Conversation with a co-worker

[This is another Draft I’m just posting as-is, from before the 2008 election]

This is  a conversation with a co-worker who was trying to catch me off guard with this article, basically implying that since I didn’t like Bush, I shouldn’t like Obama either, and almost directly accusing me of being a “blind” Obama supporter. The tactic didn’t work, but it tells me that my co-worker has a pretty shallow understanding of the presidential candidates and issues this year.

The article is terrible.

(3:01 PM) Co-Worker: what are your thoughts on Bush?
(3:02 PM) Me: I prefer it close trimmed at least, but a Brazilian would be nice for a change of pace once in a while
(3:02 PM) Me: the landing strip isn’t as flattering as it should be
(3:02 PM) Co-Worker: I meant President Bush
(3:02 PM) Me: full bush, no thx
(3:02 PM) Me: oh, that fuckwad.
(3:03 PM) Co-Worker: You are going to vote for Obama, correct?
(3:03 PM) Me: I’ve despised him as a human being, but especially as a politician since 1999
(3:03 PM) Me: bush
(3:04 PM) Co-Worker: so are you voting for Obama?
(3:04 PM) Me: Unless he comes out & does something extraordinarily stupid, yeah. If he does that I’ll be looking third-party
(3:04 PM) Co-Worker: here you go then
(3:04 PM) Co-Worker:
(3:07 PM) Me: I see.
Let’s be clear about this here: I’m not voting for Obama because he’s not like Bush (he is in ways that matter to me) but because he’s not McCain.
(3:08 PM) Me: I want a President who’s not going to keep everything a secret, who gives the appearance of having thought his words through, rather than just echoing what the Religious Right thinks he should be saying (though YES I’m horribly disappointed with Obama’s stances on the Faith-based initiatives)…
(3:09 PM) Co-Worker: well I thought you might like to know on what Obama stands for and how they are Similar to “that fuckwad”
(3:09 PM) Me: who doesn’t play for the “peace through strength” doctrine of foreign relations (see Reagan)
(3:09 PM) Me: I dig.
(3:09 PM) Me: He’s not my ideal candidate, he’s just better than his opponents
(3:11 PM) Co-Worker: I tell you what though….. no candidate will ever be “perfect”
(3:20 PM) Me: #1 is incorrect
#2 I don’t know anything about
#3 is misleading
#4 I don’t care about
#5 is misleading
#6 is shallow and stupid
#7 is misleading
#8 just pisses me off
#9 I know nothing about
#10 is a sad compromise in the face of a majority of stupid people
#11 is Obama playing it safe. Want to fix AIDS in Africa? Hand out a billion condoms. The Right would crucify Obama if he proposed to do this before the election.
#12 is weak
#13 means Bush is slowly pulling his head out of his own ass
#14 I don’t know about
#15 Everyone voted for the PATRIOT act, it was political suicide not to.
#16 Is playing it safe again. The environmental reasons to block offshore drilling are no longer as strong as the economic reasons to do so
#17 I’m hoping Obama will hire a better attorney general. If Bush wasn’t such a fuckwad, this issue would be closer to being solved.
#18 I despise Obama for campaigning as a “person of faith” almost as much as I despised Bush for doing the same. The difference is the kind of christianity each claims to believe in.
#19 Guns are not an issue I care much about. If there was a simple answer to the problem, they’d have figured it out by now.
#20 I guess the difference I see between Obama and Bush on this kind of social issue is that Obama + a Democratic Congress would actually be willing to fund these welfare-to-work programs, rather than starve them in the name of “smaller government”
(3:20 PM) Me: feh.
(3:22 PM) Co-Worker: if you can give me proof of this i would MAYBE agree with you but I have a feeling that you are just going on what you hope is true
(3:22 PM) Me: which parts?
(3:23 PM) Co-Worker: first off #1 is correct because he has said it more than once!
(3:24 PM) Me: I think the difference is that Bush is all about “Abstinence Only” which is stupid, while the Democratic Party stance in general is that abstinence is just one of the ideas that should be taught.
(3:24 PM) Me: Among others.
(3:24 PM) Me: that’s what’s known as “comprehensive sex education”: which Bush and party are against.
(3:25 PM) Co-Worker: well I dont beleive anything you say about it because everything you have is so bias you are blinded
(3:25 PM) Me: Wow, what?
(3:25 PM) Co-Worker: but i am done talking politics i have get back to work
(3:32 PM) Me: The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed
choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education
help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for

Click to access 8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf

That’s an issue I care about. I don’t know McCain’s official stance, but I know that the Republican party’s evangelical base still thinks “abstinence only” is a good idea.
One strike against the Republicans.
(3:33 PM) Me: I have some experience with a number of young people in my family – far too many – who lacked some information they would have had access to if they were my age. And it caused serious problems for them.
(3:37 PM) Me: Obama on Merit Pay:
(3:39 PM) Me: Bush has implemented a global gag rule, which basically blocks funding for any program that will have ANYTHING to do with abortions, and also blocks funding for handing out condoms in Africa:
(3:39 PM) Me: I’m just sayin’
(3:39 PM) Me: Not blind. Just opinionated.
(3:49 PM) Me: Last thing, I promise. This just came to mind while I was peeing and I have to be clear about this.
One thing I despise about the Republican Party during the last 10+ years is their incessant campaigning against “judges who legislate from the bench”. This is one issue the Republicans talked very loudly about earlier this year, though not so much for McCain himself.

Mostly what these guys are talking about is judges at the federal level who have been ruling as un-constitutional, laws that were passed in *spite of being unconstitutional* because the majority of local voters are in fact undereducated hicks voting on hot-button emotional issues.

That’s what the Judicial Branch is SUPPOSED to do.

Can you hear the crickets chirping as I demonstrate how not-blind I am by my own bias?

Oh, I’m biased alright, just not blindly so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s