mrf777
Advanced
Tomorrow is the big day!
Bush Or Kerry
- Thread starter mrf777
- Start date
USAir757
Veteran
I think you may find a SLIGHTLY biased group here.
Fly
Veteran
The election shouldn't be a popularity contest, but come on, this article is from England (and they are supposed to like us) Imagine what the other countries think of the good ole USA. Frightening.
Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian
Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.
Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?
The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.
Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.
So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.
Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.
The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)
Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?
Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian
Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.
Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?
The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.
Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.
So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.
Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.
The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)
Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?
sentrido
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2004
- 1,004
- 0
Fly said:
Who gives a flying F&%k what other countries think or want for us? The only time they like us is when the money arrives from us or they have a great disaster and we send tons of money and supplies to help them out. Oh yeah, and when stronger nations attack and occupy nations capitals like Paris in the 40's that's when they love us as we give them liberation.
Fly
Veteran
Read this at another site. This IS why it matters what others think.
Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.
Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.
Jhon Kerry's idea of restoring the "respect" you call it is to apease those countries. I am sorry, but I don't give a rat about what the people of france say or think when it comes to the safety and security of this country.
Neither does President Bush.
Do you honestly believe for one minute the Bil Laden is going to stop hating us and trying to attack up because Kerry gets elected?
If you do then you are a fool.
Neither does President Bush.
Do you honestly believe for one minute the Bil Laden is going to stop hating us and trying to attack up because Kerry gets elected?
If you do then you are a fool.
KCFlyer
Veteran
FredF said:
No, I don't. But....according to your boy W....Bin laden just isn't that big of a deal...Saddam Hussein was the one who was the terrorists bad boy. If anything, I think bin laden would be MORE afraid of Kerry than Bush....Bush already discounts bin laden - and Bush has done such a fine job of increasing bin laden's recruitment efforts, I think Osama like him to return.
KCFlyer said:
Bin Laden knows just like others that if Kerry gets elected, then he is a lot safer than if Bush remains president. Otherwise, why do you think he would threaten to attack states that vote for Bush?
Kerry won't do anything without passing that garbage "Global Test" he supports so faithfully. He has already gone on record saying that the only military engagements he supports are those run by the UN.
Back during the first gulf war, when we had the coalition he thinks we should have now, he still opposed action against Sadam unless it was run by the UN. That Global Test comment shows he still thinks that way.
USAir757
Veteran
I don't know where you're getting this stuff... it has a nice ring to it, almost like Kerry's idea that terrorism is a nuisance... anyway, Bin Laden really isn't THAT big a deal, personally that is. His organization as a whole is much more valuable than the individual. And our search for him continues, without hundreds of thousands of troops, because we wouldn't be able to get him that way anyhow.
The scary thing about the way you think is that you think because what we did may have increased "recruitment efforts" for the terrorists, we shouldn't have gone to war. You're absolutely wrong. And by the way, can you prove that Al-Quaida in particular has actually grown in size since the war in Iraq started? Have you spoken to Mr. Bin Laden? Are you guys in cahoots?
Bin Laden wants nothing more than he wants Kerry to be elected. Look at how he pushes us around as it is, all we need is a flipper in there who does nothing but read the New York Times opinion column every morning to determine his policy for the day. Consistency is key. And he, my friend, has nothing of the sort.
KCFlyer
Veteran
Then why did Bush say that bin laden wasn't that important...is he jus bluffin' em?
Funny, I never heard him say the "only" engagements he supports are run by the UN. I believe I heard him say that he'd go to war if evidence dictated it, regardless of what the UN said. The trouble with Bushkie is that he would not consider any evidence that didn't support his views. And the information he had was chock full of caveats that the information presented was "assumptions". You know what happens when one assumes, don't you?
And guess what....GHW Bush (despite my loathing of him), had UN SUPPORT for the first gulf war. This despite the fact that just 8 days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam was told that the US "has no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and "that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America". Indeed, Bush was looking to improve US/Iraq relations. Maybe that's why he felt the UN would be better at running the action than the US.
KCFlyer
Veteran
You mean this:
IN case you think my source is "biased", read it here
Doesn't have to be bin laden. I know you all like to dismiss France and that "frog" Chirac. But before the Iraq war, Chirac stated in a Time Magazine interview:
And he's been proven right.
And I'll agree to disagree with that. With Bush in power, anti-American sentiment in the radical Muslim world will continue to grow. And with Bush so obviously fighting them "over there", who knows how many weapons have been brought on to the shores of the United States because port security wasn't "that important" either? Bin laden and those who idolize him want nothing more than Bush to be reelected.
USAir757 said:
I'm sorry, are you saying that it's BETTER to have fewer troops looking for Bin Laden? With that logic, if we stop looking for him entirely, maybe he'll turn himself in. I can see the argument for not having large FORMATIONS of troops looking for him, since it's hard for an infantry battalion to sneak up on someone, but I'd be interested to hear how it is better to have fewer troops overall looking for him.
So you are accusing KCFLYER of being "in cahoots" with Bin Laden because he reaches the same conclusion that the NeoConservative Washington Times reached regarding the success of Al Qaeda recruitment? Does this mean the Washington Times is 'in cahoots' with Al Qaeda as well, or is your insult only for KCFLYER?
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041008-110456-6874r.htm
Can you prove that Bin Laden wants Kerry elected? Have you spoken to Mr. Bin Laden? Are you guys in cahoots?
I think he's made it pretty clear he plans to attack us no matter who is elected, and I think both candidates have made it clear that no matter who wins, America is at war with Al Qaeda.
Indeed, imagine how happy he is with the Patriot Act and the suppression of individual freedoms here in the US and the increasingly negative perception of the US in the rest of the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/...tape/index.html
As opposed to a flipper who only knows what Karl Rove tells him and brags that he doesn't read ANY newspapers. It is amazing that the very people who criticized Clinton for 'nation building' in Kosovo have taken that same policy to such an extreme and have done so with an evangelical zeal Clinton could never have matched.
So it is preferable to be consistently wrong and refuse to change than to admit you're wrong and change? Interesting.
Thank God. Imagine how horrible it would be if we had a President who was willing to admit that he didn't know everything and he could make mistakes or that new information could influence his decisions.
