February 17th, 2004
|07:42 pm - Urge to kill... rising...|
While I'm pissed off, I might as well mention that I hate the following things:
- The parking at Ward Brodt.
- The fact that all the bookstores in town must be spying on my Amazon.com searches to make sure that nothing I want is ever in stock.
- The guy at the polls who always stands next to his friend saying "I can't believe you're voting for Dean! I can't believe you support the casino!"
- The volunteers at the polls who don't shut him up.
- The fact that P.T. Barnum and matchstyx were right:
Me: So are you voting today? Or have you already?
Idiot roommate: Hay-ell no! Ah figgur ain't no Demmacrat gon' be better'n Bush, an' Ah figgur eff they turn Day-Joe-pay inta a casino, it's people's own damn fault eff they got a gamblin' problem, Ah tell yew whut. 'sides, Bush already got Saddam. Yew thank he ain't gon' git Osama?
Me: Ah, have you been paying attention to any of the news about the casino?
Idiot roommate: Naw, Ah bin watchin' Survahver.
Me: No, I mean in the last few months, not just tonight.
Idiot roommate: Ah sayd Ah bin watchin' Survahver. An' Th' Newlyweds.
Current Mood: enraged
Current Music: Frank Zappa -- Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk
|Date:||February 18th, 2004 10:04 pm (UTC)|| |
First point: did anyone think the casino would get defeated THIS BAD? I voted against it, but I had no idea it would do worse than Mondale in '84. Think the tribes and politicians will pay attention to this landslide defeat and stop pushing for more gambling? As a corollary, do you think monkeys will fly out my butt?
Second point: Ignorant people voting for candidates they no next to nothing about is how we got GW in office in the first place. Frankly, I'm happier hearing that somebody who spent the past few months watching reality TV isn't voting than hearing that they are. Besides, sounds like Nate voting in the Democratic primary would be primary-crashing, a time-honored but rather underhanded practice in the political arena.
In response to your first point, both questions have the same answer.
In response to your second point, my issue with Nate is not that
he didn't vote, but why
he didn't vote. Nate bases his vote on two (and (at least at this particular moment) only two) questions: "Does this candidate support minimum regulation of firearms?" and "Does this candidate believe that I should be able to kill any animal I want with any weapon I want?" Otherwise Nate's views are overwhelmingly leftist, but easier to picture Bush inside an SUV full of dead animals than oh, say, Kerry.
As for his casino views (and yes, I was surprised at the landslide, too), I'm just amazed that the only issue he sees here is gambling addiction.
|Date:||February 19th, 2004 04:07 am (UTC)|| |
R3507, I agree with your second point, which brings us to our friend Ralph Nader...don't get me started on him. While I agree he has the right to run...it's just that, look at 2000...need i say more?
but anyway, i didn't mean to bash nader to get the point across that i agree with you, i just felt like saying something about him.
I think the more informed the voter is, the more likely they are to vote to the left or independent instead to vote to the right. I like the likelyhood of your roommate doing something like voting for kerry or another dem would've been nil. I don't know what i meant by that, I'll shut up now...