Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by jheimann on Fri, 08/20/2004 - 15:15

Tagged:

Politics

OK, I guarantee that if this pans out to be true, I will NOT be voting for Bush this fall. The news is reporting that there are now numerous concrete connections between the Bush family and the Swift Boat Veterans. There is only one thing I hate more than being lied to, and that is having to come onto TOTSP and admit I may have been wrong. The fact is that the Vietnam war should NOT be part of this debate whatsoever. I could give a flying **** about what happened over 30 years ago. What I want to know is who will do a better job at running the country and doing the following: 1. Lowering taxes 2. Protecting American citizens from foreign threats and 3. Not driving the US into even deeper debt. If I take an honest look, neither Bush or Kerry will do this, and both are at best insincere and at worst dishonest (well, they are politicians). I guess I'll have to vote for what's his name from the Libertarian Gun-toting pot-smoking hippie party. *sigh* Damn hippies. At least I would be able to get high and start shooting off my guns to help ease the pain. MSNBC Story

Add new comment

Comments

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2004 - 18:47.

I must say I admire your ability to admit when you might not be perfect (yeah yeah, jokes aside I am working on it too ;). Much like coop said the other day, one of the biggest issues with Bush is NOT just his original positions, but the fact that he cant seem to learn from facts and events that happen AFTER his original position. Stay the course and bring it on and lets roll and such only work, as coop said, if you are pointed in a *perfect* direction to begin with. As for the Swift Boat Vets, I havent seem anything about them directly connected to Bush, but I would agree that this entire thing should have nothing to do with Vietnam. Sure Kerry has touted that he served, but I still havent seen an instance where he said "I won three purple hearts" (JibJab aside ;)) unless he was responding to some IMHO lame attack. So it didnt come up UNTIL it was attacked. And I didnt really give a crap about Bushes record either, UNTIL he pulled capn carrier landing and played UP his for lack of a better term "service". Either way though, you are correct, shouldnt really matter today, it was 30 years ago (and Bush was smoking crack, Kerry was fighting in Vietnam getting purple hearts, whatever ;)). And I would vote for the hippie Lib too, but I just cant get past some Bednarik stuff, he needs to smoke MORE pot and chill out a little on not paying his taxes and such.

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2004 - 23:49.

Meh. Badnarik isn't going to win, but a strong showing will do more to change politics than voting for anyone else. *shrug*

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by rothbard (not verified) on Fri, 08/20/2004 - 23:55.

*anonymous==rothbard* It occurs to me that perhaps someone who feels passionately about something, and makes personal choices to live by them--and bear sole responsibility for the consequences--is a breath of fresh air from the "groomed to lead" bunch. I'm sure he no more thought he would be a Presidential candidate than any of us, so I can forgive his pre-political eccentricities.

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Sat, 08/21/2004 - 16:26.

Well, I disagree there. I dont condone him breaking the law even though I understand his reasons for doing it. He should have been fighting to become a political candidate and change things. Or he could have moved to Belize, or . . . just saying screw it and breaking the law was not the right choice and not at all commendable.

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by rothbard (not verified) on Sun, 08/22/2004 - 21:54.

Hmm. Legality is a funny concept, and certainly orthogonal to morality. I'm sure some people would disagree with the notion that one must use the King's process in the King's court to change the King's laws. That the "King" in this case is a mob made up of those who desire to benefit from the labors of others changes very little.

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by atrox (not verified) on Mon, 08/23/2004 - 05:59.

Very eloquent and very much correct roth, but you might want to look at the motives for the little tea party you bring up. The without representation part making things quite a bit different and it being the entire point of the tea party. That hyperbolic analogy aside, you are correct that there are cases where fighting the law within the law isnt feasible, but in this case we are talking about a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE? Certainly that person might be expected to abide by the laws of the country he wants to preside over?

RE: Damn, I may have been wrong...

Submitted by cooper (not verified) on Mon, 08/23/2004 - 08:13.

I'm sure some people would disagree with the notion that one must use the King's process in the King's court to change the King's laws. That the "King" in this case is a mob made up of those who desire to benefit from the labors of others changes very little.

Ever since reading Thoreau in high school, I have never bought into this arguement. The Boston Tea Party was a result of the violation of the social contract of the goverment by the King. Had there been a means to redress concerns that would be one thing. However, there was not. Im not saying our courts are the end all be all of justice, but they are better than most. Frankly, the real problem I see has more to do with the greater mob than the one you speak of. The media and the spin machines and the dittohead public is a truely scarey thing now. Where unfounded allegations can be made and "stick" with little or no investigation, discussion nor repercussions on the allegers.