« Heroes for Bush | Main | Libertarians for Bush »
October 21, 2004
A hero endorses Bush
In response to the Heroes for Bush campaign, I've managed to obtain this full-throated endorsement from a true hero. This man, in his capacity as a detective for the New York City police department, has been responsible for chasing down key leads and finding critical evidence that have cracked literally hundreds of cases, involving felonies such as murder, kidnapping, child molestation, rape, and white-collar crime. Thanks to him, New Yorkers can breathe a little easier, knowing that countless criminals are safely housed on Rikers Island. Without further ado, the endorsement.
New Yorkers, see, we've been around the block a few times. We can smell a bullshit artist coming from a mile away. All those three-card-monte guys, well, we don't see as many of them around since Guiliani cleaned up the city, but when they were thick on the streets, they knew better than to go after the locals. Gawking tourists were the ones they tried to grift. Naw, we can smell it coming. That goes double for New York City cops, and triple for us police detectives. If a man's a phony, we'll spot him. And I've nailed enough perps to know the type.
John Kerry, he's that type. A faker. A sleaze. A con artist. When he's on TV, you can almost smell the bullshit right through the screen. The man will say anything he thinks will score him a few votes. He tells the grannies he'll up their checks. He tells the parents he'll flood the streets with flu vaccine for their kids. If zombies were a special interest, he’d promise them more brains. Anyone he’s talking to, he’s just like them. You a Red Sox fan? Hey, so am I. You live in Ohio? Hey, I love the Buckeyes. You a hunter? Me too. He'd claim to be an abortion doctor if he thought he could get away with it.
President Bush, now, he’s different. I may not always agree with what he says, but I know he means it. When he says something, it’s what he really thinks, not what he thinks his audience wants to hear. He’s a straight shooter. That means something. That’s important.
That’s especially important right now, because when the President says that he’s gonna hunt down and kill the bastards who hit us, I believe it. When Kerry says the same thing, I’m always left to wonder whether he’s just telling me what I want to hear. I wonder how come he talks about building alliances, but never misses a chance to piss off the allies we’ve got. I wonder why he thinks the President should’ve offered France a blank check, when those thieves were skimming billions from Oil for Food. I wonder how he can dance on a tightrope over Iraq, while claiming with a straight face that he’s had only one position. What chutzpah!
I’m a true-blue New York City Democrat. I voted for Clinton, both Bill and his wife. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Now, like Ed Koch, I’m crossing over to vote Republican. George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time.
Det. Lenny Briscoe, NYPD
October 21, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559cb569e200d83467dc3369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A hero endorses Bush:
Comments
Great post!
Posted by: cowboy blob | Oct 22, 2004 5:00:03 AM
Let me think this through for a minute.
Should I trust someone who fullfilled his United States military service obligation by taking a rifle in his hands and used it to shoot the enemy, or should I trust someone who fullfilled his United States military obligation by being stationed in the United States in a unit that is historically known for being a safe place to serve during a time of war? HHHHMMMMMMMMM This is not hard to figure out.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 24, 2004 7:55:34 AM
So I assume you supported George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, both of whom were genuine war heroes, over draft-dodging Bill Clinton, right?
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 24, 2004 1:53:01 PM
You know what happens when you assume something. You also fail to take into account that Clinton did not start a unilateral war. You also fail to take into account that Clinton was not drafted. Seems like your voice is pretty unreasonable in the way you pick and choose what to include and what to ignore in expressing your viewpoint. You claim to be a libertarian but you express only pro republican viewpoints. You also fail to point out that Geirge H.W. Bush and Robert Dole did not base their whole campaign on premptive wars.
Posted by: Bubba | Oct 24, 2004 8:41:18 PM
You're not big on staying on point, are you?
You offered as your exclusive reason for supporting Kerry over Bush the fact that Kerry served in Vietnam, while Bush didn't. Even disregarding Kerry's dishonorable behavior during and after that war, that would imply that you'd support war heroes Bush-41 and Dole over draft-dodger Clinton.
My "assumption" was sarcastic, I'm pretty sure you supported Clinton. Given that, your initial comment that you'd "trust" a Vietnam vet over a National Guardsman was completely bogus.
Clinton didn't start a unilateral war? Apparently your definition of "unilateral" is "involving fewer than 30 countries", since that's the size of the coalition supporting us in Iraq. And by that definition, you're wrong, unless you've forgotten Serbia. You also appear to have forgotten his ineffectual airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, both of which were undertaken with no allies whatsoever.
I haven't forgotten that Clinton wasn't drafted, nor have I forgotten WHY he wasn't drafted.
If you want to hear some libertarian viewpoints that don't jive with the Republican party, here you go: drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be 100% legal. You won't find many Republicans agreeing with that statement.
Posted by: Voice of Reason | Oct 24, 2004 8:58:57 PM
If you truly have not forgotten that clinton was not drafted, then why do you insist on referring to him as a draft dodger? Your views are as twisted as those of the libertarian platform, which i just read. here is the libertarian platform on drugs
The War On Drugs
The Issue: The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.
The Principle: Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others' rights.
Solutions: Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue.
Lets make herion legal. Cocaine? that should be legal too! what a platform. I see now why you spend so much time bashing democrats here instead of promoting your parties platform. the libertarian parties platforms are ridiculous and shallow minded. Lets pray that no libertarian is elected to the presidency. and I thought Dubya was bad. LMAO
Posted by: bubba | Oct 24, 2004 9:25:49 PM
HERE'S A GOOD LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM, LETS DO WAYA WITH ALL LAWS ENACTED FOR THE SAFTY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WOW That is a big step indeed. let's see, where should we start? speed limits? seatbelt laws? oh wait, I know. let's do away with the drunk driving laws. yeah, that would be good no laws setting the speed limits and no laws against driving drunk or drugged. yessir. that would be great for the country. here is the libertarian platform:
I. Individual Rights and Civil Order
Freedom and Responsibility
The Issue: Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.
The Principle: Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Solutions: Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.
Transitional Actions: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life. Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services. Enforce laws against fraud and misrepresentation.
here's another great libertarian platform, lets let all the children to wrok! great idea. like a child is mature enough to make such a decision. Here's the official libertarian party line on the child labow laws that need to be abolished:
The Issue: Government involvement in traditional parenting responsibilities has weakened families and replaced family-taught morals with government-taught morals.
The Principle: Families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, without interference by government -- unless they are abusing the children.
Transitional Action: We would repeal all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.
I am so very thankful that the libertarian party does not believe in abusing children. (sarcasm intended)
Posted by: BUBBA | Oct 24, 2004 9:39:40 PM
here's a good libertarian platform, lets do away with ALL requiremens for anyoneone to be licensed to do anything, just think of how great it would be to hire an attorney that has never been to law school or passed the barr exam. It would be even greater to be operated on by an unlicensed surgeon. that's it, I'm switching to the libertarian party a.s.a.p. The liberterain party is chock full of outstanding ideas like these:
The Issue: Government fiscal and monetary measures that artificially foster business expansion guarantee an eventual increase in unemployment rather than curtailing it. Government programs are inefficient, paternalistic, demeaning and invasive of privacy.
The Principle: The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. No worker should be legally penalized for lack of certification, and no consumer should be legally restrained from hiring unlicensed individuals.
Solutions: We seek the elimination of occupational licensure, which prevents human beings from working in whatever trade they wish. We call for the abolition of all federal, state and local government agencies that restrict entry into any profession, such as education and law, or regulate its practice. We oppose all government welfare, relief projects and "aid to the poor" programs.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 24, 2004 9:53:21 PM
Under the libertarian platform there would be no government whatsoever, none, zip, nada. The libertarian platform is one of the most deranged, thoughtless, totally worthless platforms I have ever read. I see now why The Voice of Reason does not use this blog to promote the furtherence of the libertarian party, the parties platforms are outrageous. If the libertarian parties platforms were ever invoked or placed into practice, the government, and our nation, would cease to exist. I'm surprised the dubya administration has not labeled the libertarian party as a terrorist organization. their goal is the same as that of the terrorists.
Posted by: bubba | Oct 24, 2004 10:03:45 PM
