October 03, 2003

Holey nookie, Batman!!! Did you just say you understood Bill Clinton perfectly??? Who are you and what did you do with Acidman?

Only three horsemen of the Apocalypse left to appear now...

Posted by: Jack on October 3, 2003 08:01 PM

I went to high school with a guy EXACTLY like Bill Clinton. Yes, I know that worthless fucker well.

Posted by: Acidman on October 3, 2003 08:38 PM

Bush lied to you? About what, exactly?

Regardless of the things the guy has done which I don't agree with, and the list is lengthy, I figure everything he HAS done right deserves standing in line for a while.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on October 3, 2003 09:25 PM

Electoral college or not, don't think of it as voting for Bush as much as voting against the victicrats. Get an absentee ballot if you have to. Yes, Bush is not the best choice for the office, but he's the "only one" we've got, for now.

Posted by: Horse with no-- on October 3, 2003 10:31 PM

The dimocrat you enable will take your guns before they declare sharia. You'll be in good company with Spoons and Misha.

Posted by: curtis kreutzberg on October 3, 2003 11:49 PM

You can understand Clinton and Gore's motives but not GW's? Why, hon, he's just trying to earn his Pappy's respect after being such a screw up. I'm a Republican and he's my president, but I'm with you: some things don't add up and I'm in the same quandry. I want to vote Republican again, but I don't want the country to keep going the way it's been.

Posted by: Venomous Kate on October 4, 2003 01:12 AM

You may be correct, Kate. I spent a lot of my life after I "went straight" trying to vindicate myself in my father's eyes for being what he saw as a screw-up when I played guitar for a living. Sons do that.

But Bush can't be Reagan and LBJ at the same time.

Posted by: Acidman on October 4, 2003 06:23 AM

I know exactly where you're coming from. I want the same things from my Commander in Chief that you want from the president. Do me a favor though; stand in that line. If for no other reason, to protect the kids who serve with me from ever having to serve under another Clinton.

Posted by: Capt Steve on October 4, 2003 08:41 AM

Good for you, Acidman. I hope you stick to it and don't let people you HAVE to vote for him.

It'll be a cold day in hell the next time I vote for a Republican President who supports:

1. affirmative action;
   
2. the Assault Weapons Ban;
   
3. campaign finance reform;
   
4. steel tarriffs;
   
5. a massive prescription drug plan; and
   
6. the Kennedy Education Bill;
   

and who opposes:

1. telling the truth about Saudi sponsorship of terror;
   
2. Israel's security fence; and
   
3. the expulsion of Arafat;
   

I really hope you don't get cold feet next November and pull the lever for this asshat.

Posted by: Spoons on October 4, 2003 10:51 AM

I won't, Spoons. Unlike a lot of other people you may meet in life, I mean what I say.

Posted by: Acidman on October 4, 2003 11:05 AM

I'm as pissed off at some of Bush's actions at anybody here, but I do know one thing: sitting at home on election day next year is not an option for me. I'll walk in that voting booth, hold my nose, and pull the lever for GWB, just like I did in 2000.

Why? Because it cancels out some tree-hugging, peace-marching, politicall-correct, Clinton-loving leftist's vote. You see, those folks would love for you to stay home, because they're not planning to.

If you won't go into the game when the coach calls your name, what does that make you?

Posted by: tobacco road fogey on October 4, 2003 11:50 AM

I am actually one of those people who did NOT vote for Bush in 2000 (I voted Libertarian then), but I WILL vote for Bush in 2004. No doubt whatsoever.

Just for the tax cuts alone, Bush deserves re-election. And for the war on terror, he is beyond doubt worthy of any Conservative/Libertarian vote.

I think too many conservatives are too eager to blame the education bill., etc. on Bush. We have to remember that we don't really have a true Republican majority in the Senate given 5 or 6 RiNos that continues to vote for BIG government along with the truly awful democrats.

We have to remember the political reality. What is the alternative? Howard Dean? Weasly Clark? We might as well turn America over to Jaques Chirac.

Bush got my vote in 2004.

Posted by: Konrad on October 4, 2003 01:18 PM

Spoons: Rather than vote for someone who isn't "perfect" in your eyes (and mine as well for that matter), you'd rather stand by the sidelines and let one of these demobrat rejects get back in office, who will effectively hand the keys to the country over to the UN?

You'd rather claim the moral high ground and not vote for Bush, and risk some fruitcake getting into office who changes the "Assault Weapons Ban" into the "Private Ownership of Weapons Ban"?

You'd rather send a message to Bush that he's just not conservative enough, while terrorist scum gets coddled to rather than exterminated? Remember what happened the last time we ignored them?

I can not honestly believe that anyone even entertains such actions. I mean what. the. hell. 'ol Bush isn't conservative enough, so we're just going to take our toys and go home? Like it or not, politics is about compromise. We're never going to see a true-blue REAL conservative in the White House unless we make it happen by pushing back the lefty lunacy which has infected the country for the last few decades. This isn't going to happen overnight, nor in four years. It takes time and commitment.

I assure you, the lefty asswits that populate nazimedia and their ilk certainly will be standing in line, just itching for the chance to pull the leaver marked "I hate Bush".

Guess what happens when enough of them vote, and enough sane people do not. Do you really want eight years of Clinton version two?

Posted by: Mr. Lion on October 4, 2003 02:35 PM

Lion, I can't speak for Acidman, but my decision not to vote for Bush has nothing to do with claiming the moral high ground, nor with taking a feel-good stand.

The only thing that's more damaging to the cause of conservative government than a liberal Democrat, is a liberal Republican.

You say you want a real conservative in the White House? Well, the one way to guarantee that that never happens is to vote for Republicans who take your vote as a given and whose primary goal in governance is to appeal to the moderate left. If being pro-Affirmative Action and pro-Assault Weapons Ban proves to be a winning formula for Republicans, expect them to become a permanent formula for Republican Party.

As for the War on Terror, I don't give Bush a lot of credit there, either. It strikes me that the two most important battlegrounds on the War on Terror are Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Bush has shown himself to be soft on terror in both cases. We simply will not win the War if we don't win those two battlegrounds. Removing Saddam is good, but it's a tactical victory, not a strategic one.

Posted by: Spoons on October 4, 2003 02:47 PM

Sorry, Spoons, I look at Pyrrhic victories the same way I look at martyrdom. The upfront price is too high for me.

The only thing that's more damaging to the cause of conservative government than a liberal Republican is a willingness to inflict the pain of a liberal government on everyone just to prove the point that liberal government is bad.

I presume that you aren't willing to allow a dictatorship to come to power just to prove the point that dictatorship is bad.

Same reasoning, different degree. Just like the "principled conservatives" living outside California who are telling conservative Californians that Arnold isn't conservative enough and McClintock can't win, so vote no on the recall and let California stew in its own juices.

Posted by: tobacco road fogey on October 4, 2003 03:22 PM

You know, guys, I think I've heard this philosophy before. It was on Election Night in Alabama, 1998. Demorat Don Siegelman had just been elected and they were interviewing the disappointed Republican supporters, talking to the head of the Alabama Christian Coalition and his wife. Her take on things was "You know, maybe it's better that Don won; after all, he'll allow gambling and make gay marraige legal and take away our guns! Maybe things will get bad enough that Jesus will come back!"

That's what I'm hearing here and elsewhere. "If I can't get what I want NOW, then I'm going to pitch a hissy, run home, hide in my room, and wait for God to punish the sinners." Sorry, but it just isn't that easy. A Christian knows there will be a Second Coming; a Christian also knows that it's on God's timetable and NOTHING you do or don't do will make it happen any faster. All you can do is watch, and pray, and in the meantime you work to avoid as much misery for your fellow man as you can. And on that scale, voting for Bush is the best you can do.

I work with the Air Force, and they have a saying at SAC, "least awful option". They use it when discussing nuclear war and other apocalyptic events. Events where there are no good options. And right now, that's where we are. We know there's a World War on. Would you have voted for an isolationist Republican in 1940, knowing that Roosevelt, for all his faults, is actually going to DO something about Hitler, even if FDR's in bed with the Commies? Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

So, there's obviously nothing to stop you from sitting at home sulking come 2004. It's still a somewhat free country. But when you elect a Demorat and he actually does hand this country over to the UN, just remember, you asked for it. You'll have a perfect world, a perfectly awful one. And so will all the rest of us.

Posted by: SDN on October 4, 2003 03:28 PM

Spoons: Rather than vote for someone who isn't "perfect" in your eyes (and mine as well for that matter), you'd rather stand by the sidelines and let one of these demobrat rejects get back in office, who will effectively hand the keys to the country over to the UN?

If we're going to have that fight, and it looks like there's no way around it, I'd rather that we had it in my lifetime than leave it to my children.

I'm with you, Acidman.

And don't give me the "vote for Bush to keep Donks out of office" either. It's no different than the Donks howling "vote Democrat or the Evil Republicans will push your granny off a cliff" and I don't respect that one either.

Posted by: Emperor Misha I on October 4, 2003 04:28 PM

Well, I voted Libertarian last time, but I'm throwing my ballot behind our current waffle-in-chief? Why? I think that the war on on Islamo-fascism is more important that my principles. And if a dimocrat wins, we're fucked.

Lamont

Posted by: LamontCranston on October 4, 2003 04:48 PM

Hell, I held my nose and voted for Dole. I'm hoping W turns into a real statesman in his second term. You can do a lot of shit as a lame duck you can't do in a first term. Having said that, I still think the Saudis have his pecker in their pocket.

Posted by: Velociman on October 4, 2003 04:56 PM

What second term? You dorks need to get out more. The country is changing. Bush is dead meat. If they were smart the GOP would nominate someone else. It'll never happen so better get used to having a Democrat in the White House. Polls show Hillary might win given Bush's current ratings. Now, wouldn't that be special.

Posted by: Lois on October 4, 2003 06:17 PM

Unbelievable. Yes, Bush has faults. No, he's not my idea of a perfect conservative, nor a perfect President. However, considering the realities of the alternatives, I can't honestly believe that everyone who isn't a left-bent idiot wouldn't vote for the guy.

We can rattle on about fighting the good fight and not leaving anything but a perfect future for our children until the cows come home, but there is one true, universal fact: If Bush doesn't get a second term, there is a very high risk of massive terror threats in the near future.

Social issues can be debated endlessly. I won't go on about the importance of getting more conservative Judges appointed to federal courts, nor the importance of turning back the clock on the utter lunacy the demobrats have been responsible for over the last few decades. Because, first and foremost, we have to make sure that there's actually going to be a future to debate in.

Is "fighting the good fight" and letting the country go down the tubes, while thousands, if not millions of Americans die in the process worth the moral high ground?

I find it hard to believe anyone would stand in the crater that is ground zero version two and proudly proclaim: At least I didn't have to vote for a non-perfect conservative!

Posted by: Mr. Lion on October 4, 2003 07:06 PM

"I want a fearless and bold President, one who makes decisions from the heart without waiting for focus groups and opinion polls to tell him what to do. I want a President who knows what he believes and sticks to his guns, even when doing so is unpopular. I want a President with a set of balls, not a divining-rod erection, telling him what to do next".

Australia has a guy just like that - PM John Howard.

Posted by: Bushy on October 4, 2003 09:13 PM

At least I didn't have to vote for a non-perfect conservative!

I'd word it differently and more accurately, since we're talking about Shrub:

"At least I didn't vote for a spineless, lying, cowardly fucking TRAITOR!"

Posted by: Emperor Misha I on October 5, 2003 12:04 AM

Well said, Mr. Lion. I agree with you 100 %.

In my opinion, people who consider not voting Bush in 2004 out of discontent with him not being conservative enough, are not considering the DISASTROUS consequences of having a Democrat in office in a post 9/11 world.

The issue itself of Republicans bailing on Bush is rather superfluous, considering the fact that Bush has remarkably high party loyalty among registred Republican voters nationwide.
Heck, he might even score a majority of libertarian votes this time, mine included.

The Democrats might be reckless enough to nominate a Howard Dean or Wesley Clark, but the American electorate is not going to elect McGovern Part Deux just three years after the worst attack in history on American soil.

Posted by: K.L. on October 5, 2003 01:12 AM

Clarification needed here, methinks, now that I re-read my previous post:

When I said "traitor", I most DEFINITELY did NOT mean it as in "traitor to his country", because that would be out of line so much that you'd need a telescope to see it.

If anybody got that impression, I apologize for not making myself clear.

I meant it as in "traitor to conservativism".

That one, however, I stand by 100%

Posted by: Emperor Misha I on October 5, 2003 02:51 PM

In my opinion, people who consider not voting Bush in 2004 out of discontent with him not being conservative enough, are not considering the DISASTROUS consequences of having a Democrat in office in a post 9/11 world.

And in my opinion, RINO Presidents who do not realize the DISASTROUS consequences of betraying their voter base and pandering to fuckwits who'll never vote for him anyway, need to be kicked out on their asses.

I'm beholden to no man, my master hasn't been born yet and I have no intentions of staying on the Plantation simply because Shrub and his advisors think that betraying those of us who put him in office is free of consequences.

Posted by: Emperor Misha I on October 5, 2003 02:54 PM

"At least I didn't vote for a spineless, lying, cowardly fucking TRAITOR!"

Yeah, fine, phrase it however the fuck you want. The point is, you'll be standing on the grave of thousands of Americans while saying it.

I'm not willing to pay that price, sulking in a corner and rubbing my lucky rabbit foot while chanting "Some day a real conservative will come along... some day... and boy will I ever vote then!"

... while the nukes go off in our cities and people die by the millions, all thanks to being a "good international neighbor" in some fucked up demobrat socialist utopia.

You may be willing to fiddle while Rome burns, but I am most decidedly not.

Posted by: Mr. Lion on October 5, 2003 05:20 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?