Sigh....how do I always end up getting myself caught up in these pointless exchanges.....I really need to learn to just keep my opinions to myself. Perhaps part of me deep down enjoys the repartee. I stumbled across someone's diary who is a pretty ardent Bush suporter- no big deal- it happens. I was reading over some of the posts, and in one, they mentioned how you always know where Bush stands, and Kerry is always changing his position. So, being the antagonizing shithead that I am, I decide to leave them a note (as follows):
Bush changes his opinion more than Kerry does, BTW. Against the department of homeland security- then for it. Against forming the 9/11 commission, then for it. Against giving the "intelligence czar" budget oversite, then for it. Said he would maintain the ban on assault weapons, then let the ban expire. Against letting his Secretary of State testify before the 9/11 commission, then for it. Woudn't testify himself, had to have Cheney with him to hold his hand, and then wouldn't give sworn testimony at all. Said he was for letting states decide on gay marriage, and then proposed a constitutional amendment banning it. And by the way, changing you mind when you were wrong is usually considered a good thing- when you're presented with all this evidence prooving you wrong on something and you refuse to acknowledge it, it makes you look like an idiot.
To which I get a response (as follows):
Hey JT, thanks for the note(s). Feeling a little unloved and unheard today so ya decided to leave two of the same? Loved the diary by the way, nice to see you fit into the sterotypical liberal profile. And here I was thinking some of you actually had thoughts independent from each other. Once again, I'm proven "wrong" by a libby. My bad. Whine much? Seriously though, you have a good day........I hope the whole angst-ridden preppy thing works out for ya. - Rick
Now see, I find this typical. Whenever I point out all of the 'flip-flopping' Bush has done to someone who is an ardent supporter, the inevitable response is always, "You Suck". And the funny thing is that when you ask a lot of them when Kerry has flip-flopped, they're hard pressed to come up with anything outside of what is run on Bush's campaign adds. Anyway, I of course can't leave well enough alone, so I send out a response:
Not sure why that posted twice- my apologies. I was compelled to leave you a note after reading your entry on how you don't know where Kerry stands on anything, and wanted to point out to you that Bush isn't any more 'resolute' than the opponent running against him- they're both politicians and pander to those who can get them elected. I am also a little displeased that you decided to respond to my post with sarcastic personal criticisms. If you wanted to prove me wrong or validate your point, you could have cited examples of when Bush has been an unwavering bastian of stewardship. In place of that, you opted to lambaste someone you do not know. Very civil of you. Anyway, we each have our own opinions and that is just fine- I was mearly pointing out something you may have neglected to take into consideration. Take care, and I hope the whole Bible-Thumping Cowboy thing works out for ya.

While on the topic, round 2 was tonight, and I must say Bush did a better job than he did last week- but that didn't take much. When he wasn't talking over Charles Gibson, he was yelling at the audience. It really seemed like he was trying make up for his poor perfomance last week, and over did it a little bit. It reminded me a lot of the scene in Office Space when that one dude was being asked what he did at work, and he totally loses it. "I work with the god damn customers, so the engineers don't have to! Christ, why can't you people understand!? I've got PEOPLE skills!!" It seemed like Bush was still trying to get his point across from last week- "Damn it, going to war was the right thing to do! Why can't you people understand that!!?" I also don't think it helps when you openly admit to not having a clue what your opponent just said, after they completed a perfectly coherent sentence. The only part of the debate that Bush did a GOOD job on was the question about stem cell research, which was really about abortion- lets be honest. This is when Bush shines- when he believes that something is the right thing. Whether you agree with him or not, when he's talking about something that he truly believes in, he is coherent, calm, and concise. The rest of the time when he's fumbling around, its because he knows he's lying through his teeth- he's just a really bad liar, which makes him a pretty shitty politician. What I liked even more though was Kerry's answer to the same question. He didn't back down an inch- he's pro choice, he's pro research, and he made that clear. He gave good reasons for not supporting an all out ban on partial birth abortions and mandatory parental notification. He pointed out the major flaws in the Patriot Act, which in MANY ways violates our rights, people. Bush completely avoided that question, because he didn't have a response- and then Bush has the audacity to say that he'd only appoint Justices that follow the Constitution. When a piece of legislation allows the government to arrest you and hold you indefinately for no reason, no access to an attorney or the rights afforded to you by the Constitution, we can't say we live in a free society anymore. I understand that trying to hunt down terrorists is a tough job, but when you sacrifice the rights of your citizens to make the job a little easier, frankly, you're just being lazy. Anyway....early polling results are showing a victory for Kerry- albeit not the resounding one he registered last week. We'll know more in the days to come.....

0 comments from the peanut gallery