The Ostrich Syndrome
Topic: State Of The Union
Despite what the media hasn't fully reported, this is what Bin Laden actually said today:

Why the attacks are never going to end:

"Each state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

How he formulated the idea for 9/11:

"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind. While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women".

His thoughts on George W. Bush:

"It appeared to him that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God".

Despite entering the fourth year after September 11th, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him."

His message to the people of the United States:

"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster. I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security. Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands.

If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones.

We fought you because we are free .. and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."

It is not appeasement to know what our enemy is thinking and saying.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
- Sun Tzu

Now you know our enemy. Do you truly know your government?

The Problem With Penises
Topic: Satire
You may have heard it said that this is the "most important election of our lifetime". Have you noticed that no one tells you why? What's interesting about this statement is that both sides overwhelmingly agree but do so for completely different reasons. The prevailing belief by the one side is that if a man of weak character, a Vietnam traitor, and a vacillating liberal like John Kerry is elected President it will be asking for more terrorists attacks. The other side believes that if you elect a sanctimonious and self-righteous arrogant know-nothing like George Bush, he may succeed in blowing up the world just yet. Some think that our domestic policy under the direction of the "other" candidate is asking for calamity.

The situation is analogous to the problem with penises. Some say that it's the size that matters. Some say it's the "motion of the ocean" not the "size of the ship" that counts. Most males think, or at least talk like the have big ones, but rarely does a man talk about his superb "motion". That would be a dead give away to his diminutive size.

There is a basic difference between these 2 men in terms of how they talk about their penises. Of course, people subconsciously recognize that strength is a metaphor for penis size. According to the followers of George Bush, he has an insanely huge one and that qualifies him to be President and John Kerry has a very small one. The followers of John Kerry recognize that it is usually the man that walks around talking about his huge member, that has neither the supreme "motion" or "size".

Examples of metaphorical penis size comparisons in our foreign policy have been exhibited throughout the history of our country (and the world). Ronald Reagan is credited by some with causing the collapse of the U.S.S.R. What most people don't realize is that when Reagan looked over and saw the size of Kruschev's member he got jealous. He wanted his to be at least equal in size to Kruschev's. So Reagan embarked upon a dangerous cold war game of catch up. He saw how large the Russian's cock was and instead of realizing that eventually he was going to become a eunuch, just like Kruschev wound up, Reagan decided to join him. After seeing what happened to the Russians due to their artificially inflated penis and the resulting bursting, did we change our ludicrous policies.

Now you make think that this penis comparison is crazy, but anyone who has boys or has seen a boy at the moment of discovery of their penis, understands. When a boy discovers his penis he pisses all over everything. Then he realizes that other boys have penises and they either have contests (a.k.a. pissing contests) to see who can shoot the furthest, or they compare the size.

You see the reason why this election is so important revolves around penises. One man thinks his is bigger than everyone else's and doesn't care if he whips it out and pisses all over you. He believes that his penis qualifies him as a strong capable leader. He doesn't recognize that other men have bigger penises despite their humility. He doesn't get that smaller membered men can "do it" better than him.

Now the verdict is still out on the question of size v. motion, but what is dangerous about having a prick for President who thinks it's the biggest and the best, is in the words of my father, crazy, because someone is always bigger and better.

NEWS FLASH!
Topic: State Of The Union
"The American Conservative" magazine has confirmed everything The Independent Voice has been telling you. George W. Bush is NOT a conservative. No one knows exactly what he is but he's definitely NOT a conservative. In fact he appears to be the worst of both the left and the right.

Read this article throroughly:

The American Conservative Magazine Endorses John F. Kerry

What's even more interesting than the endorsement is that the magazine recognizes that another 4 years of Bush would be absolutely cataclysmic for the REAL conservative ideology (sounds familiar, hum?).

That just goes to show you that the American people can either get a good helping of liberal pie now or wait another 4 years and they'll be screaming for a Ralph Nader/Howard Dean, as far left as you can go without falling off, liberal ticket. It's up to you. Personally I opt for now. Just the thought of more balloning deficits, unnecessary war, lies, deceit, excuses, and unfortunately needless death and destruction, just scares the be-jesus out of me.

But hey, if you think a Presidential election should be decided on one issue like gay marriage, vote for Bush. Just remember that a vote for Bush is a vote for a liberal in 4 years and for a long time to come. It's in your hands.

VOTE WISELY

New World Cinema
Topic: Hopefully Humorous


In a time when people just don't care... In a place where people can't see past their own borders... Lies a man in a court appointed position of inscrutable power...

Coming Soon To A World Theater Near You!

VOTE!!!

The Independent Voice Chat

Come chat with The Independent Voice. Everyone is welcome here, especially those people that don't agree with me. Feel free to say anything you want. You will never be censored or moderated. Please choose a nickname and hit enter:



P.S. If you can't view or enter a screen name above it's most likely because you don't have Java installed. Click here: Sun Microsystems Java

Kerry's Korner
Topic: Misc.
The first Bush/Cheney sign went up in the neighborhood a couple of weeks ago. The night of the last debate the first Kerry/Edwards sign went up, mine. Now the 3 of the 4 houses on the corner of where my road meets another has a Kerry/Edwards sign. One of the houses is owned by people still going through the process of becoming citizens, and yet they proudly display their appreciation of the free speech that this country already provides them. Down the road another neighbor who can't vote has canvassed for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. These 3 people own houses, cars, pay taxes, and show a fundamental understanding for American democracy that many lifelong citizens don't appreciate.

The sign on the lawn is a symbol of what makes this country so great- free speech. We need more of it. When the citizens of a democracy become apathetic it leads to, well, what we have now. If the outcome of this election is that there are a lot of pissed off people, it will be a great success. If necessary I am willing to sacrifice the next 4 years to a failing ideology so that people understand where apathy will led us.

Yes, we do need more free speech. That sign on your lawn or that bumper sticker on your car isn't for you. It's for your neighbors, your friends and your acquaintances. Let them know how you think and feel and you may find out that they agree with you. If you respectfully disagree and engage in a little free speech we'll all benefit. Apathy never inspired anyone; silence has never moved people to act.

A Culture Of Life
Topic: Personal
I have a question for the pro-lifers: if you truly believe that there is no distinction between someone that shoots and kills another human being and an impregnated mother who decides to abort a fetus, then why don't you do something about it? If your child or your neighbor's child was being attacked by a madman that was going to kill, wouldn't you defend that child? Why do you talk about abortion like it is murder and express the belief that nothing separates it from a violent homicidal attack by adults, and yet a majority of you stand by and do nothing?

I have a question for the pro-choicers: if you truly believe that abortion comes about because of unwanted pregnancies, what have you done to prevent them? At what point do you think abortion is murder? If you believe that life doesn't begin at conception, where does it begin? Don't you understand that just because you terminate a fetus early doesn't mean that the fetus would not have developed into a life as we know it? If you do have a life that is capable of reaching independence inside you, why do you think that it is "just" your body, after all, no one would live very long without help from others?

Wouldn't the both of you agree that we need to promote a "culture of life"? But what does that mean?

I respectfully ask the Pro-lifers to put themselves in the positions of people that are faced with these hard decisions. Think about the possible circumstances in which your strongly held beliefs might change. Think about a situation where you are a married man and your wife is raped by someone that is HIV infected, or a crack fiend. Do you abort then? O.K. maybe that's an improbable example, but what do you do if your child is impregnated by another family member? Again that's another rare scenario, but these things do happen. Here's one that isn't as rare as you think: your married and your partner becomes pregnant. "Great", you think because that was your goal. The doctor then informs you that if your wife continues with the pregnancy she could become severely ill or die. What do you do?

Or a more probable situation is one where 2 teenagers go to a party and get drunk, have sex and the girl becomes impregnated because they didn't use protection or used it improperly. The girl can't talk to her parents about it and the guy is nowhere to be found. She has plans for college and didn't plan on getting pregnant until after graduation, no less by a guy who was just in it for the sex. What would you do?

Does a "culture of life" accept the reality that these things go on all the time, and offer real solutions, including birth control, sexual education, and expedited adoption, to combat abortion? To take it a step further, would you be willing to adopt an "unwanted" child, educate children about sex and financially support those that cannot provide for themselves? What should be the government's responsibility if they tell citizens that all unwanted pregnancies legally cannot be aborted?

I respectfully ask the pro-choicers to put themselves in the position of someone who believes so much in their convictions that they would be willing to sacrifice to the point of death, to uphold them. Do you understand that a fetus, barring any complications, will grow to the point of complete independence? With that being the case, do you understand why someone would say that life does indeed begin at conception? As a woman, don't you understand that having the ability to abort a fetus isn't power, it's responsibility? That responsibility gets shifted off both the man and the woman, and is put squarely on you. By insisting that it is your "choice", you have, for all intents and purpose, removed the father's responsibility to not only assist in making that decision but also to care for the child, after birth.

Wouldn't a "culture of life" need to address issues like poverty, crime, responsibility and famine? How can we allow children to be born into an environment where the mother can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and protect herself? Why shouldn't fathers have as much legal responsibility to their children as mothers do? Why should women have the sole responsibility for making decisions about the termination of pregnancy? Why should anyone be faced with the decision to terminate because they have no support, no food, no money, no healthcare, no way to provide and no hope?

Before condemning someone for having the opinions or convictions that they do, why don't you try to first accept the reality that these problems are real and affect people from every race, culture and economic status, and that complete understanding of these problems is necessary, before any real world solutions can be formulated? Both sides should agree that these problems are real. Both sides have different solutions to these problems, as each of you understands them. Neither side is completely right or wrong. Neither side has all the answers. Neither side is the only holder of the truth. You can either combat each other or combat the problem. You can either accept that there are good people with strongly held beliefs on both sides of the aisle, and that you both seek to solve these very human problems, or you can dismiss each other and leave these issues for future generations to fight.

The first step in the process of coming to any answers is communication, understanding, and tolerance of one another. The first step towards having a "culture of life" would be to promote these values.

Latest Voting Technology
Topic: Hopefully Humorous
This is a demo of the latest voting technology, brought to you by Diebold, a campaign donor of one of the candidates. See if you can find out which one:

Diebold Voting Machines

Terrorists For Bush
Topic: Bush
The Associated Press reported yesterday that Iran has officially backed George W. Bush for President. Yes, the country that if we had to invade anyone it should have been them. Yes, they are the country that does actually harbor Al-Queda. Iran (notice the "n" at the end of the name), is the country that does have programs to create Weapons Of Mass Destruction. And let us not forget that Iran treats it's citizens like absolute s*@t.

Yeah well that country is backing our President for another term. Our strong and decisive leader is actually preferred to the weak guy with the "pre-911 mentality".

The real reason that the terrorist are supporting Bush (I just love saying that), despite Bush having labeled them as being apart of the "axis of evil" (say that in an echo chamber for effect) is because unlike many in this country, the Iranian government actually looks at our President's actions and not his rhetoric.

George W. Bush is a windbag. He's full of brazen talk but does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back it up and if you mention Iraq I'm gonna liberal slap you (that means harder than you've ever been hit). It was easy to invade a country in which we already controlled a majority of the air space, had imposed suffocating sanctions upon and knew that we easily conquered them 12 years ago when they were strong and it would be even easier to do it after we destroyed all their weapons.

Iran would be a different story.

The real reason that the terrorists prefer Bush over Kerry is because Kerry would actually do something that would put the hurt to the Iranian government. He would be slow and methodical. He would squeeze them from power with the weight of the world at our side. George W. Bush is going to keep doing what he's been doing there: NOTHING!

The real reason why the terrorists are supporting Bush (I said it again, yippee!) is because they fear Kerry's resolve to do something about governments around the world that actively oppress their citizens. The terrorists support Bush (yes!) because he's actually eliminated the moderate in the neighborhood who previously warred with Iran. In essence Bush has made the Iranians stronger.

Excerpts from the article include Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi saying that ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the:

"biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

He also said that Bush has learned from his mistakes:

"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran".

He added:

"Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."

A vote for Bush is a vote for the terrorists!

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Open Letter
Topic: Misc.
This letter is in response to the United Kingdom editors and readers from the "Guardian" (The Guardian) who have taken it upon themselves to write to the undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio.

To Whom It May Concern,

Your actions have angered many here in the U.S. You have also made many here in the U.S. overjoyed. Regarding the former group of people I personally wanted to let you know that they do not represent all Americans.

Many here in the U.S. that spew vitriol over your actions don't recognize the irony of their statements. They say things like "stop meddling in our election", but they forget that RIGHT NOW in 2 different countries, not only is the U.S. government "meddling" but they're also creating, appointing, managing, and building the governments of 2 formerly sovereign nations. The astonishment of those that have uttered this vitriol, by the few of us that actually understand what it means to be an American patriot, is only surpassed by the amazement of their complete ignorance of American history.

Unfortunately some of us in the U.S. forget about our "meddling" in Vietnam and our failure to "meddle" in World War II until it was absolutely forced upon us. Some would say that we actually "saved" the Europeans because of our altruistic ideals, while they forget that the British were losing the same number of people every week from German bombs, that we lost on 9/11. They forget that this went on for 2 straight years while we sat back content with our economy and our ability to condition air. They forget about our "interventions" in the politics of countries around the globe, where we either removed or aided in the removal of governments.

Unfortunately some people within our country are content to let the poor of this country die for their beliefs. They do not have a problem with sitting in comfort while people in this country and around the world are affected by their decisions. It's about time that the citizens of this country hear how our decisions affect others. That is why I wanted to personally thank you for doing what so many of our institutions fail to do. Thank you for going out of your way to let people of this country know how you feel. We don't have to agree with what you are saying but we should respect it.

Those of us that look at questioning our government as a patriotic and constitutional duty can handle the truth. Please keep up the letters. For this American the problem of our ignorance and indifference extends way beyond a Presidential election and will only be solved through education. Education will breed empathy and only until the citizens reach that point will our policies change to reflect our values.

Thanks again,

The Independent Voice