Some Reasons to Vote Today
1. Because Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the rest of the highly motivated Christian right will be out voting against anything that involves even the slightest bit of common sense. Their votes shouldn't count so disproportionately.
2. Because 3, 129 U.S. troops and an estimated 48,000 civilians have died in Iraq while the Bush Administration and its incompetent Republican congress have done nothing to improve the situation. In fact, they are blaming those that question their wisdom for many of the problems that THEY have created.
3. Because its a really nice day today
4. Because 81% of people with incomes over 100,000 a year voted in 2004, while just 58% of those with incomes less that 30,000 did.
5. Because only 46% of people between the ages of 18-24 voted in 2004, while 73% of 65-74 year olds vote. You probably don't have a lot in common with the latter demographic.
6. Because we should probably try to be as important to politicians as lobbyists and interest groups.
7. Because although a vote for anyone other than a Republican usually doesn't count in Texas, there is actually a small chance that Rick Perry might lose tonight. Wouldn't that be nice?
8. Because if you vote, you'll at least be allowed to bitch about the results.
posted by stonedranger at 11:53 AM
52 Comments:
Yes, I am still voting for Kinky.
who else is there that isn't awful?
Reason #9
By law, you get 2 hours off from work to go and vote.
VOTE KINKY!
jesus christ. Perry is gonna keep it thanks to Kinky's votes. Good job people, let's vote for the funny guy with the hat.
Nice box there, forward thinking guy.
Nice box there, forward thinking guy.
Kinky wants to enable election-day registration. In the future, I will be able to re-elect him. I'm sure you all will vote for him and ensure this, since I am unable to, thanks to gov't red tape.
the funny guy with the hat i at least know ain't lyin' bout his intentions. no apologies. vote'n for the guy in the hat.
I'm really surprised that the libertarian party isn't bigger in this state. I think this state would jump at having someone that is fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Texans don't want to be told what to do, and they don't want people fucking around with their money.
does anybody really want kinky to be gov? just because he wrote some great country songs and many mediocre mystery novels does not make him politic material. and plus he has a pretty far right leaning stance on a lot of his issues too. not that chris bell, rick perry, or grandma would be any better. so what hell, vote for the guy in the hat.
Er... I won't vote for any candidate who answers ANY question about his policy with "I don't know, just vote me in, I'll figure it out!".
Sorry, Kinky is ill-prepared. And he's a republican.
I'm voting for the guy with the funny hat because he epitomizes democracy. If Kinky won it would prove that in the state of texas we still stand a chance...we still have a choice. Hell, having him on the ballot alone shows that there are some people who give a shit that aren't right wing as fuck.
He's getting the youth interested in politics, as well. I know half of my friends who voted in this election wouldn't have given a shit about it if they hadn't of heard about Kinky, or to say the least the variety of candidates. Someone different sparks interest, but because he isn't an eloquent bank robber he's automatically a dumbass?
Oh, and having judeo-christian beliefs should not count as a specific qualification for being a republican. Nor is it requirement that he must be a republican because he is "country". Although a majority of christians, or people who hold christian morals, are republican, it is a gross misconception that ALL of them must be republicans just because george w. bush is. Also, I'm arguing not from the point of a christian liberal, but as an agnostic independent. I do, however, know my fair share of christian liberals and at one point considered myself among them.
Anyway, I had more to say but at this point I'm tired and need to finish some more important shit.
I'll just end this with what I wanted to say all along: I voted Kinky and I'm damn proud.
Yay! A vote for Kinky is a vote for religion in schools!
Actually, Kinky used to be registered as a republican. That is what makes him a republican.
Though the republican party used to be much different than it is today. I'd prefer him over Perry, but not over Bell.
I don't think people consider Kinky a Republican because he is 'country', I think it is because he is more Right than Left. I think most people got swept up in 'Kinky Mania' and never really looked to see what he actually stands for.
"Actually, Kinky used to be registered as a republican. That is what makes him a republican."
fuck that. i used to be registered as a republican too. its not a "once was, always is" thing.
kinky-mania rewlz all, he's gonna win
Vote for a life-long professional politician and you're putting another liar in charge of money that's taken out of your paycheck and at the grocery store.
Vote for a citizen and you vote for one of your own, representing you and your interests.
That's all there is to it. Kinky's not stupid and he's not a professional politician... and neither were the first government officials of this country.
The reason everyone thinks we need politicians in office is because politicians are the only ones who can work their way through the maze of red tape, double-speak and who-gave-what-to-whom.
Put a citizen in office. Fill the gov't with citizens.
putting a citizen in office is what got us 8 years of reagan.
what??? average men watch glen whoever? news to me.
bell is a pussy in your eyes? that is probably why i voted for him. these rough and tough republicans/libertarians are just so rough and tough, so manly.
i hope kinky enjoys his post election dinner with the bushies. he is no average joe you meathead.
save some time when you vote, seriously, vote no on every proposed amendment. We are nearing five hundred and if we really want it changed, we should re-write it.
"fuck that. i used to be registered as a republican too. its not a "once was, always is" thing."
That's why my comment was followed with "Though the republican party used to be much different than it is today."
I'm sure that is why he is not registered as republican, but he is still to the right.
i hope kinky enjoys his post election dinner with the bushies. he is no average joe you meathead.
:(
you made me cry. why is it that every pussy liberal claims that kinky is in cahoots with bush? i don't understand this. maybe they did chill before or something and that means it is all a conspiracy. however if kinky wins i hope he and bush do have a few beers and kinky is all yo man, you should like totally legalize pot and like gambling and stuff and bush is all yeah man that'd be hot
Whatever. Chris Bell is a pretty bright dude AND he's the one who exposed Tom Delay's fraud. So he's fighting the good fight, AND you would trust him to run your company (from a competency standpoint).
Kink may be fighting the good fight and fun to hang out with, but that doesn't mean I trust him to run my company. He's no Nader, I promise you that.
oh yeah, and
OBAMA 08!!!!
I hope everybody voted Lib anytime they were opposing an otherwise unopposed Red. THAT is a vote for democracy, for the existence of a 3rd party.
p00p~@!!
congrats kids, everyones handed the election to perry.
wrong... even if bell got kinky's 10 percent he still wouldn't be winning.
ok, I take that back, due to recent developments, bell is sitting exactly 10 percent below Perry. thanks kinky!
sarcasm tag on the thanks kinky
dems are winning the house!
and rick santorum is out! thanks pennsylvania!
no sarcasm tag on the "thanks pennsylvania"
ohio just went dem!
it is no conspiracy that kinky is in bed with the bush family. they are long time friends and they even endorsed his campaign. kinky is a republican stool through and through. a vote for him is a vote for the republican party. too many suckers here. face the facts there is no such thing as a cool politician. and once you become a candidate for governor you become a politician. he is not a "citizen" he is a fraud. just like bush he wasnt he even born here. he just moved here and plays up the overplayed "texan" stereotype. how many texans do you know that actually wear a cowboy hat? "I ain't even rode a horse be 4 ho!" - ghetto boys Houston TX
nobody rides horses in screwston!
hey man you live in scarborough country, like it or not and i aint no republican but am a realist
I wouldn't put it as strongly as "thrown under the bus"
he was def. ripped off, but kinky only walked away with 10 percent of the vote, and that would have still only put bell one percent below perry.
but realistically, even that would have been split 50-50, most of the libertarians voted for kinky and I'd say a few republicans too. I don't think kinky put the wrench in bell's campaign, I mean, seriously, did you actually expect him to win?
I'm not supporting kinky at all, just pointing out the facts.
on the bright side, democrats are up six from last election in the house.
republicans are trailing 151 to 135!
and in the senate, the dems are only trailing by three seats
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers per month.
The firearm death rate in Washington D. C. is 80.6 per 100,000 per month for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U. S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: The U. S. should pull out of Washington.
nice try meathead:
Sadly, I think their data is horribly mangled. If you look at the MPD's data for the past few years, you'll see that the total homicide count, roughly, since March of 2003 is a little over 700. There are 550,000 residents of DC, which would put the total percentage of murders per 100,000 people to approximately 127.8 over the span of 33 months, averaging 3.8 murders per month over that 33 month span per 100,000 people. There have been 2686 American deaths in Iraq since the start of the war in March of 2003, making 1678.8 deaths per 100,000 soldiers, or 50.8 deaths per month.
By no means is DC anywhere near as dangerous as Iraq and it's folly to say so. Not to mention, DC's statistics do not break out gun deaths specifically. The whole thing's a bad crafted myth, proven demonstrably false with limited resources and research. For shame.
Don't forget the 40,000+ other people that have been killed as well. That's over an extra 1100 people per month. And there has been pretty much no good reason for all of this shit to have gone this way.
there could have been some way to get saddam out of office without killing all of those people. His army basically stood down. We kept killing more people, the populace began fighting back. And it's easy to recruit people against an occupying force that is killing your friends and family.
The fact that the Bush Administration couldn't forsee that coming, proves that they need to get kicked out of office.
Looks like Missouri, Montana and Virginia all need to go to the Dems to get the senate, but they've taken the house away in a big way!
hah, stoned, we posted at the same time, now I sound redundant.
looks like dems will take montana, but not so much with MO.
Well, MO is pretty tight right now. McCaskill is ahead right now, and the precincts in inner city St. Louis and Kansas City have not reported, meaning that things are looking pretty good for the dems right now.
alright, I take back what I said about missouri! and man, montana is close!
Rumsfeld stepping down!
this comes a bit late, but i think that the only reason there is so much "variety" on the ballott is because staunch republicans were smart enough to donate all sorts of money to 3 different candidates for governer (one democrat, 2 independant, all 3 more liberal than your typical republican).... it's simple, make sure that 3 similar candidates are similarly funded and able to run for office... those 3 fuckers split votes, and perry wins w/ less than 35%.
it's cheap, it's dirty, and it's somewhat ingeneous.
why couldn't the democrats find some conservative indepentants to run against perry? most republicans don't even like perry much, but he's still going to win because us liberals have "so much choice" and the republicans have only one guy they could possibly vote for.... many of them begrudgingly so.
In other countries, when a candidate wins without the majority of votes (i.e. - Perry @ 38% or so) there is a run off of the two top candidates.
The reason they do this is so that the winner has a mandate from the voting public. Perry will not have a mandate from the public. Many winning candidates from last night won't have a mandate from the public. IMHO, this is one of the biggest reasons our system is so dysfunctional.
Post a Comment
<< Home