One thing i have always found odd is that during off year elections, or special elections, when bond issues and school board levies are voted on, the turnouts are even lower than during national elections. It seems to so odd to me that people who vote in the national election do not vote when there is an immediate effect upon their wallets.
If it were just laziness no amount of door knocking would get them out to vote. Laziness wouldn't bring them to the door when campaigners knocked. Laziness wouldn't get them to the "social" or potluck dinner to talk to friends and neighbors about the upcomin 'lection.
Nah, I think we're just stupid.
And gullible. We believe a bunch of that stuff they say about each other and then can't compute what them guys are talkin about on tv when they change their story around. So, we just store the first stuff we heard and don't figure out it was a lie.
DontTreadOnMe wrote
Quote:naa, i don't believe that. there are really very few without the intelligence to cast an informed vote.
How smart and informed can they be when they get all their information from 30 second time slots? How many sit down and take the time to evaluate the candidates?
Many Americans are if not politically ignorant at least politically naive.
Sturgis wrote:Morality for one thing, honesty for another. There is also the decent way of thinking about our nation. No, clearly not everybody is doing this and it is a slow process but the changes are beginning and that puts a smile on my face. Just knowing when I awaken in the morning that a man who believes in this country is in charge, a man who has integrity and decency and helps me to breathe easier and sleep more soundly.
Those of you who have seen "Angels in America" may recognize this paraphrase
Shoot! I thought that sounded all Pacino-ish.
I kept reading and re-reading trying out with different voices. Liked it best as a DeNior quote, though.
Also reminded me of the smell of napalm in the morning.
I was actually thinking the Patrick Wilson character (Joe Pitt) when he's talking to his wife about why he should take the job in Washington and all the great things the Reagan Administration is doing ... You know while he's still trying to convince himself that he's straight and if he just prays hard enough that God will make him attracted to his wife....
You know delusional....
[size=7]edit for wrong name
[/size]
Military families are waking up,too. That, to me, seems most significant.
Quote:Stolen Honor
On Wednesday August 3, President Bush issued a statement in which he made the deaths of American soldiers a key reason for remaining in Iraq:
"We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission. [So that] the families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause."
Within minutes, Cindy Sheehan responded:
"We want our loved ones' sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are? We would like for him to explain this 'noble cause' to us, and plan to ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble. If he is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal." (for the full account of this exchange, go here)
In response to his attempt to frame the deaths of more and more soldiers in Iraq, Cindy stole the ball right out of the President's hands. That is to say, she stole "honor" from the President's statement and turned it into the kick-off statement of her protest against the President's policy to stay the course in Iraq.
As the President defined it, "honor" was inaction. To "honor" our fallen soldiers, in the President's view, was to follow blindly the will of a President.
In the way he phrases it, the President has become expert at confusing the idea of "honor" with the idea of "continuing to fight." But in fact, President Bush's definition of "honor" is clear linked to the idea of "completing the mission," not fighting. And since the "mission" or policy in Iraq was conceived, launched and directed in secrecy, nobody will ever know when the "mission" is complete unless the President says so. Hence, "honor" in President Bush's view, is really about giving in completely to his will. To be "honorable" is to not ask questions. If you question me, then you are not honorable. If you criticize my policy, then you are not noble. That is the President's logic.
Cindy Sheehan's initial demand from the President was little more than a request that he define the lofty terms that he uses when he notes the deaths of American soldiers. What is "noble"? What is "honor"?
But rather than just asking for a new definition, she stole the ball--in this case the words "honor" and "noble"--and relocated it to a more visceral, meaningful context: the anguish of America's families.
SOURCE
coachryan wrote:I was actually thinking the Patrick Wilson character (Joe Pitt) when he's talking to his wife about why he should take the job in Washington and all the great things the Reagan Administration is doing ... You know while he's still trying to convince himself that he's straight and if he just prays hard enough that God will make him attracted to his wife....
You know delusional....
[size=7]edit for wrong name
[/size]
Dear Lord, last night I went out to the park to suck c**k again. That don't make me gay or nothing does it Lord?
what the F**k is going on in here.
The member Sturgis blatantly plagarized a portion of the play Angels in America without attribution. So the member Coach Ryan outed him for his paraphrase without attribution. Since Angels in America is about homosexuals and AIDS, the usual suspects here have been riffing off of it ever since . . .
Am I a usual suspect? I had no idea.....
Oh yeah, Bubba, they got your mug shot framed and in a place of honor downtown . . .
