Monday, June 14, 2004


To all the people with furrowed brows over the fact that Kerry doesn't meet your candidate requirements 100%, why do you think keeping someone who meets maybe 10% of your requirements is better?

This year, your voting options are basically this:

A. Kerry

B. Bush

C. Nader

D. Don't Vote

Choosing B, C, and D ensure that nothing you want done will get done.

So does failing to choose A.

Kerry's not perfect but how can anyone even question that he's a vast improvement over what we currently are subjected to? At least Kerry isn't locked into a religiously mandated ideology while completely walling himself in from anyone who has a dissenting opinion.

Please don't forget that this election is so much bigger than the Presidency. Whoever is in power the next 4 years will probably have to replace at least one or maybe even 2 Supreme Court justices. Do you really want to have Bush be the one who gets to stock the highest court in the land with judges who want to party like its 1955?

I'm sure I'll get arrows flung by people who say that people who point out things like these are trying to bully people into voting for Kerry. The truth is that people like me simply cannot fathom why anyone would even consider doing something that will help Bush stay in power for another term.

If its the war, I don't know what to tell you. Some folks here seem reluctant to support anyone who won't immediately pull all troops out of Iraq. Guess what, that isn't possible because of the mess BUSH made. It sucks, but the next Dem to be President is going to be spending a considerable amount of time cleaning up Bush's messes in nearly every aspect. If we pull out before we have any semblance of order in Iraq, you have a very high chance of creating another hostile Islamic theocracy like Iran. We need to break the cycle of Republican Presidents creating enemies that future Republican Presidents send our troops in to fight against.

I know that the thought of voting for Kerry is very off putting for a lot of you, but the thought of people on our side not doing everything they can to unseat the Bush cabal is off-putting to a greater number.


Sunday, June 13, 2004

One quick way to silence the defenders of Ronald Reagan when it comes to his ignoring the looming AIDS crisis under his watch:

Just point out that what got the ball rolling on fighting AIDS is the Ryan White story.

Before, no one seemed to care since it was only affecting queers who were being punished by God. Now it was a white kid from the Midwest who had the disease and suddenly it was a top priority.

I'm sure this has been mentioned here before, but it really bears repeating to all the people who say that homophobia had nothing to do with the choices made by the Team Ronald.

No one in power cared about AIDS until non-homosexuals started getting it.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?