Printable View
This made me chuckle. Normally I quite like the Guardian, but their exhortation to write to voters in the crucial swing state of Clark County, Ohio urging them to vote against Bush appears to have been granted the reception it deserved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...329858,00.html
Some of the responses are excellent.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that Guardian is trying to influence the election or the responses to it. :mad:
Jeezus.
My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!
Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.
Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio
No scarcasm there... :rolleyes:
I saw that yesterday. Somewhere on that page there's a link to a reader's comments section. At about this time yesterday there was this extensive battle going on between some Americans and Brits over America's contribution to WWII.
The perspective of the American was: (rough paraphrase) we saved every single man woman and child in Europe twice, on our own, with no help (and no mention of the eastern front); also just for the record... fuck you all and fuck your bad teeth.
The Brits, needless too say, did not agree with that position.
Bite me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Wow, assuming that the lower the number the better, they sure have good teeth in Uganda!Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
Or very few teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Some of those responses are pretty funny and well written. I notice all of the really irrational ill-informed responses came from people who somehow would manage to slip in support of Bush or his policies.
I don't think of them as much as pompous Brits (ok often I do) but in this case just scared shitless, desparate Brits. Let's face it the rest of the world is terrified of what that moron Bush will do with 4 more years and nothing to loose at the end.
For starters I can't help think it was a freudian slip the other day when he stated 'we will not have an all volunteer army'.
I wonder if those Bush supporters see American influence brow beating the Brits into a war under completely false prestenses without a thought out plan that is now an ongoing nightmare as any sort of unwelcome meddling. The sort of meddling that also helped bring down a government in Spain. Pompous Bush supporters is definitely more like it.
Unfortunately,as a large country with the most money,we also have the highest percentage of imbeciles per capita of any western ,industrialized nation.The average Americans vocabulary has gone from around 10,500 words in 1950,to around 1500 words in 2000.Don't think for a second that other western countries haven't noticed.I doubt our own Fearless Leader has even 1000 words in his vocabulary.Too bad we didn't spend some of the 200 Billion we spent on Iraq for education!
At this same time ,the values of the very religion the right wing christian conservates claim to speak for have selectively pushed agendas that further the control of the richest minority of our population while ignoring the most basic tenets of what their "personal" savior said.
Some average income people that should never have found there way to supporting GW did for one simple reason,they can relate to his ignorance.
If the Repubilcans wanted someone in office from their party with integrity,they would've backed McCain.I would have voted for him!
Freshies, why do you think the "republican party" didn't want McCain. The problem is that the presidency is up for sale. The only reason Bush won in the last nomination (and election) is because of the massive war chest he built while campaigning. We need to stop this. We will forever more have less than qualified candidates for the presidency. Just as I assume not all democrats want Kerry as a candidate, neither did much of the party want bush. Unfortunately, that's where politics are now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
ummh...yeah. browbeating.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3536131.stm
say what you will, but Tony Blair has dump truck balls.
Maybe even a 10,500 word vocabulary to go with.
at a minimum the speech is 10,000 characters ;)
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
He was either:
a. wrong about WMDs
b. Not telling the truth about WMDs
c. was lied to about WMDs
Which indicates he is either
a. stupid
b. dishonest
c. naive
My money is on a combination of a. and b. in about a 75:25 ratio
which a and b? or do the a's comprise 75% and the b's 25%? :rolleyes:
here is an excerpt:
But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.
The characterisation of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live.
Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living.
If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.
This is true also of our security.
The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.
It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.
But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it. . . .
The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.
But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.
But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.
The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .
This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.
Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.
This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't.
you can see that for Bush, Blair, and the Iraqi's it was not just about WMD's. but I've gone on and on abou this before. Germany and France couldn't stop a genocide in their own back yard, why would we concern them with one happening in a country they were making so much $$ off of?
Interesting Roo. I was in the Kerry office the other day and this cute British girl (although she lived up to the UK dental tradition) was calling NH voters. I asked her if she went to school here (in Boston) and she said "No, I'm just on holiday in the states and I thought I'd try to help make sure Bush loses."
She actually said a lot of people were asking her about why a Brit was trying to affect American elections (sometimes indignantly) and she would reply with - "Well, America is the most important country in the world. The actions that the president takes affect everyone else, and I feel like the world can't handle another four years of this president. Nearly everything he's done has antagonized the rest of the world and I want people to know it doesn't have to be this way. We want to love America." She said that would get a pretty good reaction even from the people that seemed annoyed at first...
Sweet!! Now we have another country telling us how to vote...Let's just give the fuckers the keys to the white house.....Hell, all you snaggletooth funny talking people can come on over to my house and fuck my sister too! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Andd mildbil should stop woking so hard. Not funny here on the ole' TGR bosrd today.
Blurred, you are so right. Thank God for the example of America; a country that would never do anything to influence or change the leadership of another country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlurredElevens
Maybe not what she was doing but young people from the UK doing internships/volunteering on electoral campaigns seems to be the new "in" thing for people who want to get into politics over here. Apparently UK political parties see it as good to have been involved in US electoral campaigns - on which side is apparently unimportant... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrockpow
My g/f was at Oxford University which has a much higher proportion of people who are politically ambitious than any other school here. I found them pretty hard to take personally, maybe they just grate with my outlook... Anyway, it seems that half the Oxford Union (uber-snooty fairly political debating club) have found their way to DC in the last few months. Watch out America - these are the really pompous Brits.
This thread sucks.
Still trying to find the Ski/Snowboard part of it.
Think snow.
Uh... at the risk of sounding like a pompous brit, what were you expecting when you saw 'NSR' in the title???Quote:
Originally Posted by TeleAl
Vertigo's ON FIRE today. :D
Once again you've mistaken me for someone who cares about other countries beside my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by vertigo
I do have say, I find it really quite remarkable that in all the traveling I've done internationally in the past 4 years, I have yet to find a single non-American that supports Bush. I've spoken with taxi drivers, real estate agents, businesspeople, kids on the streets, travel agents, you name it.
Now, it wasn't a scientific survey - far from it. And I'm not saying that Americans should necessarily take into consideration what some random South Americans and Europeans think...but still, all that being said, the fact is that of the 40-45 people I spoke with at length on the subject, not a SINGLE one supported Bush. It's really quite incredible, I think. I mean, I would have thought somebody out there would agree with his policies.
But what is it exactly that is so shocking about this? I mean, maybe the rest of the world wouldn't support a different president either! How do I know it's about Bush, and not about American policy in general, for instance?
Well, here it is. The thing that is so striking is how vastly different it is from what we think of Bush. Half of this country voted for Bush, and roughly half is going to vote for him again. That's a LOT of support. Plenty of people DO support him in the US. And yet, somehow, the rest of the world sees things differently. And consistently so, it seems. Yeah, my sample size wasn't big, and yeah, there was no control group, and yeah, blah blah blah. Don't you think I would have stumbled on ONE person abroad who thought Bush has it right? Just one? I guess I would have. And don't throw statistics-bias-influence junk at me, I taught Stats for a year at one of the best colleges in the country. If there was any kind of international support for him, I should have found someone.
I hate to say it, but if the rest of the world sees something one way so strongly, isn't is possible that they're right, and half of us are wrong?
EDITED for clarity
A similar thing happened with Gorbachev. We all thought the guy was the daddy but ask any Russkies and they couldn't wait to see the back of the fucker.