|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2004 : 17:27:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"What's the similarity between GW Bush and Martha Stewart? - Both are afraid of long sentences..."
Hadn't heard that one.  
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2004 : 13:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Gezza and Dr. M...
The US media and the administration has found it amusing to ridicule Kerry for his comment about knowing of foriegn leaders that want to see Bush out of the White House. They demanded names.
Kerry promptly crawfished on his remarks, not explaining his sources.
Is there really foriegn leaders that have made public statements declaring their displeasure in this administration? And, is the anti-Bush sentiment throughout the world, (aside from the obvious such as the Middleeast and North Korea), as strong as it is often portrayed? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 17:47:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Gezza and Dr. M...
Is there really foreign leaders that have made public statements declaring their displeasure in this administration?
I can't think of any instance where the Swedish Prime minister Göran Persson had said anything personally about GW Bush. It would be a serious breach of diplomatic protocol. Considering how important the US is to Sweden economically and otherwise he will remain diplomatic enough not to do such a thing. Though I can't think of a specific event, I have a distinct feeling it has been mentioned in a roundabout way.
The late Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh has on several occasions spoken flat out her displeasure about US foreign politics.
She was very well respected among EU ministers for her being plain spoken, yet diplomatic. A no-nonsense kind of gal.
When I read between the lines, many cabinet ministers have hinted they wish less fundamentalist as president, but are afraid or reluctant to say it straight out. (there has been negotiations about releasing a Swedish citizen from the Guantanamo base, and didn't want to screw things up)
One in particular that has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth, Jan O Karlsson, have said (to reporters during a lunch) stuff like "that fucker", "lunatic", and "That damn Texas-guy". He got rather chastised for that stunt though.
quote:
And, is the anti-Bush sentiment throughout the world, (aside from the obvious such as the Middle-east and North Korea), as strong as it is often portrayed?
Well, I don't know what the American media says about it, but I can't think of a single instance where I've heard anything positive about Bush. At least a majority of the people I know consider him a war-criminal that should be sent to prison.
Many but perhaps not a majority buy the propaganda stuff about liberating Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but think it's wrong that USA decided to go against (and without) the UN.
It's the Oil the Americans want. That's the consensus among some people who don't even know who Michael Moore is.
That's all for tonight. I'm going to read some "Dude, where's my country" before I go to bed (and have scary nightmares... ) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2004 : 19:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gezza and Dr. M...
Is there really foreign leaders that have made public statements declaring their displeasure in this administration?
Our Prime Minister John Howard is so far up George W.'s arse it's not funny. His close relationship with the President has become quite the election issue.
We are in the midst of putting a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S through the senate and the opposition is blocking it for two reasons.
1. To keep a certain percentage of local content on Television and Cinema.
2. To keep your large pharmaceutical companies out of our country so we can still offer cheap drugs for the oldies and less wealthy.
Your senate passed the free trade agreement with unprecedented numbers, which makes me suspicious of the whole thing. The main reason being, it gives your farmers free access to our country. Considering agriculture is one of our largest exports, that could be a danger.
The administration and George W. have been publicly commenting on our upcoming election saying that a vote for the incumbent will keep the country safer….blah, blah you all know the spiel. I think they are privately fuming at the Opposition Leader's pledge to bring the Australian Troops from Iraq home by Christmas.
However, this has just galvanised the Anti-Americanism here with the majority of Australians wanting the Bush Administration to butt out of local politics.
Anyway, with the election down here in the next 3 months, if the opposition leader, Mark Latham gets in (Labor, or progressive party) here are some of his comments regarding Bush and the administration.
About John Howard's close relationship with George W. Bush:
He called Howard an “Arse Licker” and the government “A congo line of suck holes” for going to war with Iraq.
And about your president:
"George W. Bush is the most dangerous and incompetent president in living memory."
So if Mark Latham wins power, I am sure he will be happy to see Kerry in….
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 06:28:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
If the popular vote was instituted, candidates for president would be forced to concentrate their campaigns in higher populated urban areas. While every vote may count, a few votes from Wyoming may not be worth the time and money it would take to get those votes. You would have the coasts, mostly, deciding who gets to be president. Since most states are a winner take all for electoral votes, the less populated states are better represented, in terms of clout, when it comes time for them to cast those electoral votes. If a state is somewhat evenly divided over who should be the next president, a simple majority will deliver the entire states votes to one candidate or another. The Candidates cannot ignore those votes.
Still not convinced, Kil. At the end of the day, it still means that some people's votes count more than others. In Wyoming, for instance, there are less than 200,000 people per elector. In California, that number is 700,000.
In addition, the current system routinely allows for a person to become president without getting a majority of votes. According to Robert A. Dahl's How Democratic is the American Constitution? (Yale, 2003), no less than 18 elections have had this result. That's about one in three elections.
And of course we're all familiar with the fact that four elections have seen a "winner" go to a person who failed to get the most votes. In 1876, Sam Tilden got a majority (!) but, because of the electoral college, eventually lost to Rutherford Hayes.
I might add that the complaint that without the electoral college candidates would spend most of their time in heavily populated areas is one that doesn't immediately convince me. After all, in virtually all elections this is how it works. When a candidate's Congressional district includes urban and rural areas, we can be sure that more money and 'face-time' is going to be directed towards the denser-populated areas. Yet, does anyone think that we should switch to a sort of electoral-college-by-precinct or some such?
I'm not saying that we should scrap the whole system-- I am personally still mulling over the merits and drawbacks. But I still think that there are some problems with the college, and I'm not sure if the benefits cancel those out. |
|
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2004 : 09:32:02 [Permalink]
|
I found this neat article about Kerry's speech on NYPress.
quote:
After listening to John Kerry's acceptance address last week, I did a little experiment. I decided to remove everything that was bullshit and see what was left. I invite New York Press readers to follow me on this journey, step by step.
Guess how many sentences he ends up with? Two.
A nice read  |
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 14:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
While I think that Kerry gave the exact speech he needed to give, it wasn't a barn-burner. I loved the way he severly trashed Bush without actually trashing him. He's got a damned good writer working for him.
I think Kerry gave a great speech last night but it was the Same ol dung! He says they will not do negative attacks against Bush and then he goes ahead and does it. Both sides have been negative, and it seems thats the way it has always been.
Did Kerry say he wouldn't be negative or did he just challenge Bush with, "I won't if you won't"?
The Bush spin doctors have surely put out the 'talking points' to say, "condemn any negative thing said about Bush as being below the belt so to speak". That's crazy. Why shouldn't you be able to say what you think is wrong about the current administration?
Everything you say that is negative is not the equivalent of an attack campaign. Calling someone a 'flip flopper' or 'the most liberal member of the Senate' without any thing more substantial is an attack. John Stewart of the Daily show asked his Republican Senator guest where 'the most liberal' claim came from and the guest couldn't answer. What is a flip flopper? Someone who changes his position as circumstances change? So what, if it is even true, which I have no idea, so what? I would hope to have a President who knew when to flex.
That's different from saying Bush has made terrible decisions with terrible consequences. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2004 : 14:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Agreein' with beskeptigal. "Staying the course" is only a good thing if the course is the right one. I'd rather follow someone who can change his mind if the situation shows that the course is about to put the ship on to the rocks. If we keep going the way we are, everybody who lacks a lifejacket is screwed.
Hey, beskeptigal, Welcome to SFN!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
