Lefty Soapbox

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Bush/Cheney '04 Slogans 
Steve:
I saw this on a few websites, and I decided to try my hand at a few slogans. Feel free to contribute your own.

- Who needs a booming economy when we have less personal freedom?
- Providing the terrorists with a reason to get up in the morning.
- Because it takes strong moral leadership to rid this country of the homos.
- I don't see YOU capturing Saddam.
- Because rich people deserve better.
- Aren't you a little sick of that uniter bullshit too?
- It takes a wartime president to create the nuclear winter necessary for Hell to freeze over.

My favorite that I saw on another site was "Why switch horsemen mid-Apocalype?"

Sunday, February 22, 2004

Quit playing games with my heart, George W. 
Doug:
Dang it.
You know, there I go, like a fool, believing Bush when he tells us that there is no such thing as global warming, and then I have to go and read something like this.

It's always worse when you have to hear it from someone else.

Thank you, Guardian.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

Sweet. 
Steve:
Predictable.

My favorite part of that article?

The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.

"The timing of that order will ultimately depend on President Bush," the paper says. "Capturing bin Laden will certainly be a huge help for him as he gets ready for the election."


At least everyone knows it.

Friday, February 20, 2004

Out of Curiosity... 
Steve:
Has anyone seen ANYTHING in the news about the space program or steroid use or, for that matter, ANY of the issues Bush talked about in his State of the Union speech, in the past month and a half? You'd think we'd hear at least something, a blurb in the news, anything. Unless, of course, those were all just diversions from the real problems facing the Bush administration. I highly doubt that, though. I have too much faith in Bush's ability to run our country well. Why would he have to lie just to divert the nation's attention away from a crippled economy and a botched war? I see him as the type who would take responsibility for their actions.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Wait, who's going to win? 
Matt:
I know they had a bunch of exit polls and whatnot, but was anyone watching CNN when they projected Kerry as the winner?

Edwards was winning.

Weird.

It's not 100% about sex anymore 
Matt:
It's 0% about sex, since it never happened. So good of Fox News to go right with the story with no evidence other than Drudge's claims. We should look into Larry Flynt's claims though, given his track record in the late 90s. So should we ban all abortions, or just abortions for the non-wealthy?

Also, way to go Virginia. Anyone else as surprised as I am? I mean, we're talking about Virginia here.

Friday, February 13, 2004

The Moral Right 
Doug:
You remember that thing with President Clinton, where he had borderline sexual relations with that intern, whats-her-name? Remember that the reason it was so important was because he lied to the American people while under oath and lied to a grand jury and abused his power as President and how it really wasn't about sex?

With John Kerry, it's 100% about sex.

(I got that link stright from Counterspin, and I'll understand if you won't be able to stomach reading it for the whole thing. It took me a couple sittings. It's worth it for the poorly photoshopped pictures, though. Classy.)

Thursday, February 12, 2004

I Do(n't) 
Doug:
The topic of gay marriage has been on my mind a lot lately and I'm starting to get really angry and worked up about it. There's been a lot of activity in Massachusetts lately, as well the recent marriage of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin in San Francisco that makes me wonder what exactly these conservative groups are trying to protect the institution of marriage from. Phyllis and Del have been together for something like 50 years, living in delicious decadence and sin. 50 fuckin' years. How many divorced straight couples do you know personally? If the point of this proposed constitutional amendment is to protect the institution of marriage, couldn't there be a better place to start? And why wouldn't conservatives approve of a queer couple deciding to make the commitment to spend the rest of their lives together? If homosexuality is so bad, wouldn't banning gay marriage promote that sinful homo promiscuity that seems to be threatening the collapse of Western Civilization?

Coming soon: a rant on marriage, government, and why the two together violate the separation of church and state.


Booyah!

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Vote 
Doug:
I was going to write yesterday about Virginia having an open primary that any Virginia voter could vote in, regardless of party affiliation, and then remind everyone to vote. But then I worked 16 hours instead.

Note that Al Sharpton got more votes in VA than my boy Kucinich. Well, at least he got more votes than Lieberman and Gephardt, who still have Virginia supporters who either haven't been paying attention to national news or thought they were voting on a butterfly ballot when they weren't. I can't really blame the Lieberman/Gephardt voters though, since I voted for a guy named Dennis.

I'm gonna miss you, Wesley Clark. I liked you better than Ike. Hopefully the Democratic Administration will make him a cabinet member or something.

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Hey, check out those pigs in the sky! 
Steve:
Holy shit!

I'd write more, but the article says it all pretty nicely. Bill O'Reilly, one of the nation's biggest Bush defenders, says Bush was wrong and he feels deceived. Who'd of thunk it? This CAN'T be good for W. in November.

Monday, February 09, 2004

How Surprising 
Matt:
Speaking of Conservative Disillusionment, a friend of mine has become so disillusioned with Everyone's Favorite President™ that he won't campaign at all for Bush, and what's more, he doesn't care who wins the election in November.

This is significant because:
1. He's the most conservative person I know
2. He's been politically active since Elementary School
3. He is the head of the Republican Party where I live, and former head of the Republican Party in a neighboring locality

If HE doesn't care who wins, that bodes extremely well for whoever wins the Democratic Party nod.

Friday, February 06, 2004

The Ten Commandments Judge 
Doug:
It's kinda funny that just yesterday I mentioned Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments Judge, when today I'd find out that he's the keynote speaker at a function ON MY CAMPUS. Right now. As I type this. I just found out about half an hour ago.

I would have went to see him, but look at the prices!

UPDATE:
Will Roy Moore run for President? I sure hope so.


Thursday, February 05, 2004

Response to Matt 
Doug:
The comments feature seems to be down at the moment, so I hope the rest of you don't find it too wildly innappropriate for me to reply here. As soon as it's back up I'll remove this and put it in the comment section, where it belongs, but I just wanted to get it out while I had it written down:

Funny. Your brother is getting married the same day as another set of friends, as I'm sure you know.

But excellent post, Matt. I feel like gay marriage is our generation's "blacks can't sit at the counter". Seperate but equal my ass. I agree that civil unions won't cut it. We have a responsibility to ensure that all Americans get equal rights. Me personally, I've pledged to not get married until all Americans have the right to.

In addition, how can someone intelligently argue that the USA is a Christian country? Have you heard this? I heard it a lot with Roy Whats-his-name, the "10 Commandments Judge" who wouldn't remove his ten commandments statue from his courthouse. These same people decry the religious fundamentalists that ran Afghanistan with absolutely no sense of irony. The US of A will never cease to boggle me.

Marriage is not a sacred institution 
Matt:
Massachusetts will be the first state to allow two men or two women to marry.

Yet Bush finds this troubling, and reiterated that “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

What the hell? Okay, first off, regarding marriage as a “sacred institution”, specifically the “sacred” part. That implies religious connections. And indeed, there are marriages that happen affiliated with religious institutions. The problem I have is that there are also NON RELIGIOUS marriages, SANCTIONED and PERFORMED by the GOVERNMENT, or just by random joe shmo with a license. We’re talking Justices of the Peace and bloody ELVIS IMPERSONATORS. I’m sorry, no one can say that marriage is a sacred anything anymore, after Britney Spears’ shotgun wedding. If that hasn’t showed that marriage isn’t sacred, I don’t know what will.

And also the idea that two people who share a gender getting married will undermine the institution of marriage is just bogus. I think the past few generations have done a fine job of undermining the institution, what with HALF of marriages ending in divorce. HALF. So if two people you know get married (and not to each other), chances are one of them will get divorced.

But that will be taken care of, as Bush is spending 1.5 billion dollars on a campaign to advertise marriage. What was that part in the State of the Union about frivolous spending?

I can see it know: “Marriage. It’s what’s for dinner.”

Don't Do It!!!! 
Doug:
I just got this email:

Dear Nader 2000 list subscriber,

I am considering whether or not to run for President in 2004, and because of your past support, you are invited to keep up to date and provide input about any potential run this year.

I intend to decide soon. Please take a minute right now to sign up at my exploratory committee’s website at the following link: http://www.naderexplore04.org/.

I hope you remain interested and personally involved in our country’s elections at all levels. Thank you for your support in 2000.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader


Nooooo! Don't do it, Ralph! I loved you to death in 2000, but I don't want anyone to blame you again if you take votes away from the Democrats!

For the record, I don't blame Nader for what happened in 2000. That's the easy way out. I blame Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush for purging hundreds of blacks from the voting record before the election. I blame Dade county for using an illegal butterfly ballot. I blame Al Gore, the Vice President of the United State of America for 8 prosperous years leading up to the election, for not being able to defeat a guy who ran a failing oil business and a failing baseball team before getting himself elected governor based on having the same name as a former president, and then acted like a total idiot during the election. I blame the Democrats for kowtowing to corporate interests. I blame Clinton for passing NAFTA and doing a ton of other things Repulican that I can't think of off the top of my head that made me want to vote third party in the first place. I blame Leiberman for being the running mate. I blame Karl Rove because I just hate him in general. I do NOT blame Nader.

But that doesn't mean I want to see him run again.

I'll vote third party again I'm sure, but not as long as Bush is in office.

Frivolous Lawsuits 
Steve:
Okay, this is ridiculous. America's judicial system has got to be the mockery of the world's law enforcement societies. Anybody can come up with any asinine claim to money, and then tie up the court system with it. I'm not arguing against this, because I appreciate the right to sue when you have been wronged, I'm putting more of the blame on the horribly greedy American public. Seriously. You can't wring money out of everyone. Stop trying.

Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Praise Yahweh! 
Steve:
Lieberman's out. We can all breath a collective sigh of relief that the Democrat elected to office in November will actually be a Democrat.

Probe yourself 
Matt:
Bush should launch a probe into why he pressured the intelligence community to support his idea that Iraq had weapons instead of why the intelligence "failed". It failed because you told them to tell you what you wanted to believe, Mr. President.

As someone who has worked in the intelligence community, I can vouch for its awesomeness. For a long time the intelligence community was very hesitant to say anything about there being WMD because there was little to no evidence. If there was evidence, we would have found it. After intense pressure by the administration, members of the intelligence community did everything they could to show there were things to be found in Iraq. We showed the UN Weapon Inspectors (Hans Blix, remember him? Speaking of which, how does Bush come off saying that Saddam would not "let us in" when there were bloody weapons inspectors in Iraq until the day before the war? Isn't that a lie? But then again, he also said "We found the weapons of mass destruction, we found biological laboratories," which turned out to not be the case) where to look based on our intelligence, and there was absolutely nothing. There were no WMDs in Iraq. And yet we go after them instead of countires like Korea, who we DO know have them and who we do know can reach us with them. This absurdity is pointed out nicely by our very own Doug.

So why did we go in to Iraq? Well, if you believe this characterization of Bush, it's because he's a psychopath and he wants to show daddy that he is good at something other than drinking.

But I'm no psychiatrist.

(edited for link)

Monday, February 02, 2004

Speaking of Cheney... 
Matt:
His former company is doing some awesome things for the Iraqi people and the US government!

Bush just sent his budget to Congress, with a record $521 billion debt. Note that that is NOT INCLUDING the estimated $50 billion in wartime supplemental funding Bush is going to ask for, but not until after the elections. That's real shady.

Oh, and he does admit he was wrong about pre war intelligence, but without actually admitting it, and not doing that until after the election either, if ever.

And coming soon, an analysis of why I think, and have always thought, that the Electoral College is dumb.

Republican Rumor Mill 
Doug:
About a week ago Matt wrote about Bush dropping Cheney and picking up Giuliani as a running mate in 2004. Well, apparently the intellectual conservatives want him to pick up McCain. This should be interesting.

A lighthearted romp 
Steve:
I know we're trying to reserve this site for somewhat serious liberal political thought, but I thought this site pretty much summed up my feelings on Bush.

Sunday, February 01, 2004

RIP Satire 
Doug:
Both Bush and Blair have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? For "having dared to take the necessary decision to launch a war on Iraq without having the support of the UN."

...

huh?