October 28, 2004
LETTER
Dear President Bush,
I hope you're sleeping better than I have been lately. I bet you're about to OD on Tylenol PM! It doesn't help me much, so I lie in bed trying to think of anything other than 2 Nov, the Cardinals, or my husband. The Cardinals turned out to be a losing battle. I told my friend that it would just figure that the Cards would lose the World Series right when my husband gets home and he'd be in a really foul mood for the whole weekend! Hopefully seeing me after nine months can ease the pain...
I wish I could talk to you. You get such bullcrap thrown your way, and sometimes I worry about you. You won an award for best movie villan, which might be humorous if I weren't so naggingly sure that those people actually believe it. You get drawn as everything from Hitler to a special needs child, and if I feel the sting, I know you must too.
I just wish you could know that some of us out there really do care about you. We want you to win, because we think you've been a great leader in trying times. We want an aggressive leader who does what's right for the US and we've been behind you since 9/11. We're afraid of what happens if you don't win, but we're also slightly afraid of what happens if you do. There are some who have called for riots, lawsuits, and even for your assassination.
If you win, you have four more years of battle with the Islamobarbarians to look forward to. If you lose, you get a good nights sleep and the weight of the world lifted from your shoulders. I wish you could have both, but I'm afraid the former is more important right now. But with you as our president, both of us will sleep peacefully someday.
I wish you luck and tranquility in the coming week.
Get 'er done!!
Sarah
P.S. The Cards may have lost, but Israel may win: is Arafat's death upon us? You know me...I'm baking a cake if it is!
Posted by: Sarah at
01:45 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Sarah, what a load of crap.
PS Does Bush really know you? Not that I care. But your baking a cake if Arafat dies tells me a lot about you Sarah. I know you are not a good person. Good people don't celebrate when other people die.
Posted by: dc at October 28, 2004 02:04 AM (fLlQ8)
2
Hey, Sarah, thanks for the post. When I worked at the DA's office, the Chief Assistant had a horrible guy on Death Row. He brought in a cake the day of his execution. We were happy to celebrate the grandma killer's demise. Can I come over for the Arafat celebration? Helpful hint: we should NOT invite dc. But as a party game, perhaps we can speculate with colorful language as to what dc stands for and what putting two initials in lower case says about character and self-confidence. Talk to you later! (Oh, and instead of candles, we just flicked the light switch up and down a few times at the magic moment. Hey, that should give the trolls something else to focus on!)
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 28, 2004 02:13 AM (IENgx)
3
This is from Silent Running blog on Arafat.
'This reminds me of the old joke about Hitler. He asked his astrologer when he would die.
"Mein Fuhrer, you will die on a Jewish holiday."
"Which one?"
"Ach, any day you die will be a Jewish Holiday".'
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 28, 2004 02:15 AM (IENgx)
4
Sure, dc, Bush reads my blog. We write emails back and forth all the time. Are you really that dumb? This was supposed to be a
symbolic letter.
And if celebrating the deaths of Uday, Qsay, and Arafat is wrong, then I don't want to be right! Cake for everybody! Except you, dc. You can cry for the old terrorist if you want.
Posted by: Sarah at October 28, 2004 02:43 AM (BfjAH)
5
Sorry dc, but if you look up terrorist in the dictionary, it ought to have Arafat's picture. I'm all for terrorists dying- I don't care if it's caused by the Military, the Courts, or the Grim Reaper- just as long as it happens. Does this make me bad? I can live with that.
Save me some (virtual) cake, Sarah...
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 28, 2004 05:28 AM (Jq8H8)
6
Sarah, let me know when the party is...I'll be right over. And I'll bring the keg.
Posted by: Erin at October 28, 2004 07:22 AM (9P9Bg)
7
Is dc one of those liberals who hopes for the death of any Republican?
Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2004 08:02 AM (MqNKC)
8
And tonite I thought maybe this was a New idea-silly me:
Google for GWbush antichrist and see what YOU get folks!
*****************
Pope fears Bush is antichrist, journalist contends
Brief Article
New Catholic Times,  May 18, 2003 ÂÂ
WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."
Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.
Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."
Posted by: jHc at October 28, 2004 08:10 AM (jqodR)
9
Lesson to be learned from the World Series:
If you are highly motivated and optimistic, nothing can stop you from accomplishing your goals, even when you are down 3 games to the Yankees.
Perhaps John Francois Kerry would like to keep that in mind as he continually roots for defeat in Iraq.
PS - Rooting for the death of a degenerate subhuman terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of American citizens is normal. Only the Eurotrash and terrorists want him to pull through! BTW - doesn't he want to collect on his 72 virgins anyway?
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at October 28, 2004 09:47 AM (CKdOm)
10
Sarah: thank you for the letter. thank you for your husband. thank you for putting up with idiots like dc.
saturday my boys and i are going to build a giant W for the front yard.
Happy Reunion!
Posted by: chris at October 28, 2004 03:23 PM (zH1Gw)
11
While killing in self-defence may be a sad reality of life, I'm truly disgusted by people who lack the emotional depth to approach the situation with humility.
After all, aren't you glad the insurgents didn't "Bring it on!" to your husband as they've done other 800 some-odd troops since your cock-sure swaggering President goaded them to?
Show some respect for life... that's what separates you from those who don't; be it terrorists, Bush, or even Kerry.
Now flame me as I know you will.
Posted by: Anti Hubris at October 29, 2004 02:56 PM (hHdwk)
12
 Using the name of Christ yet being the enemy of Christ, the Antichrist is a threat to every civilization and every person. Could George Bush be the Antichrist?
By Mike Moore
Having been raised as a Christian, I was taught early that the Antichrist was someone who would come in the name of Christ but be the enemy of Christ. Using that definition, let us examine the proposition that George W. Bush could be the Antichrist. If Jesus Christ was in Bush’s place and he was the president of the United States, would he have taken any of the actions that Bush has taken, including the war in Iraq? In other words, is Bush following the teachings of Christ? “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).
Christ taught us to love one another, especially our enemies (Matthew 5:43-46). Christ said that even the pagans love those who are like themselves, but the true mark of love is to love those that are different from you. Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Did Bush turn the other cheek when he falsely proclaimed Iraq as a threat? Do you think Bush loves his enemies? Do you think he even loves his friends, since he openly attacks those friends that disagree? Do you think Bush loves Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? If he is a follower of Christ, then he must love them. Have you ever seen love in Bush’s eyes? Have you ever heard Bush talk about loving one’s neighbor? Does he treat the inmates at Guantanamo or the prisoners of Iraq like he would want to be treated? Do you think Christ would say, “You are either for us or against us?” Have Bush’s actions caused there to be more or less love in the world?
The war on Iraq was apparently undertaken because God whispered in BushÂ’s ear that war was the only way to solve the problem. I hate to tell Bush this, but God doesnÂ’t whisper those kinds of things in peopleÂ’s ears. That is the job of the devil! Jesus would never condone a war, as his whole message was to use love, not violence, to solve our problems. War is always a failure of civilization. Bush has set back the civilization of planet Earth. Anyone who wages war in the name of Christ is committing the ultimate Christian sin.
Bush makes a big show of being against abortion in order to advance his political career. His public claim is that abortion is immoral. Yet his actions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, most of whom were innocent of any “crime.” And apparently, Bush himself was once involved in an abortion by a former girlfriend. By his actions, Bush has now caused the release of thousands of tons of depleted uranium in Iraq, which will cause birth defects for generations to come. Isn’t that just as immoral as an abortion? And if we judge by the shear number of atrocities, isn’t Bush the most hypocritical champion of human rights?
The Bible says not to lie, and Christ reinforced that message since lying destroys the very fabric of our civilization. As I see it, Bush has told more lies than anyone in the history of our presidency. How can that be Christian? Bush said that he would unite us, yet the country and the world have never been more divided. Other lies have been told about uranium, weapons of mass destruction, the connection between Iraq and 9/11, the economy, and the environment. Is it possible for one to lie in the name of Christ?
Many questions persist. Would Christ have asked that the votes not be counted in Florida? Would Christ send Powell to lie before the UN? Would Christ make campaign ads that continually distort the position of his opponent, just to win an election? Would Christ curse and use the name of God in vain in the White House? Would Christ alienate the rest of the world by unilateral action and my-stick-is-bigger-than-your-stick international politics? Would Christ try to strip Americans of their basic human rights, such as access to an attorney and the right to be presented with formal charges regarding alleged violations of national or international law? Would Christ tell military veterans that he loves them and then cut their benefits? Would Jesus have done any of these actions? I think not.
In summary, Bush pretends to come in the name of Jesus Christ and misses no opportunity to exploit Christ for his own personal political advantage. But in every case, Bush has done the opposite of what Christ taught us to do. This is how Bush has led America and this is the example he has set for “his” people. The people who support Bush’s war in the name of Christ surely share in his sins, and Bush’s sins are magnified by the number of people he has misled in the name of Christ. In many ways, Bush, with his fundamentalist Christian attitude, is no different than the fundamentalist Muslims. All kill in the name of God, and I suspect that God would like to have His name kept out of it entirely.
Is it possible that Bush is the Antichrist? His Antichrist-like actions make one wonder.
Mike Moore is a Marine and Vietnam veteran and today lives in Los Alamos, New Mexico (or Atomic City, as we like to call it.) You can send your comments to Mike at mmoore505@comcast.net
Posted by: mike moore at October 29, 2004 10:35 PM (5omu2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 27, 2004
VIOLENCE
Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence
BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.
Great. Thanks for giving them hope, Kerry/Edwards.
Posted by: Sarah at
06:14 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It is not Kerry/Edwards that started this adventure.
It was Bush/Cheney
9/11 was done by Bin Laden. Who has not been caught.
Converting Iraq into a breeding ground for Terrorists is
based on Rumsfeld failed policies.
Where is Bin Laden ?
This president had 3 years to get him
Posted by: Sam Miller at October 27, 2004 06:46 AM (jN9Nx)
2
I don't think the point was to claim that Kedwards started it(although they both went right along with it in word and deed until after the primaries). The point is that Kedwards has been impeding progress and victory at every turn, simply for political gain. It's almost as if they don't seem to realize that the world is paying attention to this race, even as they use the world's opinion of them to bolster their case. If the left would shut up about how terrible the US is and how badly everything is bungled and get behind the president on the world stage there might be less optimism from the terrorists and their state sponsors...
Just my opinion...
Cheers,
M@
Posted by: M@ at October 27, 2004 07:11 AM (gSJFa)
3
That was the point I was trying to make too. Where do you think the insurgents got the idea that we might leave Iraq soon? Certainly not from the "bring it on" candidate, but from the "wrong war" guy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 09:02 AM (WxvAH)
4
If we didn't have the American media telling the terrorist they have 380 tons of the highest grade, most stable explosives known to mankind, used to make nuclear weapons, but can also be used to destroy buildings, blow up airplanes or make roadside bombs they probably would just go home and let our president bush win this war like he wanted to.
Posted by: dc at October 27, 2004 08:16 PM (fLlQ8)
5
Why do they want to defeat Bush/Cheney? The terrorists (as opposed to the native insurgents) must have some end-goal in mind. What would that be? And why would knocking B/C out of office help them?
Thanks for answering.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 08:41 PM (2Pm+H)
6
Evidently the thinking among these people is not monolithic. Note this paragraph in the story: The most pro-Bush, he said, are the foreign extremists "They prefer Bush, because he's a provocative figure, and the more they can push people to the extreme, the better for their case" It brings to mind the article on the Madrid bombings that you linked to on August 4, 2004 in which an Al Qaeda operative was quoted "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections.Bush's idiocy and religious fanaticism are useful, for they stir the Islamic world to action."
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:41 PM (ymDfe)
7
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out. I'm just trying to point out that there is as much disagreement among them as there is among us, and thank god they can't vote anyway.
Posted by: Dave at October 27, 2004 09:50 PM (ymDfe)
8
Boy, I ran that post all together. Hope it can be sorted out.
No, I think that what you said made eminent sense. To flesh out your post, I'd imagine that there would be quite different preferences between the native Iraqi insurgents and the foreign terrorists. The former may be better off with Bush, since he's arguably more steadfast than Kerry; the latter, whose goal is purportedly a new pan-arab caliphate, and who depend on ideological indoctrination, are arguably assisted in their goal by Bush's explicitly ideological Middle East project.
Posted by: jpe at October 27, 2004 11:29 PM (2Pm+H)
9
A defeat for Bush/Cheney will be seen in the Middle East as a defeat for the policy of "taking the fight to the terrorists" as well as a defeat for the "no difference between terrorists and those that harbor/support terrorists". I'm not saying that's an accurate analysis, but I guarantee you that's how the editorials will read in Al-Hayat and the rest of the ME press.
Kerry and the democrats could have laid out a case that the war was right but could have been handled differently- something a Lieberman would have done- but that's not the path they chose. Instead, I'm afraid, Kerry's tactics often have had the effect of telling the terrorists that "hope is on the way". I don't think that it was intentional, just what you get when you'll say anything to try to win. I couldn't be more disgusted with his campaign, but if he wins (and I pray not) I'll shut-up and soldier, sailor.
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead. On the remote chance that he's not, I don't see how his ego could keep him from popping up in a video with a current NYT just to say "Hi" before the election... so unless he does, I'd say that settles it. (and no, I can't "prove" it, but we sure haven't seen him much lately...)
Posted by: Jack Grey at October 28, 2004 05:08 AM (Jq8H8)
10
And Sam, Bin Laden's Dead.
Guess you know better than the US government then.
Posted by: Sadly, No! at October 28, 2004 07:56 AM (Q0kxM)
11
possible answers for jpe
I had to double check this to make sure it wasn't a story from The Onion, but it's not. A terrorist group, claiming links with al Qaida, called Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades stated that it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry. They state that it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom." In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
**********************************
Clearly, they want to endorse Bush so that he will win...
Or they want to fool us by pretending to endorse Bush so that Kerry will win!
Or they know that we will assume that they are falsely endorsing Bush so that Kerry will win and thus we will vote for Bush, as they want!
Or they assume that we will come to the above conclusion, thus voting for Kerry, JUST AS THEY WANT!
I say let's boycott the election, conpletely destroying al Qaeda's plans!
Unless they think we will come to that conclusion and they want us to not vote, in which case we should...
**********************
In this sense, some of Bush's rhetoric has been interpreted both by some of Bush's more rabid supporters and islamic extremists as being in favor of destruction of "Islamofascists" and the occupation and westernizing of Muslim civilization. As a consequence, I can see how some Muslim extremist groups might see Bush as an attractive vessel to "bring it on" when it comes to this fantasical apocalyptic clash between Islam and the West.
Posted by: jHc at October 28, 2004 07:52 PM (Cg5fz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
EMPATHY
Slate is overwhelmingly supporting Kerry, but one writer conducted
an experiment in empathy: he donned both Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney gear and headed to where he'd find the most dissent. The result? Gee, what do you think?
Posted by: Sarah at
06:01 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What happened when abc producers went to the rallies wearing the opposing teams' t-shirts.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2004/story?id=214695&page=1
:p
Posted by: Sen at November 01, 2004 09:47 PM (UGEqL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 26, 2004
WHEW
Dear Blue 6,
You and I can both rest easy now: they finally got your absentee ballot today. Thank goodness I don't have to lie to you, which I was planning on doing if they didn't receive it! It's there and you're taken care of.
See you soon,
Sarah
Posted by: Sarah at
05:07 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
PIPA
I knew there was something rotten in Denmark about that
"separate realities" PIPA poll. I really liked the title, and I certainly agree that hardcore Bush and Kerry supporters live in separate realities. But once I started reading the report, I realized that the different realities broke down into Bush = deluded Kerry = right. Sigh. Whenever the report pointed out how dumb Bush supporters are for believing something, I found myself thinking that, depending on how it was worded, I would've answered the same thing. And that's the crux of the report:
depending on how it's worded. Joe Carter leads a
discussion of adjectives and Xlrq addresses the
misleading questions in the poll. I firmly believe we live in separate realities, but this report did absolutely nothing to illuminate these differences.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:30 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think i can shed some light on the two realities. There are those of us that "know" our government lies to us, and that it is a matter of time before we catch those lies. Then there are those that want to believe the government, and are hurt and shocked when they find out the government lied to them.
Much of this is predicated on ones age I suppose, if you lived through the "Gulf of Tonkin" and Watergate series of lies you have no faith that anyone in government will tell the truth. If you were born post 1973, you are likely a "believer"
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at October 26, 2004 10:21 PM (n7PkD)
2
But I know plenty of people my age or younger who are convinced that the government is lying. Is that really an age distinction or just an ideology one?
Posted by: Sarah at October 27, 2004 02:29 AM (grW7N)
3
Well if your under thirty, it is probably ideology. For me it is an accumulation of things I have witnessed, things like the Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, and the lies the Air Force tell a widow when her husband is killed as a result of a helocopter accident. I might be a cynic, but I am comfortable knowing I am writing in for president: "Mays Gilliam" a fictional character for a ficticious time. I wonder how long you will be able to hold out and not become a cynic.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at October 28, 2004 09:03 PM (n7PkD)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 23, 2004
LIES
Here's another story about my brother. Back in the day, he had a little 8th grade girlfriend who was new to town. She said her father was a doctor and that they were building a new home, and she and my brother would ride their bikes by the construction site. She said she was a catalog model and had made lots of money doing photo shoots. And none of it was true. She lived in a small house with just her mom and had never been a model. My brother was pretty freaked out when the truth came out.
I've never forgotten this girl; I think of her often when I wonder about people who lie. I wonder what made her say these things. We all tell white lies to avoid hurting people's feelings, and we may exaggerate the truth a bit to make a story more fantastic, but repeated fabrication and lies and shifting the blame is cause for concern. Did this little girlfriend get so wrapped up in the fantasy world that she didn't know she was a liar, or was she just trying so hard to get people to like her that she'd say whatever she thought they'd like to hear? Either way is frightening.
John Kerry, as far as anyone can tell, hasn't fired a shotgun at a bird in many years, if ever. While it is possible that he might nevertheless luck out and hit a goose, the odds are heavily against it. Yet there is something about Kerry that requires him to distort reality to fit his own conception of himself: he ran in the Boston marathon; he never falls down while snowboarding unless a Secret Service agent knocks him over; he can't stand to walk across a patch of tarmac without pulling out a football; when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park and it landed half-way to home plate, it was the fault of the National Guardsman who was supposed to catch it, because the Guardsman was nervous; he had the biggest buck in the history of Massachusetts in his sights but didn't pull the trigger. And now, he shot a goose. Only, where is it?
This would be an alarming personality trait even if Kerry's fantasies were limited to sporting triumphs. But the Walter Mitty candidate doesn't stop there. When a candidate for President makes up non-existent secret missions to Cambodia, testifies before Congress of "war crimes" of which, it turns out, he has no knowledge, and fantasizes support from foreign powers which will magically change their perceptions of their own self-interest if only John F. Kerry were President, Walter Mitty is no longer funny.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:24 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think a psychologist would diagnose those symptoms as indicators of an inferiority complex or insecurity.
Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2004 04:47 PM (ckYKs)
2
I think I'm understanding how it works now.
If Bush says something wild or astonishing, it's safe to assume it's true unless 100% proven otherwise.
But if John Kerry says something even private or trivial that can't be 100% proven, it's presumed a lie.
It's not that you guys make things up; it's that you don't register as 'evidence' anything that you don't agree with.
Say, ban and delete me, wouldja? Thanks.
Posted by: auto_movil at October 25, 2004 06:06 PM (2sTXp)
3
The hunting snafu is bizarre. Powerline claims that they've never known Kerry to hunt? It'd qualify the writers as stalkers if they did. The real battle is over the mythology of hunting geese, and not hunting geese. It's not whether he's a hunter it's whether he's a "man", in the red state sense of the term.
This battle over mythology is, of course, one of the key battles in any given elections, since the citizenry is largely too stupid or too lazy to be bothered with policy, so I suppose I don't begrudge bloggers the mythology in their memes, but still: Kerry is patrician, and patricians hunt. I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's done more than his fair share of hunting. Certainly more than me when I was growing up in rural OH.
Posted by: jpe at October 25, 2004 08:55 PM (w4ohZ)
4
I read the Kerry article in Field and Stream. A 16 point buck got away....
Any real hunter knows that's crap. If you can't hit a buck that has 16 points, you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
It's just another example of how Kerry couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. Unfortunately, if he wins, our lives possibly will and THAT is the scary part folks...
Posted by: Army wife at October 30, 2004 04:50 PM (/1PdN)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 22, 2004
PHONY
Once again, where's the character from Family Guy? "John Kerry is a
great big phony!"
Posted by: Sarah at
01:42 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I honestly laugh everytime I see him in a Carhartt jacket, of course he only does that in rural states.
Yeah Bubba, you just came in from mucking stalls...
Sheesh
Posted by: Tink at October 22, 2004 03:06 AM (S6VXg)
2
He looks so stupid. I've probably killed more birds than him....and I've only been hunting twice! What a fake...
Posted by: Erin at October 22, 2004 05:45 PM (AgmLR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 19, 2004
FEAR
I'm still upset from
earlier today. I tried to read about the laser beam and refocus, but I just couldn't do it. Part of the reason is because I'm worried about our country's laser beam.
I haven't allowed myself to get confident about the election. In fact, I'm pretty freaking scared. I don't care about what the polls say; I'm freaked out about what happens on 2 November. I keep thinking about what Whittle said:
I fear the consequences of abandoning personal responsibility. I fear the self-hatred and nihilism that grows among the pampered, the narcissistic and the uninformed. These are things to be feared greatly. They have brought down entire civilizations and led to dark ages that have cost this species very dearly. I think we stand at such a point today, and this election -- win or lose -- will not determine the outcome...although it might give us some indication of how sick or healthy we are at this pivotal moment in history.
I fear that my blog-reading has insulated me from just how sick our country is right now. I surround myself with informed people who understand that we're in a post-9/11 world, so I was completely taken aback when someone spouted DU-esque nonsense about how the war in Iraq is a distraction (oh wait, that's not just from the DU; the Democrat candidate says the same thing.) And I'm afraid that there are a lot more like that out there.
And I have seen the eternal Idiotarian hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.
We need to win this election. I know our country has survived worse, but we are at a crossroads and we need to take the right path. I'm not confident at all that we will. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:00 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Now how many people paraphrase Prufrock in a blog? Not many, I tell you.
Posted by: CavalierX at October 19, 2004 10:26 PM (sA6XT)
2
I too am very concerned, Sarah. I attend a typical Southern Baptist church in southwest Missouri, and interacting with some local college students who attend church there also, I am most distressed: Several expressed apathy over who ought to be our C-in-C; many STILL hadn't registered! (And of course, it's too late now.)
Another point: I, like most evangelicals, believe in the resurrection of the dead; indeed, I predict that the biblical "rapture" will occur on November 2--at least in Saint Louis, MO. (as it always does on election day). Seems the dead, they rise every time we here in Missouri hold an election--and (as you remember, being registered here in MO yourself), we have even voted a deceased man to the Senate!
THAT is what I really fear--dead people voting, dogs voting, cats voting, fictitious people voting, illegal aliens voting. As Peggy Noonan just voiced on Hannity & Colmes, that kind of fraud is treasonous.
If Kerry wins fair and square (he doesn't even have to win the popular--the electoral vote will suffice), so be it; we will have gotten the president we deserve. But if all those fraudulent means above sway the vote, then I weep for this, our nation.
Posted by: Jim Shawley at October 19, 2004 11:15 PM (wyxEQ)
3
Like you,I fear for our country when I see and hear some of the things that supposedly intelligent people spout. But there is hope. My mother, a southern yellow dog Democrat, has been seriously studying many issues and it looks like she has decided that Bush will be better for the country. Maybe there are more like her. That's one of the things I pray for. I also pray for our country, our leaders, our troops, and you and your husband. God Bless.
Posted by: Pamela at October 20, 2004 01:13 PM (AOFgp)
4
P.S.
I've been reading your blog for several weeks. I found it through a link from another blog (I think it started with Michelle Malkins blog). I have really enjoyed reading here. I sympathize with your tilt to the right and your lose of friends because of it. I have friends and family I can not even have a conversation with anymore (sigh). As for your blog reading insulating you from the sickies out there; start with Moveon.org and follow some of thier links. Yikes, will that ever bring you up to speed on the raving moonbats:-) Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Pamela at October 20, 2004 01:22 PM (AOFgp)
5
Hang in there. Lincoln was convinced he would lose in 1864. It will be close, But Bush will prevail.
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at October 20, 2004 03:21 PM (X3jxj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 18, 2004
SURGE
I've heard people scoff at the idea that the terrorists want Kerry to win. Well, here's
interesting take on some people who have been listening to Kerry. (Thanks, Hud.)
Posted by: Sarah at
01:55 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Ugg ...that's just terrible .
Anyways I'm still following Lt. D I don't know why it is some people just don't leave your mind even tho you've never met them. I'm glad to hear he's doing better . I read a couple news articles on him tonight( This am actually ) there were a few pictures .. He looks like such a wonderful guy . I keep thinking about the power of prayer and will to survive .
I just wanted to let you know I'm still thinking about him and you . God Bless
Posted by: MorningSun at October 18, 2004 05:48 AM (EPBbn)
2
Thanks. I tried to call him recently on his birthday, but I couldn't get through. I need to try again...
Posted by: Sarah at October 18, 2004 06:51 AM (ECh5c)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2004
PEACE OF MIND
Paranoid as I am, I called to see if our absentee ballots have made it to Missouri. Mine is there safe and sound; the husband's is not there yet, but it has further to travel. I'll call back next week for another update.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.
COMMON MAN
I'd give anything to go to a
Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Sarah at
08:26 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
October 11, 2004
NUISANCE
A nuisance? A
nuisance?
Terrorism is a nuisance?
How could anyone in this country vote for this man?
Posted by: Sarah at
05:46 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Right. Much smarter to vote for someone who will delay the war to win votes.
From the LA Times:
"The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race."
Not to mention wanting to reduce terrorism to the level of a nuisance is not the same thing as saying terrorism is a nuisance.
But make yourself happy.
Posted by: delagar at October 11, 2004 02:49 PM (OGs7b)
2
That's a pretty nice spin attempt from the LA Times, considering that a) we just took Samarra, b) we just negotiated a cease-fire with al-Sadr, and c) six months ago, the Bush Administration ws saying that they're going to make a final anti-terrorist sweep in November and December. LA just got the news, eh?
Posted by: CavalierX at October 11, 2004 03:40 PM (sA6XT)
3
I love to pass my cursor over the highlighted names of the snide, rude posters you seem to attract. Ever noticed how most of their e0mail addresses end with ".edu"? Hmm. Makes me thank the lord that I got out safely after a Bachelor's and Juris Doctor Degree with my brain still fully hydrated. Clearly, that educational environment causes some type of short circuit within the cortex. I'll let you know if I see you exhibiting any signs of lofty moonbattiness. Oh, and Happy birthday!
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 11, 2004 05:11 PM (JxQWH)
4
I love to pass my cursor over the highlighted names of the snide, rude posters you seem to attract. Ever noticed how most of their e-mail addresses end with ".edu"? Hmm. Makes me thank the lord that I got out safely after a Bachelor's and Juris Doctor Degree with my brain still fully hydrated. Clearly, that educational environment causes some type of short circuit within the cortex. I'll let you know if I see you exhibiting any signs of lofty moonbattiness. Oh, and Happy Birthday!
Posted by: Oda Mae at October 11, 2004 05:18 PM (JxQWH)
5
Sarah - I don't know the answer to your question but 76% of our troops will be voting for BUSH. So that tells you something right there.
Posted by: Kathleen A at October 11, 2004 07:40 PM (vnAYT)
6
I saw that the quote came from the LA Times and just skipped to the next comment.
Yeah, I read it earlier today. I just consider the source.
As for Your question Sarah - I don't understand. But the sad thing is neither "side" is capable of seeing why the other feels so strongly. It's an election like no other I've ever seen.
Posted by: Tammi at October 11, 2004 08:49 PM (UOdfZ)
7
There are many people who resist facing unpleasant realities...Kerry's downplaying of the problem appeals to these individuals precisely because it allows them to keep the covers over their heads for a little bit longer.
Posted by: David Foster at October 12, 2004 12:31 PM (XUtCY)
8
Make up your minds will you!
"Can we win the war on terrorism? Yes, I think we can, in the sense that we can win the war on organized crime. There is going to be no peace treaty on the battleship Missouri in the war on terrorism, but we can break its back so that it is only a horrible
nuisance and not a paralyzing influence on our societies."
-- General Brent Scowcroft
Bush 41 National Security Advisor
Bush 43 appointee to the Forum for International Security
"9/11 a Year On" conference, Sept. 2002
http://www.usip.org/events/2002/america/scowcroft.html
Posted by: curveball at October 12, 2004 03:49 PM (XgPtC)
9
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington
Posted by: Moor at October 12, 2004 03:57 PM (g8OfD)
10
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Forbes_family
Posted by: Moor at October 12, 2004 06:18 PM (g8OfD)
11
Moor, I know it is hard for you...But do try to stay on topic and relevant to this century.
Your buddy Brent is living in what you like to call the September 12th world, unlike George Washington.
As far as the Forbes thing...I have no clue what you are trying to accomplish with that. But thanks for playing.
Posted by: curveball at October 12, 2004 10:15 PM (PGrwU)
12
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 09:48 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 10, 2004
DREAM ON
As I was reading
VDH's blurb about the debate, I had a thought. Kerry keeps repeating "I have a plan..."; I think he should switch over and go with "I have a dream...". Think about it: it's catchy, it's chock-full of symbolism, and it much better fits his ridiculous theories and vague projections about how the world would work under his presidency.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Paris the sons of former neo-cons and the sons of former Iranian nuclear bomb makers will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood filled with allies from all different nations, and by all different nations I mean France and Germany. I have a dream that one day even the United States, a police state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice, not unlike North Vietnam was when I met with the Vietcong in 1971. I have a dream that my two children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the orangey color of their skin but by the content of their briefcases, which is where they keep their lucky hats. I have a dream today.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:38 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sarah:
Almost makes me want to vote for him...not.
Great news about the Aussies!!
Bet you are looking forward to your husband's leave; you both remain in my prayers.
Jim
Posted by: Jim Shawley at October 10, 2004 03:52 AM (qko7X)
2
Sarah - saw President Bush at a rally yesterday (along with about 10,000 other people) and GWB's new meme is "He can run, but he can't hide". I loved it and the crowd loved it. It was great to hear 10,000 people yelling it along with the President.
Posted by: Toni at October 10, 2004 09:47 AM (K4kPu)
3
I am very concerned that you are very right. It almost seems as though Kerry was being prepped for running for president by some foreign power. I would not doubt that he was fully and completely indoctrinated by the communist party during his college years and only got worse when he met twice with the leaders of Communist North Vietnam. If elected I am very much certain that he would try to make America in the image of socialists countries like France very quickly and eventually towards full communism there after.
After reading all about Kerry from his college years to now, he has consistantly been anti defense and anti intelligence, the two things that during the cold war, kept us safe.
Posted by: Allen Stoner at October 10, 2004 01:43 PM (TFkfJ)
4
I'm on a fly fishing forum. On the off-topic part of the board I asked the many leftists there what John Kerry's plan was for Iraq. I specified that I didn't want to know his goals, we all know that, but rather what his plan was to achieve those goals. I got a link to Kerry's page, nothing there but goals, I got "diplomacy" but that's a goal, not a plan.
Not a one of them could say what Kerry's plan actually was.
Oh, and you'll be pleased to know that you're some kind of neo-con propagandist pajama blogger. lol
Kalroy
Posted by: Kalroy at October 10, 2004 02:32 PM (lU63E)
5
In almost every episode of the BBC series "Blackadder", Tony Robinson's character "Baldrick" has "a cunning plan" for dealing with the current situation. And, when he utters the catch-phrase, you immediately know that it is going to border on the insane.
The Junior Senator dresses better than Baldrick but that gives me no cause to expect a better quality of plan.
Posted by: homebru at October 10, 2004 11:20 PM (/YRiG)
6
Hello folks nice blog youre running
Posted by: lolita at January 19, 2005 09:47 PM (yM4u5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 09, 2004
RETURNS
Heh. Pixy thinks a good indicator of who is going to win the election is the
betting odds!
Posted by: Sarah at
03:26 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Looks like they were right, too!
With half the vote counted, John Howard looks set for a fourth term. Yay!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 09, 2004 07:40 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Tanker Schreiber at October 11, 2004 11:59 AM (Lsg7m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
SOMETHING BETTER?
In the comments section below, Manny wrote the following defense of voting for Kerry:
With Bush it seems that we will get just more of the same. If you like that then I imagine you will vote for him. But with Kerry we may get something better. There are no guarantees but Kerry is certainly not the ogre of the negative campaign.
However, since the first debate, bloggers have been pointing out how Kerry's plans have already failed. Wretchard wrote about how The Global Test already didn't work for us, and CavX addressed the "allies at the table", Iran, and North Korea. I'm not sure I agree that we "may get something better", since Kerry's suggestions seem to be falling apart even before we get to 2 November.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:52 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I see this as a misrepresentation of one of Kerry's best arguments.
While I am an avid student of American history there is one document from our earliest history that should be familiar with all your readers. I am referring to our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
Kerry's argument for US military action that meets the standards of a 'global test' is nothing more that what our founding fathers said when they declared that "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Our founding fathers claimed the right to overthrow a legitimate authority that had become tyranical and said that "To prove this,[the tyrany] let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
If our founding fathers were not afraid to explain and to justify themselves to the judgement of mankind I don't see where Bush, or any president, should think he is any better.
Kerry's policy just harkens back to the sensible policy of our forefathers. I believe there is an objective right and objective wrong. I believe these things can be determined and that it is only tyrants who believe they need never justify themselves in the court of public opinion.
I not saying Bush is a tyrant, but clearly his policy is the exact opposite of Thomas Jefferson's, and it seems of John Kerry's as well.
While I believe both Bush and Kerry as just as patriotic as was Jefferson, who 'pledged his life, liberty, and sacred honor' to the revolution it seems that only Bush of these three is contemptious towards what Jefferson called "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
Posted by: manny at October 09, 2004 02:06 PM (s6c4t)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 08, 2004
BROWNSHIRTS, INDEED
Hud found a link to a round-up of
property damage and threats by Kerry supporters. These are scary times, folks.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:38 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is beginning to bother me, especially the union organized mobs. The fact that those forcing takeovers of Bush/Cheney HQ's think they are doing good things has to be the worst. I'd wager the whole time they think that they are promoting free speech and not surpressing it. Strange black-is-white up-is-down world.
Nothing like this in my neck of the woods yet, and my Bush/Cheney sign in my window has not been messed with. And a few apartments over there is a John/John sticker in someones window that has also not been messed with. Same with my GF who has rather Large sign in her front window as well.
Posted by: John at October 08, 2004 04:18 AM (+Ysxp)
2
It's really unfortunate when idiots do things like this, and it ends up being really bad for the campaign in the long run. (Who wants to vote for someone who attracts criminals.)
On the other hand, the Bush campaign requires those attending his rallies to sign a loyalty pledge, and uses the
secret service to keep those who don't support the president out. Hardly 1st Am. defender there.
No, the two are not directly comparable. The difference, though, is that the latter is not an act of Bush supporters, but of the administration itself.
I don't particularly like either candidate, but I have to say that I think the greatest threat today is balkanization: conservatives and liberals seem increasingly unwilling to talk civilly with one another, and that's just bad for the country.
Posted by: Alex at October 08, 2004 06:02 PM (mksoO)
3
Alex, I agree with you about the balkanization. I thought of your comment when I read this article today though:
Only One Campaign...
Posted by: Sarah at October 09, 2004 03:36 AM (FbQyH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 06, 2004
VOTING
I find I'm irrationally afraid of my absentee ballot not making it to Missouri. I can't stop thinking about it. I worry that it's stuck somewhere inside the mailbox and won't get found until it's too late. The bad thing is that there's no way of knowing.
I don't think I ever told the story of how I was almost "disenfranchised" in 2000. I went to the voting place and went into the little booth, and I jacked up my ballot Florida-style. Punched it wrong. But unlike Florida I wasn't so dumb that I didn't realize it, so I stood there and tried to figure out what to do. Both the ballot and the sign on the inside of the booth said that if you make a voting error, you should destroy the ballot and return it to the polling people for a new one. So I emerged from the curtain ripping my jacked-up ballot and asked for a new one. And the volunteers started shouting. They used menacing words like "violation" and "irregularity" and reprimanded me for defiling the voting center. They asked me what on earth would possess me to rip up my ballot, and I calmly replied, "The sign you have printed on the inside of the booth." And then they refused to believe that the sign would say such a thing. I tried to get one of them to come in the booth with me to see it, but they weren't budging. They almost refused to give me another ballot, but finally they relented. I voted properly and then left, but I mentioned that they might want to change their signs since there obviously was a huge discrepancy in procedure. It was a mess.
Plus I voted for the wrong guy! I mean, I punched it right, but BOY would he have been the wrong guy!
Posted by: Sarah at
03:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.
VOTE
Excellent post on why to vote Bush at
Cold Fury (via Bunker). Taste:
Well, here’s why: because the choice isn’t between Bush and George Patton; it isn’t even between Bush and Barry Goldwater. The choice is between a man who, in the end, has made the right moves, if sometimes diffidently, and a man who has shown over a long career in the Senate that he is not just indifferent but actually hostile to the use of American military power in pursuit of American interests. The choice is between a man who, in the immediate aftermath of the most hideously successful terrorist attack in history, had the bedrock good sense and unabashed patriotism to be unable to conceal his anger, and a man who would have needed three polls and a focus group to tell him how he ought to feel about it in order not to discomfit and alienate his America-hating Lefty base. The choice is between a man who genuinely seems to like soldiers, respect their service, believe in their competence, and honor their intelligence and basic decency, and a man who underhandedly wriggled out of his own commitment and came home to slander them as butchers and latter-day “Jenjis” Khans.
Posted by: Sarah at
01:47 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Sorry to hijack this comment thread, but I didn't think you'd mind.......
BILL WHITTLE'S BACK!!!!!!!
YEA!
Posted by: MargeinMI at October 06, 2004 09:46 AM (yAoyA)
2
You can go on pouting about John Kerry all you want but Kerry will win in November.
Without another republican theft he will be President in January. Get used to it.
Posted by: dc at October 06, 2004 02:48 PM (s6c4t)
3
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Feeling threatened?
Posted by: Sarah at October 06, 2004 03:26 PM (4kYUJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 05, 2004
VOTE
This article,
Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry, jives with my husband's assessment of his own platoon.
By the way, the husband sent his ballot the other day. As long as the mail moves along in a timely fashion, the two of us will be squared away for 2 November.
Posted by: Sarah at
02:54 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And so long as the Democrats don't try to invalidate overseas military absentee ballots like they tried to do in 2000.
Kalroy
Oh, sed nunc malium malius me habeo, but I'm feeling much better now.
Posted by: Kalroy at October 05, 2004 07:07 AM (al6AG)
2
My hubs called tonight, their ballots left on today's chopper.
I can't speak for his platoon, but if how the wives are voting is any indication, the numbers would hold up at this end as well.
Posted by: Tink at October 06, 2004 06:08 AM (S6VXg)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
113kb generated in CPU 0.1448, elapsed 0.3313 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.2965 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.