|
U-Know! Forum » Four more years? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 11:25
|
||
|
Y'know I'm wondering why none of those right-wing dip-shits seemed to be happy about Bush winning? Or that's what it looked like at work yesterday... To elaborate, I just got a new job at the local Wegman's supermarket chain. The store I work at is in a town full of Bush supporters. BUT, I didn't see any pro-Bush dipshit gloat about any of it or even smile. They seemed to look like they were about to cry(!) What the fuck? They got what they wanted. Did they discover they had to pay a price? Or is it something else. Well it's better than seeing those dipshits gloat!
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 11:25
|
||
|
So are you saying that it will be alright for the dems as all they have to do is become more and more like The Republicans to actually win. So they need to form a kind of neo-Reaganism dressed up in liberal clothes just as new labour formed a neo-Thatcherism dressed up in social-democratic clothes. Sounds a bit Clinton to me. They've had him already so maybe it is time for Hilary to do the business. A frightening prospect is the dems might feel the need to give more ground to the religious right. Curry cooked by Hilary (with lots of added favour) anyone. MMmmmm!
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 11:31
|
||
|
Was it Confucius, or was it chairmen Mao... "If you find the dish on offer unpalatable then why then order the same dish with just more yogurt and water. They may go under different names but both are not what you really need".
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 11:56
|
||
|
It all seemed so easy to them a few months ago. Kerry with backing from Moore and sadly also Noam Chomsky. It was like a huge popular front with lots of celebrity backing (which Dog3000 does have a point about). Though Sheryl Crow did look hot singing 'a change will do you good' in the early hours of the morning, they were clutching at straws. The anyone but Bush campaign has proven to be a complete waste of time as not only did they fail in their objective but nothing much exists of it any more. The Bush camp seemed to me to have more people down on the ground and at grassroots level. Party politics may be rubbish but there has do be a real alternative built up from the bottom involving all kinds of organisations. Also what was the point of putting up a safe and mediocre candidate up. If they had put someone a bit more radical up he would still have lost (and yes even with a lower vote than Kerry) but at least it could laid the foundations for something better to build upon. All they are left with know is a paper coalition which is now in the waste bin.
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 11:57
|
||
|
now not know. Typo King!
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 12:33
|
||
Roll on Hilary 2008 eh?
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 14:23
|
||
|
> Who lost the election? The "Howler-Monkey Wing" of > the Democratic party, led by Michael Moore & Howard > Dean. Jumping up and down, screeching and flinging > poo will never change anybody's mind. You catch more > flies with honey than vinegar. Etc. > Fraid I disagree with you on that. And there's obviously no way to know for sure. But I would return to the point I made earlier that those who voted Bush were clearly doing so because *they supported him* and not because Kerry (or Michael Moore) drove them away. As for jumping around and screeching... Which election were you watching!? Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry, "Stolen Honor, Wounds That Never Heal", the 'wolves', the *constant* referral to Kerry as a flip-flopper, as a threat to national security, as weak, as dangerous, as liberal (in the perjorative sense). It's very possible that Moore and Dean were screeching a little bit louder than the other side... but your implication that Bush garnered support because he used honey instead of vinegar...? That seems absurd to me. And just what the hell kind of person thinks "well, I *was* going to vote for John Kerry, but that Michael Moore guy really pisses me off, so I'll vote for Dubya instead"? I'll tell you what kind... a Bush voter. > Another thing that never ceases to amaze me: the > way the left repeats the mantra that Bush is "dumb" > -- he's obviously far more clever than you guys when > it comes to electoral politics. > I'm not part of whatever "left" you might be referring to. But I am guilty as charged when it comes to calling Dubya "dumb". Because he is. Are you honestly claiming that his ability to win an American election makes the man "clever"? Again, which election were you watching? And by the way, stating an obvious truth; "George W Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed" is *not* equivalent to claiming "everybody who doesn't agree with me is super-moronic-dumb". And it's just nonsense to say that it is. Bush is surrounded by very clever people with whom I disagree. But I've watched the man speak at length dozens of times. Watched him debate Kerry three times. And it's not just the fact that he's a bad public speaker - though he is (Kissinger's a bad public speaker, but I'd hardly call the man "dumb" even though I disagree with him profoundly). It's the body language, intonation and facial expressions which all tell you that, as soon as he strays off his script, he's got little or no grasp on the subject he's discussing. It's weird; I didn't take your description of Michael Moore to mean that every person you disagree with is a "howler-monkey". Why assume my specific criticism of Bush is to be applied to everyone I disagree with?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 14:24
|
||
|
> He obviously understands the American people better > than you too. > Oh, of that I have no doubt. But again, that's hardly mutually exclusive with being a moron, now is it? Bush tapped into - what I believe to be - a very dangerous christian evangelicism. He is (in my opinion) being used to mobilise religious voters by those around him. People whose sterile neoconservative philosophies would never attract the sort of widespread support needed to win an election. But by dressing themselves up in the trappings of religion, and successfully painting their ambitions as missions from God, they have garnered significant popular support. And in the process, they have created a monster. And it's at this point that my criticism extends beyond Bush and towards the American people. There are - it seems - more people in the USA motivated to return Bush to power than there are people sufficiently motivated to oust him. After all that's happened in the past four years, that fact staggers me... and forces me to conclude that a significant number of Bush supporters must have bought into his "Axis of Evil" bullshit. And if they've done that... if they really believe that's how the world works... then they fully merit - at the very least - some mild criticism. > That's always such an effective argumentation tactic, > isn't it? I mean I can't tell you the number of times > someone has changed my opinion merely by yelling at > me and calling me a stupid moron . . . > But I haven't yelled at you and called you a stupid moron. I've described Dubya Bush as a moron. That's all. And if your rebuttal is the fact that he's in the White House, then you'll forgive me if that's not enough. Son of ex-president surrounded by rich and influential ex-Reaganites and backed by Big Oil...? "Not too bright. Willing to take direction." was probably in the job description. Anyways, look at the world we live in. Look at the tragic mess we've created in Iraq. Look at the oil price and look at natural gas supplies. Look at the increasing proliferation of dangerous weapons and the increasing radicalisation of those who possess them. Anyone who wants the job: "Dealing With All That Stuff", has got to be - by definition - a bit bloody stupid. > First rule of war: NEVER underestimate your enemy. > I'm not fighting a war. I only wish Dubya felt the same.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 14:39
|
||
|
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but am I the only one who thinks the appearance of that videotape so soon before the election is a suspicious coincidence? I reckon it's an old tape that somebody (although on which side of the political fence I'm not sure) has been deliberately keeping under wraps until now. Assuming it's genuine and not faked, that is ... the whole thing reminded me a bit too much of Emmanuel Goldstein in 1984 for comfort. Anyone been watching "The Power Of Nightmares" on BBC2? Excellent docu series with far more articulate and considered arguments that Michael Moore's. Main thrust of it was how it's always been in the political interests of both the east and the west to exaggerate the threat of terror from either side. 20 years ago it was the US (and by extension the UK) vs. Russia, (the size of whose nuclear arsenal turned out to have been massively exaggerated) and now the Cold War has ended it's the U.S. vs Islam. Yesterday we were at war with Eurasia, today we are at war with Eastasia.
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Nov 04, 2004, 15:59
|
||
Yeah, it was a great series, hopefully they'll repeat it soon as I could definitely go watching it again. Did you watch that program about some porn merchant who's being stalked by Ashcroft the neo-con attorney general last night? Not that I could care less about the US porn industry but it had very revealing quotes from Ashcroft and the like who are busy making preparations for the imminent return of Jebus and seem to do everything with that in mind. It's going to be illuminating to see what happens with the US supreme court over the next four years - no doubt it'll be stuffed with evos who want to overturn Roe vs Wade, teach creationism in schools and put anyone they don't like into "reeducation camps" in the name of the Lord.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
