lost socks' politics & indie music blog
personal thoughts and observations relating to the present political and indie-musical climates and lots of musings on the musical (and political?) past(s)
Last updated:
10/1/03; 1:25:40 PM


September 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
Aug   Oct



Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Subscribe to "lost socks' politics & indie music blog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

E-mail this blog's author, lost socks' politics & indie music blog:
Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

Thursday, September 04, 2003

     Well...now word is out that the Bush White House helped Bin Laden's family escape after 9/11...This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone seeing as they're loathe to put ANY blame for 9/11 on the Saudis despite the fact that most of the hijackers were SAUDI CITIZENS! It makes far more sense to blame Iraq doesn't it. Good thing we won that war quickly huh...Oh and good thing there's not a DEMOCRAT in the White House...imagine how the press would react then! That pesky "liberal" press...

     And now the Democratic candidates are going to have a debate...Seems silly how all the candidates have to attack whoever the frontrunner is at any given time to try to save themselves and then if they end up with the nomination they usually pick one of the people they were just trashing as their running mate! If I recall that's what happened with Reagan and Bush...It's gonna be fun hearing that weasel Lieberman whining about Howard Dean...He thinks Dean's too liberal to win the election against Bush...Better I guess to have someone who pretty much thinks the same stuff as is attributed to Bush (I have a hard time believing the guy really has his own opinions-maybe I'm wrong)...Lieberman might as well just become a Republican; do we really need Republicans in the Democratic party?

      It's time to change the connotation of "liberal." Why is it such a derogatory term? Who gets to make it so? Is it the "liberal" media's fault? I'm certainly what I would consider a "liberal" but I honestly feel like I'm way more conservative that conservatives are! They want to:

deregulate everything (is THAT Conservative?)...

waste resources and not worry about the environment (is THAT Conservative?)...

cheat on their wives and crucify a Democrat for the same thing, meanwhile trying to prevent loving gay homes from being able to raise children while they themselves ignore their kids to find them drinking underage and abusing drugs-which last I checked Chelsea Clinton was not but all Bush daughters were (is THAT Conservative?)...

champion free speech only when it agrees with them. (is THAT Conservative?)

Basically it seems like the definition that applies now is that a conservative is someone who wants to CONSERVE his or her money and power at any cost and a liberal is someone misguided enough to think at any time about anyone else other than his or herself. If this isn't the case than why is it that Conservatives always have far more contributions from corporate inves- er-I mean donors than liberals ever do?


6:56:50 PM    comment []




© Copyright 2003 lost socks' politics & indie music blog. Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Last update: 10/1/03; 1:25:42 PM.
Powered by