a repost, which is similar to a remix... except nothing like it.
this is a reply I posted in response to a posting Daniel made which provided links to a few anti-bush commercials and I felt compelled to repost it to share with all of you... I guess it's just a reflection of my fondness of poking ant beds... oh, and Jessica, you might not want to read this... haha, just playin girl, you know I love ya... anyway...
Daniel's Posting:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election broo ha ha
New http://moveon.org commercial
http://labridge.com/zimark/mon1701_censure/censure.mpg
old commercials
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
My Reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Post a new comment)
long ranting...
randini
2004-03-26 23:50 (link)
two main lines of attack in all of those commercials: economy and war.
Economy:
They seem to want to over look the fact that Clinton was fortunate enough to be President during practically the entire dot.com dream economy that composed almost the entire 90's. Well, to use the cliche, that bubble burst and to add insult to injury madmen decided to fly planes into symbols of our economic prosperity. This symbolic act had obvious practical effect on our economy, in other words, these madmen's mission was success in creating fear in the average american's willingness to spend money, which is what is at the center of our economy. However, and I will not even give Bush credit for this because he, like any President doesn't deserve it, the american consumer has recovered and so is our economy.
War:
Bush picked the wrong card to play, he along with our entire intelligence community was convinced what we would find similar weapons we found a decade earlier; they were wrong. Millions of people are now free from a dictator, there may still be death and injury but it is not state sanctioned and funded death and torture; but apparently that doesn't matter to some people, what matters is that Bush was wrong. I think Bush should have just called it a humanitarian conflict and there would have been far fewer cries against that.
Another fun fact is that everyone seems to forget Clinton's little skirmish in Bosnia where Clinton sent american boys and girls to die in an under funded attempt to procure peace. (Fun side note: Kerry voted to send soldiers but then voted against funding them... and Bush catches hell for his proposed pay cut for soldier, well, I disagree with that as well, but there is a difference between cutting G.I. Joe's paycheck and cutting G.I. Joe's supply line.) This was not an U.N. condoned act either, Clinton went in there with more or less the same allies we had in Iraq, but somehow Clinton was some great "internationalist" who was furthering world peace and cooperation while Bush is making a mockery of the U.N... go figure.
One last thing, this is the part where my tendency for the whole eye for an eye rule comes into play. While I do not agree with avenging every american death with a 'terrorist' death, I am STRONGLY opposed to being attack and having a response that is no more than a "tsk, tsk". Let's travel back to yester-year when multiple embassies and an american warship were attacked and our President's reply was nothing more than shaking his fist at the people who proudly claimed that they were the cause of american casualties. Now, like I said above, I don't put 100% of my stock in an eye for an eye, otherwise we would be Israel and Palestine, but I believe in it enough that I can justify Afghanistan; and, quite bluntly, until everyone decides to give up their SUV's, their trucks, their central heating and air, their computers, their television, their music, their public transportation, their ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES OIL as a source of energy I can justify Iraq. If things do not blow up in our face because of internal or international pressure, or unless we don't just chuckle fuck the whole thing Iraq will become a better place for its citizens and will hopefully serve as an ambassador for America in the heart of Islam. Now, granted, an invasion isn't the best beginning for a relationship between the west and Islam, but unless I'm mistaken no one was really all that attached to Saddam; it was only that Islam view Saddam as a lesser of two evils between a dictator and a western influenced nation... kind of like how democrats don't like Kerry but "hey, at least he's a democrat".
Oh, and just because I know there will only be a select few who read this far... hey Sean... don't hate me Jessica... and FUCK YOU Daniel.
Daniel's Posting:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election broo ha ha
New http://moveon.org commercial
http://labridge.com/zimark/mon1701_censure/censure.mpg
old commercials
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/
My Reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Post a new comment)
long ranting...
randini
2004-03-26 23:50 (link)
two main lines of attack in all of those commercials: economy and war.
Economy:
They seem to want to over look the fact that Clinton was fortunate enough to be President during practically the entire dot.com dream economy that composed almost the entire 90's. Well, to use the cliche, that bubble burst and to add insult to injury madmen decided to fly planes into symbols of our economic prosperity. This symbolic act had obvious practical effect on our economy, in other words, these madmen's mission was success in creating fear in the average american's willingness to spend money, which is what is at the center of our economy. However, and I will not even give Bush credit for this because he, like any President doesn't deserve it, the american consumer has recovered and so is our economy.
War:
Bush picked the wrong card to play, he along with our entire intelligence community was convinced what we would find similar weapons we found a decade earlier; they were wrong. Millions of people are now free from a dictator, there may still be death and injury but it is not state sanctioned and funded death and torture; but apparently that doesn't matter to some people, what matters is that Bush was wrong. I think Bush should have just called it a humanitarian conflict and there would have been far fewer cries against that.
Another fun fact is that everyone seems to forget Clinton's little skirmish in Bosnia where Clinton sent american boys and girls to die in an under funded attempt to procure peace. (Fun side note: Kerry voted to send soldiers but then voted against funding them... and Bush catches hell for his proposed pay cut for soldier, well, I disagree with that as well, but there is a difference between cutting G.I. Joe's paycheck and cutting G.I. Joe's supply line.) This was not an U.N. condoned act either, Clinton went in there with more or less the same allies we had in Iraq, but somehow Clinton was some great "internationalist" who was furthering world peace and cooperation while Bush is making a mockery of the U.N... go figure.
One last thing, this is the part where my tendency for the whole eye for an eye rule comes into play. While I do not agree with avenging every american death with a 'terrorist' death, I am STRONGLY opposed to being attack and having a response that is no more than a "tsk, tsk". Let's travel back to yester-year when multiple embassies and an american warship were attacked and our President's reply was nothing more than shaking his fist at the people who proudly claimed that they were the cause of american casualties. Now, like I said above, I don't put 100% of my stock in an eye for an eye, otherwise we would be Israel and Palestine, but I believe in it enough that I can justify Afghanistan; and, quite bluntly, until everyone decides to give up their SUV's, their trucks, their central heating and air, their computers, their television, their music, their public transportation, their ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES OIL as a source of energy I can justify Iraq. If things do not blow up in our face because of internal or international pressure, or unless we don't just chuckle fuck the whole thing Iraq will become a better place for its citizens and will hopefully serve as an ambassador for America in the heart of Islam. Now, granted, an invasion isn't the best beginning for a relationship between the west and Islam, but unless I'm mistaken no one was really all that attached to Saddam; it was only that Islam view Saddam as a lesser of two evils between a dictator and a western influenced nation... kind of like how democrats don't like Kerry but "hey, at least he's a democrat".
Oh, and just because I know there will only be a select few who read this far... hey Sean... don't hate me Jessica... and FUCK YOU Daniel.