Because why not: Roger Fidelity's own election day thread, one to the public

Let me tell you a story.

My coworker Tom is Massachusetts born and raised. Known about Kerry pretty much all his life as a result. Way back earlier this year, I asked him about Kerry and what his exact profile was, what he was like, was he well loved, etc. And Tom's point was a simple but effective one:

"Kerry isn't elected because a lot of people really like him. He's elected because the other guy is always worse."

It's looking like that's what's going to happen here. And if the choice is quite simply the difference between two evils in the end, I will choose what I believe is the lesser.

To my mind, Bush answers for much. He answers for ignorance, willful ignorance, in questions of science on a national level. He answers for shallowness, in the sense that 'taking a stand' becomes 'never moving from it.' He answers for lack of responsibilty, for blaming everything that could happen in his administration and to his administration on others than who he picked, approved of, defended. He answers for incompetence as demonstrated in the haphazard idiocy that is the Iraq invasion and occupation, where political expediency constantly came to the fore first and foremost with dire and continuing consequences. He answers for bigotry with the support of the FMA, one of the most pernicious and revolting ideas ever seriously considered to be enshrined as a *core part of the Constitution.*

He answers for the dead. He answers for all the dead. He answers for them all and he can only find an answer by proclaiming that because Saddam and Osama and the like are, inarguably, murderers he himself is a stainless white knight, pure and wonderful and never ever EVER wrong.

He answers for saying "Bring them on." And now how many of my fellow citizens are dead, maimed, have lost friends and lovers and spouses and parents and children? And how many in Iraq found that the land of milk and honey promised by an adminstration that placed its faith in inaccurate intelligence, in political operators, in pie-in-the-sky dreams, is in fact less that now?

He answers for that and so much more. Hopefully he will answer tonight. If not, a pity. But he will answer. And by god if I won't feel the greatest satisfaction seeing him and all the lickspittle buttkissing power-worshipping ignorance-encouraging toadies that tried to ride every coattail of his no matter what price principles or their souls suffer in the answering.

Let them burn.

If Kerry fails more spectacularly on all these kinds of fronts, let him burn too. But the hunch, right now, is that he would not. He is yet untested in the role. Bush is. AND LET HIM BURN.

I know, it kind of sucks, but what do you do? Andrea Dworkin had a piece in the Guardian on Monday saying how much she deplored lesser-of-two-evils politics, but that this time, she was voting for Kerry on exactly that basis. She came across like a pretty pompous hypocrite, actually.

Badnarik is a joke. Look over his website, please. If the impassioned endorsement from Doug "Host of 'The Man Show'" Stanhope on page 1 doesn't convince you that Badnarik is a true champ, a quick scan through his absolutely idiotic takes on gun control and law enforcement should do the trick.

And as for this:
"Come on, folks, you're smarter than this"...

Roger, you've talked about your love for Ann Coulter on this board. Give me a fucking break.

really? they're going after two-barrel shotguns with the assault weapons ban? or was he using a full-auto AR15? or are you full of crap?

I don't make 200K or own a cardigan. Am I a pansy-ass liberal? I am whatever you say I am.

you bitter bastard. This is your precious democracy in action. Lap it up, brother!

There's a part of me that LOVES chaos. Being on a sinking ship excites me in a perverse way. That's why I'm laughing so hard - not at any of you, per se - but at this entire catastrophic situation.

I mean, really, personal opinions aside - what a disaster!

erm, moderator?

* AAGH OMG KILL ME KILL ME KILL ME

xpost - not that one, the one before

did you see the Rich Hall thing on BBC2 last night? that independent guy (forget which state) talking about how 'people should be allowed F-16 rocket launchers as long as they're used responsibly, and no-one is hurt. we should have them for if the government tries to turn us into slaves'

a pot not so much cracked as blasted into a trillion smithereens, and as far as i could tell, despite Hall's sharp wise-cracks, for real.

oh my yes. it answered a lot of questions (more than Moore - if only Hall was as 'commercially popular' as Moore).

then threw up a thousand more.