President Clinton Needs Heart Surgery

At least he has a heart, unlike GW.

At this point, I'd settle for a functioning brain.

This also sucks because I had hoped he would campaign for Sen. Kerry in the South in the last couple weeks before the election.

Kerry's fucked about now. Looks like 4 more years of Georgie Jr.

God, we Americans are fucking stupid.

Sen. Kerry will win, there's no doubt for me. George Bush's Idiot Son had "one-termer" written all over him even before he failed to win the 2000 election.
I'd just prefer Kerry do it in more sensational style, but then he'll be pulling off a miracle by even defeating an incumbent in the first place.

Hearing Clinton's name reminds me of a song lyric I once heard:

[I]Hillory Clinton tried to slap me and call me a pervert.
I ripped her fuckin' tonsils out, and fed her sherbert.[/I]

[QUOTE=Balthazar]Kerry's fucked about now. Looks like 4 more years of Georgie Jr.

God, we Americans are fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
Kerry would make a really good bobblehead, though. Can't people see the potential?

It's so lame that people would be so swayed by dumb fucking TV commercials. We need some good animations of GW doing embarrassing things like felching.

[QUOTE=meatthinker] We need some good animations of GW doing embarrassing things like felching.[/QUOTE]

I can't believe nobody has pictures off Georgie Jr. doing blow off of some stripper.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]We need some good animations of GW doing embarrassing things like felching.[/QUOTE]
Georgie doing lines of blow off Cheney's swollen member seems more likely. GW wouldn't felch.

Coke stroke!

Since both of you are in Maryland, you can go to D.C. and get footage of W then doctor it. Put sprinkles of nose candy on his face.

Bill should bounce back. While I love the optimism for Kerry I know that idiot boy W is going to win. Americans are fucking stupid. He can always just say the word "terrorism" and people are going to flip out! Or he can order the Swift Boat Yahoos to make up another round of lies.

[QUOTE=Balthazar]I can't believe nobody has pictures off Georgie Jr. doing blow off of some stripper.[/QUOTE]
tshirthell used to have a T-shirt of GW with coke on his nose or something, or maybe it was The Onion.

[QUOTE=For Serious]Since both of you are in Maryland, you can go to D.C. and get footage of W then doctor it. Put sprinkles of nose candy on his face.[/QUOTE]
Some German tourist dude was arrested for videotaping waterfowl five miles from a nuclear power plant. It's like the old USSR or something.

Fuck 'em. He's German, he was probably up to no good.

I keep imagining Clinton getting blow jobs from candy stripers. I was too young to get that he was a good president. All I understood was that monica intern slut sucked his dix offs.

Of course all you understand is blow jobs. Look at your av! Mighty suggestive.

thats just a popsicle dude. just a popsicle...

And Freud said Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Ha.

tu che..

touché...

So Clinton needs a heart and W needs a brain. This is like some f-ed up Wizard of Oz.

[QUOTE=Balthazar]touché...[/QUOTE]
thank you.

And Kerry needs balls. I should do political cartoons...

Who needs the courage? The American people?

I still shudder to see people who should know better thinking there's any appreciable difference in the two front-running assholes.

Kerry or Bush will win, you will lose. Unless you're a member of Congress or some overpaid 'consultant' at a 'think' tank made up of idiots who ran the last failed campaign. If you're that sort of idiot, you'll make out okay, but you're probalby not surfing thoughtful internet forums.

If you think there's a difference between Republocrats and Depublicans, consider this: Schwartzenegger is not only from Austria, by marriage, he's a Kennedy. And the only good Kennedy is a. . .

We're off to steal the election, the wonderful election of Oz...

[QUOTE=Chixulub]I still shudder to see people who should know better thinking there's any appreciable difference in the two front-running assholes.

Kerry or Bush will win, you will lose. Unless you're a member of Congress or some overpaid 'consultant' at a 'think' tank made up of idiots who ran the last failed campaign. If you're that sort of idiot, you'll make out okay, but you're probalby not surfing thoughtful internet forums.

If you think there's a difference between Republocrats and Depublicans, consider this: Schwartzenegger is not only from Austria, by marriage, he's a Kennedy. And the only good Kennedy is a. . .[/QUOTE]
Oh, for fuck's sake, go away with that shit already. Nobody buys the myth anymore, the last 4 years have disspelled any illusions that there's not a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Only the insane and the retarded believe the next 4 years will look the same either way. Pay the fuck attention, already.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias]Oh, for fuck's sake, go away with that shit already. Nobody buys the myth anymore, the last 4 years have disspelled any illusions that there's not a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Only the insane and the retarded believe the next 4 years will look the same either way. Pay the fuck attention, already.[/QUOTE]

exactly.

Okay, I'm insane or retarded, take your pick, but I'm not crazy or dumb enough to think that Kerry is worth a shit. Or any improvement over W. Democrats are just as likely as Republicans to spend too much money, start stupid wars, etc.

If your beef is about economics, I'd refer you to such prosperous Presidencies as Carter (D) and Hoover (R). FDR (D) managed to keep the Depression going until we got into a war, primarily caused by Wilson (D), but which could have been averted with forsight on the part of Harding and/or Coolidge (both R).

If your beef is about war, JFK (D) and LBJ (D) got us into a war far worse than our adventures in Iraq, and Nixon (R) got us out at the blazing speed of seven years.

Nixon (R) also took us off the gold standard and pursued disastrous inflationary policies and Soviet style price controls that helped lead to the malaise Carter (D) was so inept at dealing with. Our current President's father (R), signed the biggest pre-Clinton tax hike in history, some reprehensible environmental packages (as if hard core greens would ever, ever, vote Republican, nor should they), and spent all the warm fuzzies American's had for him after we massacred the Iraqi army trying to retreat so thoroughly that he couldn't even buy a vote by declaring disaster areas everywhere he stumped and handing out FEMA checks.

If you think Clinton (D) was a great leader, you must not have heard any news from the Balkans or noticed the numerous Al Queda attacks he effectively ignored.

Both parties talk out of both sides of their mouth, both do more harm than the Mafia, Crips, Bloods, Temperance Union and AIDS put together.

I love you Ozy, but you seem to confuse my contempt for the so called alternative for defense of the incumbent criminal. A plague on both their houses!

I'm not thinking about this post too much, it's just a quick idea I just had.

Chixulub - that post is why I don't vote straight democrat just because I happen to like Kerry this year. I won't vote democrat if I don't like the person. It's not like all democrats are programmed to behave one way and all republicans are awful.

I think the thing is, BUSH is awful (rep or not). I don't see Kerry being as bad, I'm sorry. It's a lot of instict, which can be good or bad, with me, but still. I do NOT feel safe in this country with Bush. The second after I heard about the Pentagon on 9.11...my first thought "Fuck, *BUSH* is president..." Not "Fuck a republican is president" The parties may be similar, but not necessarily the individuals.

Like I said - I haven't thought this through, so I'm sure my "argument" isn't flawless. I may think about it later and post more of what I mean later.

I didn't say all Democrats were programmed to behave one way. All politicians are, by that I mean specifically the two major parties. They are a malignant growth on the world and anyone who can even get nominated for dog catcher by anyone should probably be shot to promote the general welfare.

I'm not saying that if you put them undera microscope you can't identify certain ones that are worse than others, but by the time you get to the Presidential level, they're all pretty deadly. It's like you've reached the highest security level at USAMRIID, it could be Ebola, it could be a strain of E-coli that is airborne and resists all known antibiotics, but it's all pretty foul stuff.

That's why I'm a third party guy. Even third parties I disagree with are preferable to the status quo. But saying that gets guys like Ozy and Meatthinker all pissed off at me, because I won't agree with them that there's anything good about John Kerry. Looking for virtues in the upper eschalons of the US political system (or the Chinese one for that matter), is like looking for a pimp with a heart of gold, a mafia hit-man of principle. Ora harmless strain of Ebola.

I don't think I agree with Nader's policies. Are you saying I should vote for him simply because he's the most well-known non-republican/non-democrat?

No, you should vote for Sen. Kerry.

Chixy, the parties have changed so much that I don't think it does any good to go back further than 20 years now. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat once, after all, and just 10 years ago the Republican party was for (or pretending to be for) state rights and reduced spending.

The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties are pronounced enough for me to comfortably pick one to be President. Sen. Kerry wouldn't have invaded Iraq or pissed away our economic surplus, and I don't think he'll appoint reactionary nutters to the Supreme Court (as many as 3 spots are likely to open up in the next Presidential term) or continue our serial killer-ish foreign policy. He might even rebuild our relations with the world (a necessity as we move closer to a global economy, for better or (ultimately) worse) and bring us closer to finally having health coverage for all Americans. At the very least he can't be any more poisonous to the economy.
That's good enough for me.

If I were in any other state than California, I'd feel that it'd be necessary to vote for Kerry, if only because Bush II is as evil and corrupt as they come (as opposed to Kerry, who doesn't seem very evil, but in all likelihood is just as corrupt)

Shit negro, I'm in MA and I'm still voting for him. Ya never know...

Well, sometimes you. Like, say, Texas. Do you think there's Republicans there who're debating on whether to vote for Bush or a third party guy because Kerry might squeeze out a win?

[QUOTE=alex cassun]I don't think I agree with Nader's policies. Are you saying I should vote for him simply because he's the most well-known non-republican/non-democrat?[/QUOTE]
If Nader comes the closest to your beliefs, I'd say yeah, he at least is not a vote for the status quo. I disagree with him about nearly everything, but at least he is, as far as I can tell, an individual of conviction.

Last time I bothered the Federal Election for a complete list (1992), there were something like 198 people filed for President. The news covered three: W.'s old man, Clinton and Perot. Perot was perhaps the most disengenuous third party candidate I've ever seen, because while he's never held office, most of his wealth has been made off shady inside dealings that involve tax breaks and/or subsidies from various local and state governments, so he's not exactly an outsider.

At the time, I worked for a local freebie paper that gave me enough lattitude to do an article on the subject. I interviewed a dozen or so candidates, they were pretty easy to reach because they're desperate for attention. My own party, the Libertarians, were the hardest to get in touch with because Marrou, the candidate that year, was fairly busy, so I had to settle for his running-mate, Nancy Lords. I spoke with candidates from the American Taxpayer's Union, the U.S. Peace and Justice Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, Green Party, a couple of 'independents' of very different stripes, Temperance Union (yeah, they're still around), a few others I forget. One was a 'republican' running without GOP support, the Populist Party (good old Bo Gritz), etc.

My point is, there is a candidate out there who has not been bought off who probably reflects your views, whatever they are, better than Kerry Or Bush. They write their own speeches and in most cases foot the bill for the vast majority of their campaigns. The Socialist Worker's Party candidate in 1992 was one of the nicest men I ever interviewed, I had to like him even though I have diametrically opposed views to his in almost every single thing you could come up with.

And out of all the guys I phoned for that article, there was only one I would actually say was crazy, as in clinically insane. He was a chemical company heir who had been disinherited for being mentally incompetent and had fallen out with the LaRouche crowd (I would have interviewed LaRouche in 1992 but he was campaigning from prison, so it proved problematic).

This chemical company heir tried to tell me that the U.S. was founded as a reaction against British Free Trade (a 19th Century phenomenon, I tried to point out to him), and that cold fusion worked but was being covered up by the oil interests (LaRouche's so-called science mag was making the same claim at the time), and so on. I don't know if this cat breated too many fumes from his grand-dad's chemical plant as a baby or what, but he had a tenuous association with reality.

Again, though, he was the exception. Most of the third party guys I spoke with were intelligent, educated, articulate, and devoting a lot of time and personal resources to what they knew was a lost cause. People talk about the huge number of people who don't vote, but I think if third party candidates weren't frozen out of the process, you would get more of those people to the poles. And you'd get a Congress that might have a dozen parties in it, which would be the worst nightmare for PACs like the NRA, AARP, Handgun Control Inc., AFL-CIO, etc.

Gridlock? Probably on some things, yeah. You'd probably get total gridlock on issues that are better left out of the hands of the Federal Government. Utopia? No, they're still people, but you could get it away from the ridiculous situation we're in now, where no matter who wins it ends up being a total disaster.

As far as Texas or Oregon and the two major parties actively fighting the few third party candidates who manage ballot access in a couple of states, that to me reinforces the case for boycotting the Republocrats and Depublicans. To a certain extent, the case can be made that Perot gave us Clinton, that Nader gave us Bush.

Also, if you think third parties are just plain unviable, the Democratic Party as it now exists started with Andrew Jackson, and you don't hear much from the Federalists anymore. The GOP was not much of a party before Lincoln. Just like Ozymandias, these things aren't permanent (the statue from the poem, not my esteemed fellow cultist). ;o

disengenuous?

Spell check, sorry.