![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,841 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Somewhere in DC, a consultant for whomever will be the Republican nominee in 2012 is smiling at the thought. I get being angry or disappointed (although, quite honestly, I'm not) but to seriously base your vote on THIS issue? Really? I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't shut down the Guantanamo detention center. I can understand not voting for Obama because he hasn't stopped the indefinite detentions. I can even understand not voting for Obama because he's shown poor political judgement but to not vote for him because of THIS? I just don't understand the political calculus or rationality you are using. Perhaps you can explain it?
Let's say, for instance, that Sarah Palin is the nominee (please, please, let her be the nominee) are you going to tell me that between a woman who believes that shooting wolves from a plane is sport and a man who believes that an ex-convict deserves to get his life back (even an ex-con who abused animals) you would choose the former? If you say you wouldn't vote then *by default* you've voted for whoever wins the election. So you wake up the day after Election Day 2012 and find out that Palin is the next POTUS. Would you feel okay with that outcome given that it was based on this issue? Cheers Aj Quote:
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Mentally Delicious
How Do You Identify?:
Queer High Femme, thank you very much Preferred Pronoun?:
Mme. Relationship Status:
Married to JD. Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 10,446
Thanks: 5,995
Thanked 42,677 Times in 7,831 Posts
Rep Power: 10000026 ![]() |
I'd like to mention another thought I had regarding this:
I think that Michael Vick did wrong. Dog fighting is not not not ok on any level. I did wonder when this story first broke how the environment would have been different had it been a white person, another type of animal cruelty, etc. Because Im not a fan of dog racing or horse racing either. Horses and dogs are routinely kept in inhumane conditions, shot up with drugs that make them twitch and foam at the mouth and trained under stressful, painful circumstances so people can stand around and bet on who runs the fastest. Not trying to equate dog fighting with horse racing - they arent on the same level, but I do see some class stuff going on with how the mistreatment of animals is viewed when a black man does it and how it is viewed when white folks have been doing it for 100 years.
__________________
. . . |
|
|
|
| The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Medusa For This Useful Post: |
![]() |
|
|