(no subject)
Having not even looked at this journal in about 2 years, I was nostalgically going through some of my old posts and I realized, I was actually a pretty intelligent 18-year-old. What happened? I kid. This is something I wrote back before the 2008 election:
She called the war a "mission from God". Ummm... No, it's a mission from President Bush. And you'd know that if you actually knew what the Bush Doctrine was. How did she make it past the preliminary list of VP's and doesn't know what the bush Doctrine is? I know what that is. And I'm 18.
Part of her competency in terms of her foreign policy experience includes the fact that, in certain areas of Alaska, you can see a smidge of Russia. Since when does your proximity to something heighten knowledge or experience? If that worked, people would be sleeping on their math text books instead of actually reading them. If any Democrat tried to pull this crap, the media'd be all over it. Hell, I don't even think McCain could get away with that, really. Why is she so special?
She believes Roe V. Wade should be overturned. I disagree, of course. She said that there should be more emphasis on exploring other options like adoption. I agree but I don't think abortion needs to be abolished to do that. She says women should feel empowered to explore these options. I don't think any woman would feel empowered about giving up a baby she didn't want to have in the first place. And let's be honest, we're talking about poor people. Republicans don't care about poor people. Not like they care about their own. So I doubt she cares about the empowerment of poor women. Sure, you try living on welfare, foods-tamps, and government cheese, then have a bunch of rich white people tell you that you have to have another mouth to feed and see how empowered you feel.
If she called him "Charlie" one more effing time in that interview, I was gonna lose my shit. You could tell she was just nervous and her natural reaction is to condescend to him. Even though he called her Governor Palin, not Sarah. That's such a cheap tactic. It's almost like how dumb people often express their intellectual frustration through violence and aggression, only she's on TV so she just acts ultra passive aggressive. God, people can be so transparent. If politicians weren't so busy trying to slide tackle everyone who threatens them, politically speaking, and were actually tactful, polite, and respectful, it would seriously improve their image. People aren't perfect, stop trying to act like you are. It only highlights your inadequacy.
Okay, so her 17-year-old daughter is having a baby. Big deal. Yeah, it's hypocritical, but who can control their kids? I bet one of Obama's girls is gonna fuck up some time in her life. So what? PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES. Politician's kids are no different. If this were her biggest problem, I'd let it slide. She's got like six kids, statistically speaking, it could be much worse.
She can't decide whether Global warming is caused by mankind or not (well, she can, she just doesn't want to openly disagree with McCain). So? Neither can I. No one can say either way. Sure, climate change is occurring and I do think it's naive to assume we have no impact on the planet, but it could be part of the planet's natural cycle. There is REASONABLE dispute over the cause of it by SCIENTISTS. And Palin is no scientist. But neither is McCain. Or Obama. She said, regardless of whether or not it's a man made problem, they're gonna take action. I can respect that. Sure she's flip-flopping a little on the cause but I DARE anyone to tell me they know the reason behind global warming beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't. And I'm sick of these know-it-all's laughing when people express their skepticism. But I think we owe it to our planet to give it the benefit of the doubt and do something about this issue. Because even if it is a natural cycle, all we've done is taken extra precautions (and wasted some money). I'd say that's better than the alternative; being royally fucked.
Question: Why can't the President and Vice President disagree on some things? Why does Palin feel the need to change her opinions to fit McCain's? That's why FDR had a brain trust. Because everyone agreeing on everything isn't good for progress. There's no decision the president should make that shouldn't be discussed, fought over, or put under a microscope. No issue should just be settled upon entering office. Because if you don't have to fight or stand up for what you believe in, you leave room for error. You make weak arguments that lead to bad choices. That's why we're at war right now. That's why I think elections should be like they were back in the day; when the runner-up became vice president. We could have a Democrat and a Republican in office. What's so wrong with that? Instead of half the country feeling shitty for four to eight years they could feel good that their candidate is still in office in some capacity. They could feel that their interests are still being served. They are, after all, Americans. Shouldn't the white house have everyone's interests at heart? If I'm pro-choice and for gay marriage and McCain wins, should I be forgotten about? Every party is a self serving organism. We, as I understand it, evolved out of competition and became highly intelligent beings. Looking at the structure of government similarly, how can we expect a single, complacent party to achieve the highest of human achievements: to accept and take on the tasks that we, the people, ask of it. If there's no competition, there's no growth. Just a self-serving, reign of ignorance, scrambling to fill seats on the supreme court and pass it's own bias legislation. That's some seedy shit. Sneaky, almost. Why do the cabinets have to sneak around like a philanderer, trying to get as much lovin' done before they have to slide back in bed beside their spouse and pretend they were their all night?
And who cares if McCain is changing his view on Bush. Bush sucks. But he is a Republican. And McCain can never openly create any distance between him and Bush because they're in the same party. That's McCain's problem today, sure, but it will be some Democrats problem tomorrow. That's the problem with this political system. There are only two parties. They put people in their respective categories, tying them to these issues and their fellow party members, robbing them of any real, individual thought. I am a Democrat because the Democrats agree with me (for the most part) on the issues that matter to me right now. I can pick the guy on the right or the guy on the left. But they're not even guys. They're puppets. Who cares if George Bush did Cocaine when he was younger? He's not President. His party is president. He didn't make crazy, coked out decisions for the same reason he can never come out in favor of gay marriage, even if he wanted to; his party is pulling the strings. What does that tell you about presidency? I'm sure Senator Obama is for gay marriage but he can't do squat about it because his party isn't ready to take that step, without assessing the outcome thoroughly. The truth is, it doesn't really matter which candidate is elected. You're choosing between two, highly polarized interests or between two groups that know the answers before they know the issues. People who say they haven't decided who to vote for need to get over the fact that it isn't really a choice.
She called the war a "mission from God". Ummm... No, it's a mission from President Bush. And you'd know that if you actually knew what the Bush Doctrine was. How did she make it past the preliminary list of VP's and doesn't know what the bush Doctrine is? I know what that is. And I'm 18.
Part of her competency in terms of her foreign policy experience includes the fact that, in certain areas of Alaska, you can see a smidge of Russia. Since when does your proximity to something heighten knowledge or experience? If that worked, people would be sleeping on their math text books instead of actually reading them. If any Democrat tried to pull this crap, the media'd be all over it. Hell, I don't even think McCain could get away with that, really. Why is she so special?
She believes Roe V. Wade should be overturned. I disagree, of course. She said that there should be more emphasis on exploring other options like adoption. I agree but I don't think abortion needs to be abolished to do that. She says women should feel empowered to explore these options. I don't think any woman would feel empowered about giving up a baby she didn't want to have in the first place. And let's be honest, we're talking about poor people. Republicans don't care about poor people. Not like they care about their own. So I doubt she cares about the empowerment of poor women. Sure, you try living on welfare, foods-tamps, and government cheese, then have a bunch of rich white people tell you that you have to have another mouth to feed and see how empowered you feel.
If she called him "Charlie" one more effing time in that interview, I was gonna lose my shit. You could tell she was just nervous and her natural reaction is to condescend to him. Even though he called her Governor Palin, not Sarah. That's such a cheap tactic. It's almost like how dumb people often express their intellectual frustration through violence and aggression, only she's on TV so she just acts ultra passive aggressive. God, people can be so transparent. If politicians weren't so busy trying to slide tackle everyone who threatens them, politically speaking, and were actually tactful, polite, and respectful, it would seriously improve their image. People aren't perfect, stop trying to act like you are. It only highlights your inadequacy.
Okay, so her 17-year-old daughter is having a baby. Big deal. Yeah, it's hypocritical, but who can control their kids? I bet one of Obama's girls is gonna fuck up some time in her life. So what? PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES. Politician's kids are no different. If this were her biggest problem, I'd let it slide. She's got like six kids, statistically speaking, it could be much worse.
She can't decide whether Global warming is caused by mankind or not (well, she can, she just doesn't want to openly disagree with McCain). So? Neither can I. No one can say either way. Sure, climate change is occurring and I do think it's naive to assume we have no impact on the planet, but it could be part of the planet's natural cycle. There is REASONABLE dispute over the cause of it by SCIENTISTS. And Palin is no scientist. But neither is McCain. Or Obama. She said, regardless of whether or not it's a man made problem, they're gonna take action. I can respect that. Sure she's flip-flopping a little on the cause but I DARE anyone to tell me they know the reason behind global warming beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't. And I'm sick of these know-it-all's laughing when people express their skepticism. But I think we owe it to our planet to give it the benefit of the doubt and do something about this issue. Because even if it is a natural cycle, all we've done is taken extra precautions (and wasted some money). I'd say that's better than the alternative; being royally fucked.
Question: Why can't the President and Vice President disagree on some things? Why does Palin feel the need to change her opinions to fit McCain's? That's why FDR had a brain trust. Because everyone agreeing on everything isn't good for progress. There's no decision the president should make that shouldn't be discussed, fought over, or put under a microscope. No issue should just be settled upon entering office. Because if you don't have to fight or stand up for what you believe in, you leave room for error. You make weak arguments that lead to bad choices. That's why we're at war right now. That's why I think elections should be like they were back in the day; when the runner-up became vice president. We could have a Democrat and a Republican in office. What's so wrong with that? Instead of half the country feeling shitty for four to eight years they could feel good that their candidate is still in office in some capacity. They could feel that their interests are still being served. They are, after all, Americans. Shouldn't the white house have everyone's interests at heart? If I'm pro-choice and for gay marriage and McCain wins, should I be forgotten about? Every party is a self serving organism. We, as I understand it, evolved out of competition and became highly intelligent beings. Looking at the structure of government similarly, how can we expect a single, complacent party to achieve the highest of human achievements: to accept and take on the tasks that we, the people, ask of it. If there's no competition, there's no growth. Just a self-serving, reign of ignorance, scrambling to fill seats on the supreme court and pass it's own bias legislation. That's some seedy shit. Sneaky, almost. Why do the cabinets have to sneak around like a philanderer, trying to get as much lovin' done before they have to slide back in bed beside their spouse and pretend they were their all night?
And who cares if McCain is changing his view on Bush. Bush sucks. But he is a Republican. And McCain can never openly create any distance between him and Bush because they're in the same party. That's McCain's problem today, sure, but it will be some Democrats problem tomorrow. That's the problem with this political system. There are only two parties. They put people in their respective categories, tying them to these issues and their fellow party members, robbing them of any real, individual thought. I am a Democrat because the Democrats agree with me (for the most part) on the issues that matter to me right now. I can pick the guy on the right or the guy on the left. But they're not even guys. They're puppets. Who cares if George Bush did Cocaine when he was younger? He's not President. His party is president. He didn't make crazy, coked out decisions for the same reason he can never come out in favor of gay marriage, even if he wanted to; his party is pulling the strings. What does that tell you about presidency? I'm sure Senator Obama is for gay marriage but he can't do squat about it because his party isn't ready to take that step, without assessing the outcome thoroughly. The truth is, it doesn't really matter which candidate is elected. You're choosing between two, highly polarized interests or between two groups that know the answers before they know the issues. People who say they haven't decided who to vote for need to get over the fact that it isn't really a choice.