election (1 Viewer)

[Wavioli]

Re: Irish played a key role in victory, says President's top Ohio aide

pre-internet!

but post-ketchup. Thank god.

 

[avernus]

There's plenty of anti-bush sloganry going around, look where that got us...

ah yeah, its just insane that people can hate her so much.

 

[Wavioli]

that is quite mad, why do they hate her so? Or is it a pun that Im missing? (surely it should be Lewinski sucks?)

 

[avernus]

that is quite mad, why do they hate her so? Or is it a pun that Im missing? (surely it should be Lewinski sucks?)

yeah...some people dont need a reason, they just need a face or a general direction.

 

[LMD64]

ah yeah, its just insane that people can hate her so much.

Again, it's hard to fathom at times how the American mind works (a gross over-generalisation, but never mind), how politicians can be so lauded or despised for their demeanour, and not for the ideaologies they espouse.

Then again, as elderlemon pointed out, look at Michael Lowry, in Tipp he's looked on as a saint amongst sinners. No one nation has a complete monopoly on idiocy. USA just has a more efficient system for announcing theirs to the world, via all the news networks channels.

 

[jane]

ah yeah, its just insane that people can hate her so much.

Women who dare to speak their minds often find themselves faced with a lot more hostility than men who might be just as outspoken. They are called 'irrational', 'hysterical', and 'angry', when men would be called 'frank' and 'uncompromising' and 'strong', and all that shit.

There is still an underlying attitude that women should know their place, and if they want to play at politics, they'd better leave their lady-cares at home where they belong. Look at Thatcher. Harney. Condoleezza Rice. They got ahead by playing the way the boys wanted them to, and so face much less hassle. Hilary doesn't play like that.

 

[fmk]

re michael moore.

looking at the figures, there's a question i'm itching to ask:

in crudely simple terms, the republicans increased their vote by 8.5m voters. the dems by 4.5m..

nader and other 3rd party candidates lost 2m votes. let's, for arguments sake, assume they all went to the dems, it's mor or less what the dems have been saying for the last four years. that'd say the dems only got in another 2.5m new voters.

now here's the question: is that the best the united forces of moveon.org, act, michael moore etc can do? is it possible to continue to defend the assininely stupid rhetoric of the likes of moore any more, if that's all he can achieve? especially if, in only getting another couple of a million people to the polls for his candidate, he actually manages to wake up all the stay-at-home conservatives as well, actually mobilising them in even greater force than dem voters were mobilised?

maybe moore really is karl rove's biggest secret weapon?

 

[billygannon]

Pete Brady?

Don't see why not.

How about Vince McMahon? Or Linux?

 

[LMD64]

Women who dare to speak their minds often find themselves faced with a lot more hostility than men who might be just as outspoken. They are called 'irrational', 'hysterical', and 'angry', when men would be called 'frank' and 'uncompromising' and 'strong', and all that shit.

There is still an underlying attitude that women should know their place, and if they want to play at politics, they'd better leave their lady-cares at home where they belong. Look at Thatcher. Harney. Condoleezza Rice. They got ahead by playing the way the boys wanted them to, and so face much less hassle. Hilary doesn't play like that.

now, jane, you're getting strident again

 

[MDR]

I thought it was interesting to hear on the radio this morning how people who were disappointed with Bush winning are beginning to console themselves with the hope that Bush, as a second termer, would be freed (somewhat anyway) from vested interests and the influence of people who put him there. I don't think this was based on any rational analysis, other than comparison with the past - for example Reagan's efforts to thaw the cold war during his second term.

I probably want to believe it more than I do, but i could certainly see how opinion poll ratings (which for Bush have never been that great anyway) would mean less to you if you couldn't seek reelection.

There was a good quote in there too - something about second terms, like second marriages, being the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[Wavioli]

I thought it was interesting to hear on the radio this morning how people who were disappointed with Bush winning are beginning to console themselves with the hope that Bush, as a second termer, would be freed (somewhat anyway) from vested interests and the influence of people who put him there. I don't think this was based on any rational analysis, other than comparison with the past - for example Reagan's efforts to thaw the cold war during his second term.

I probably want to believe it more than I do, but i could certainly see how opinion poll ratings (which for Bush have never been that great anyway) would mean less to you if you couldn't seek reelection.

There was a good quote in there too - something about second terms, like second marriages, being the triumph of hope over experience.

I heard that Powell and Rumsfeld might be retiring during the next 4 years, and as its Bush's last 4 no matter what, he doesnt have to worry about being re-elected. Lets just hope that he does change...


...haha, fat chance. But stranger things have happened at sea

 

[Speed Racer]

Worst day in Politics ever! Can't believe so many Americans are so thick! They should ban those propaganda commercials in the U.S. during an election race. Thats what it was all down to. Well, that and religious issues. This is a win for TV more than anything.

I just checked out the Michael Moore website. Its daunting. Very very daunting.

!bog

 

[broken arm]

 

[avernus]

re michael moore.
is it possible to continue to defend the assininely stupid rhetoric of the likes of moore any more, if that's all he can achieve? especially if, in only getting another couple of a million people to the polls for his candidate, he actually manages to wake up all the stay-at-home conservatives as well, actually mobilising them in even greater force than dem voters were mobilised?

maybe moore really is karl rove's biggest secret weapon?

yeah seriously, he's a real shit head for stirring a few million people to go out and vote for Kerry.

 

[SpeedRacer]

yeah seriously, he's a real shit head for stirring a few million people to go out and vote for Kerry.

THat fuckin Nazi is DEAD! My ma is black. I whole heartedly encourage mixed race lovin, it leads to better lookin poontang for everyone.

Nazis are ugly ickle twurps who want to defend their right to inbreed. Eventually they'll fuck their own Ma's. nuff said.

 

[LMD64]

yeah seriously, he's a real shit head for stirring a few million people to go out and vote for Kerry.

the point he's making is that maybe he's a real shit head for stirring a few million apathetic Republicants to go out and vote for Bush.

 

[avernus]

the point he's making is that maybe he's a real shit head for stirring a few million apathetic Republicants to go out and vote for Bush.

and the point I was making was that he is retarded for thinking such a thing.

 

[jane]

the point he's making is that maybe he's a real shit head for stirring a few million apathetic Republicants to go out and vote for Bush.

Yeah, but I think Michael Moore's rhetoric should be recognised for what it is: rhetoric. It is only ever meant to be balanced just enough to strengthen the points being made. Too much counter-point and the arguments are weakened,but acknowledging the other side makes it stronger.

He is a comic with a message, which is really useful and good. But he isn't enough to make real change. Michael Moore probably stirred up some apathetic young voters to go for Kerry, so I don't think he's more harm than good. I just think we need a hell of a lot more than him if we want a productive voice of reason.

Sure, Rove probably loves him, but they love to smash anyone outspoken in to little tiny splinters. We need to give him more difficult targets than someone who produces and directs documentaries that are polemical, and full of easy generalisations and witty edits.

 

[guy of the tiger]

Jane for president.

Yeah, but I think Michael Moore's rhetoric should be recognised for what it is: rhetoric. It is only ever meant to be balanced just enough to strengthen the points being made. Too much counter-point and the arguments are weakened,but acknowledging the other side makes it stronger.

He is a comic with a message, which is really useful and good. But he isn't enough to make real change. Michael Moore probably stirred up some apathetic young voters to go for Kerry, so I don't think he's more harm than good. I just think we need a hell of a lot more than him if we want a productive voice of reason.

Sure, Rove probably loves him, but they love to smash anyone outspoken in to little tiny splinters. We need to give him more difficult targets than someone who produces and directs documentaries that are polemical, and full of easy generalisations and witty edits.

 

[It Will Never Last]

Re: Irish played a key role in victory, says President's top Ohio aide

I'm hardly saying I'm going to get off my rant-box, but I've been thinking about this a lot: liberals in America, like in most countries, are really middle class. We go around, telling poor people we're going to help them, and maybe it's patronising to phrase it that way. We talk about minorities and socially and economically marginalised people as if they aren't in the room. Maybe the Republicans make them feel more empowered. Maybe there's something we can learn from these evil fucks after all.

...and in a puff of smoke, Jane wins me over...

Seriously but, thats a superly good point. There was some guy on Newsnight (I think) last night, saying the problem with the Democrats was that they sat on college campus' around the country, and in New York, Boston and Washington, talking to people who think the same way they do and convinced themselves they were gonna win.

If the forces of reason want to change things in the states, they need to interact with the real people, not just their fellow travellers.