't sure and when discussing some of the irresponsibilities of the extreme liberal media (ie Michael Moore). I can say very few things piss me off more and are less effectual at achieving their goal. Its kind of funny that the people who are so vocal about how wrong things are in the government were unable to convince enough people through their tactics to change the way things are.
Alex, I was refering to the everyday democrats, everyone I talk to talks down to me like I'm a third-grader when I say I don't support Kerry. That or gets angry with me for "being so ignorant." You yourself are arrogant and condescending on the whole issue. Even your reply to mine was condescending, implying that I'm uninformed. Trust me, I know its standard talking points, I talk to Republicans as well. I generally find both groups to be assholes but I can't count the amount of times I've been called stupid by a democrat, just because my opinion wasn't the same as theirs. Both sides are closed-minded but if you express a different opinion than a democrat, they assume its because you are inbred or mentally retarded.
Similar threads
