Wow, I guess I’m voting for Obama (UGH)

I planned to vote for a 3rd party candidate in this election as I’m not wild about either nominee but McCain’s VP selection has pretty much convinced me to try to keep his ticket out of the White Haus, even though I semi-despise Barack “Change/Hope/repeat” Obama.

Mild reasons to vote against Silly Palin: zero foreign policy experience, no economic skills, pregnant teenage daughter (can’t even control things at home).

Serious reasons to vote against Palin: NRA member and hunting enthusiast, proponent of teaching CREATIONISM IN SCIENCE CLASS.

Holy shit.

PS – Preemptive address to Johnny B,

Yes, John, I know you or your father are probably NRA members and you might be offended.  If you recall from earlier posts I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but the NRA is a sick, sick, fucking organization and clearly the most hypocritical lobbying organization in America.  Even PETA and Planned Parenthood look sane by comparison.  NRA claims to be a “single issue organization” which is their repeated excuse for not lobbying for true conservation.  Somehow I don’t see how the “single issue” of gun rights includes 1) constantly sticking up for cops even when they’re wrong, 2) lobbying on behalf of trapping practices that have nothing to do with firearms or, 3) as they did until recently, support the ownership of assault weapons.

PPS – Abortion: some people don’t like Palin because she doesn’t support abortions in any situation but I more or less agree with that.

And for you vegetarians out there that don’t eat meat for moral reasons, how do you defend being pro-choice (if you are, that is)?  Moral vegetarian + Pro-choice = hypocrite

Thank you.



9 responses to “Wow, I guess I’m voting for Obama (UGH)

  1. Oh how I love being singled out! Thank you for making me feel special!

    Out of the bazillion articles I’ve read on this, I just figure I should post the most recent one I went through. Have at it.

    I was voting for McCain anyway.

    Yes, I am a sick sick man…an NRA member! Guns. I “cling bitterly” to them. But you should take comfort in the fact that I can hit a moving target at 600 yards in high wind without a scope…while balancing my checkbook. The NRA’s got some good educational and training tools, which is primarily why I joined. I haven’t actually used it in years though.

  2. God…

    Not that I’M singling you out, Johnny B., but your rebuttals to things are generally so stupid they REQUIRE such precedence over others’ remarks. So I guess I can see how it might SEEM that I AM, in fact, singling you out, buy m’yeh… I’ll try THIS time, at LEAST, to keep it a bit more succinct:

    1) You insert a link as “evidence” to something-unstated-but-purportedly-supportive-of-your-“stance” to a PARTISAN editorial site. Not a news source. Tell me: are ALL of your “bazillion” articles from similar sources? If so, who GIVES a shit?

    2) The “evidence”-in-question has as its main “point” a topic it self-contradicts: “Obama blithely pretends that [Palin is] still the mayor of ‘Wasilly’ in order to boost himself. However, running for office isn’t executive experience, for one good reason: Obama isn’t the campaign manager. He has a CEO actually running the campaign, handling the budget, and managing the people while Obama makes the speeches.”

    So, by THIS logic, Palin MUST be running around Alaska, PERSONALLY doing the accounting, logistics, and everything ELSE implicit of being an “executive” THERE, yeah? There’s no WAY she could just be glad-handing at soirees and signing pieces of paper formulated by hundreds if not THOUSANDS of OTHER people lower in the governing registry, COULD she? Well, when not being involved in half a dozen simultaneous scandals (and counting) resultant OF her courageous, courageous post, that is…

    3) When WAS the last “national disaster” in Alaska? And would it matter to you to know that, in the event OF said disaster, Palin has NO AUTHORITY, ANYWAY? Doubt it, but here ’tis to read, if you have the time in your neo-conservative propaganda-douched itinerary (pay particular attention to the part about the governor commanding the National Guard while “NOT in active federal service” in this explanation):

    Just out of curiosity: would you have voted for Ron Paul—whom I personally was GOING to vote for, before that whole campaign went south, and the whole thing turned into a headbutting match between two nimrods (one of the inexperienced variety; the other of the soulless, pandering, paradoxical, retarded strain)? And, if so, would it have been reliant upon his actual POLICIES, or just because he has an “R” after his name (which, technically, shouldn’t really mean anything to YOU; you’re not a “Republican” by the standard measure [based upon your dry-humping of Bush-‘n’-McCain-style policy treatises]).

    I apologize. Apparently, I’m physiognomically INCAPABLE of making it much shorter. [Shrug] I tried.

    PS: Turby, god DAMN it! You’re smarter than this! You force my hand at admonishing you in the same breath as Johnny B. Cretin! Reap the whirlwind, son! Here goes:

    1) Whether one is “pro-” or “anti-” the abortion ISSUE, there isn’t anyone “pro-” abortion ITSELF. That’s neo-conservative waffle propagated to scare moron voters into voting in a certain way. People who are not “pro-life”—YAY! I just shat myself with laughter!—are actually pro-CHOICE. As in “abortion as a measure that’s legally POSSIBLE as contingency,” NOT one that is looked forward to or promoted. You seem to be skirting the kind of self-perpetuating verbal motifs that delude the very people CONSIDERING the pros and cons OF said issue. (Another widely used misnomer-of-example: the Iraq “War”. It’s an OCCUPATION, actually. Congress, not the President, declares war. Even if he IS an illegally-seated one.) I’m not saying, necessarily, that you BELIEVE such. But you’re using the lexicon as if you DO.

    2) I don’t see how the “morals” behind vegetarianism (i.e. conservation, necessity, the humane treatment of animals, etc.) have ANYTHING to do with the “moral” behind one’s abortion stance. Is it because they’re both “death”-related? Oooohhh… Such a philosophy would portend that abortion inherently deals with “death,” which—barring a theosophical discussion, which one CANNOT win, as it’s an illogical framework to BEGIN with, argumentation-wise, and, therefore, not an argument—there is no proof regarding, in biomechanical terms. You’re barking up a Johnny B. referendum, at BEST, if this is the dragon you’re chasing.

    3) I must say/reiterate, lastly: moral vegetarianism in GENERAL = hypocrisy. Unavoidably so. I know you and I have had this discussion BEFORE, but, unless you’re willing to give up your natural habitat-encroaching social paradigm (e.g. living space, hangouts, job, roads, etc.), and to stop wearing clothes and doing civilized things that work off the SHOULDERS of the mechanization of the planet, you can’t POSSIBLY extricate yourself from the hypocrisy your particular “moral” is fashioned to address. Granted, you’re doing a “bit” in service of it (and “nice work”/don’t stop). But you’re ALSO doing a TON to bash its head in with a club, baby seal-stylee. You can’t HE’P it.

    (Well, unless by your original mention of “moral” you meant, “human carnivorism/omnivorism is ‘unnatural’”. THEN, you’re just retarded and should kill yourself to make room in the mechanized ecosphere for LESS retarded specimens. Feel free to take Johnny B. WITH you, yeah? How ‘bout a hug? LOL! *Dernth!*)

  3. Post-Post-Script: The ONLY reason McCain picked Palin—which is becoming more and more hideously apparent as the days/scandals associated with her office tick by—was to appeal to the mongoloid PUMA-variety “disenfranchised women voters” who were so “betrayed” in “*whine* the way Obama treated Hilary *whimper*” during the road to the Democratic party’s nomination, and then, AGAIN—and, somehow, in a completely reinvigorated way which was not at ALL apparent during the time Obama was in the selection process and Hilary was still in consideration—in that he didn’t pick HER as his running mate.

    I know no one ASKED me my opinion on this, but 1) it’s been bugging me; 2) I was reminded of my ire regarding this topic by this post; and 3) fake “Feminists” bug me as much—if not MORE—than the misinformed members of the Rep’ist Party. Not to mention, the McCain ticket says that Democrats are “sexist” of Palin in disputing her experience:

    Ew!!! Biden called her “good-looking”!!! *Glarfinct*!!! I wonder if that will appear minimal in the face of the type of objectification displayed in Rush Limbaugh calling her “a babe”?! I am to be doubtink it!!!

  4. i don’t think moral vegetarianism contradicts being pro-choice; morals are something you choose. abortion is something you choose.

  5. What? That doesn’t make any sense…

  6. Oh, wait. I’m sorry. I guess it does, but not in the way HE is referring to.

  7. ABORTION!!!!!

    according to the holy scriptures, from the begining you are alive and God knows your name.

    and since animals have no souls, i’d conclude that animals SHOULD be eaten, but fetuses SHOULD NOT.

    obviously, your reasons for being vegetarian will differ from other peoples, but like ol’ hetero pointed out, you basically have to come to terms with what you can and cannot do, and be happy that you are at least doing SOMETHING.

    you can put rules on yourself saying what is okay and what is not okay, and you can strive to live by these rules, but you really can’t enforce these rules on others. unless you are a religion.

    there are obviously contradicting studies saying at what point a fetus can think and at what point it can feel pain and so on, and to me this is what’s important in the debate. i don’t believe a fetus is a living creature on par with animals, let alone humans, until it is functioning like one.

    i don’t eat insects or mollusks, but i’m not sure i would have a big problem with it, considering science has proven they don’t have the mental capacity to feel pain or fear or anything other than an ingrained response to stay alive.

    that being said, i don’t go out aborting things, but up until the fetus has the capacity to actually feel the abuse (mental OR physical), then i don’t see a big problem with it.

    now we just need to figure out what week that is, and we have to all agree on it.

    and then we have to remove religion from the debate.

    then we can pass a law.

    but then we have to also treat all living creatures with the ability to be abused equally.

    and the meat industry won’t allow that.

  8. I second you, Scottum (or “third” you; “re-second” you; whatever)!

    However, I couldn’t he’p but point out that, according to the “holy scriptures,” EVERYTHING happens according to God’s will. So… Morality or nay, if you’ve ever aborted ANYTHING, God WANTED you to/MADE you do it. Ergo, you can’t REALLY be blamed, can you?

    GOD, I love pointing out the inconsistencies of faith-based doctrine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s