Please read this

[geni]

It's the way he behaved.Just because what could be seen on his back probably wasn't anything to do with a wire, doesn't mean he wasn't wired.

Rolfe.

Errr I have lectures that sound like that. I 99.9999% sure they are not wired.

 

[H3LL]

Thanks for reminding me to turn off the marquee tag

Ditto. You can turn it back on now.

Originally posted by SRW
Is it anyone but Bush?

Sadly, it seems to be so, outside of the US. Voting for a Big Mac with fries would seem to be a preferred alternative. Possibly smarter and certainly safer and less crazy.

It makes me wonder if others are not looking too close at Kerry, it's just that he's not Bush. I know I'm guilty of it. The Big Mac would get my vote.

Originally posted by SRW
Or could it be that it is in their best interests to have a weak indecisive president in the U.S. Europe wants to be the world economic superpower, a U.S. in the hands of Kerry would help them in this endeavor.

Quite the opposite. Bush is the perfect vehicle for benefitting the EU. The trade and PR benefits of being "not Bush" would seem to be enourmous.

 

[Nikk]

Stupidest consipiry theory ever. While bush is in office europe gain infulence as an anyone but the US option. Sure this results in a few downsides (the euro is stronger than it should be) the the ares some definte upsides (greater stability of oil prices in euros.

Absolutely. Bush is a known and very unimpressive quantity. No matter what we do in Europe we look good by comparison.


Vote Bush!

 

[SRW]

Stupidest consipiry theory ever.

Intresting I guess you failed to read the article at the begining of this thread.

 

[SRW]

Ditto. You can turn it back on now.




It makes me wonder if others are not looking too close at Kerry, it's just that he's not Bush. I know I'm guilty of it. The Big Mac would get my vote.



Quite the opposite. Bush is the perfect vehicle for benefitting the EU. The trade and PR benefits of being "not Bush" would seem to be enourmous.

I think the powers that be can see, all to clearly, that the disasterous policies that Kerry is expousing would greatly harm the U.S. trade position, which benifits Europe.

 

[H3LL]

There does seem to be the problem:

Bush = Presidency
Presidency = America
Anti-Bush = Anti-America
(Anti-America = Liberal/Communist)

It's a very simplistic train of thought and such a shame.

Anyone outside America that is anti-Bush is actually pro-America and not necessarily pro-Kerry but probaby pro-Big-Mac and fries (see previous post).

I'm annoyed with all you Americans putting up with this toe-rag, Bush. So just to be childish...

Vote Bush!

 

[SRW]

There does seem to be the problem:

Bush = Presidency
Presidency = America
Anti-Bush = Anti-America
(Anti-America = Liberal/Communist)

It's a very simplistic train of thought and such a shame.

Anyone outside America that is anti-Bush is actually pro-America and not necessarily pro-Kerry but probaby pro-Big-Mac and fries (see previous post).

I'm annoyed with all you Americans putting up with this toe-rag, Bush. So just to be childish...

Vote Bush!

You can afford to live with "anyone but Bush" But I have to live in this country. Kerry is a lightweight, and despite your simple view he would be a disaster as president. I am a Democrat and had my party put up a viable candidate I would vote for him. As someone who cares about my country I am making and informed choice.

Also as a Vetnam era vet there is no way I could ever vote for Kerry.

 

[H3LL]

You can afford to live with "anyone but Bush"

Actually, probably not. Bush and his antics have been directly responsible for an additional $7 million in the last quarter for one of the companies I work for. That's money that isn't in America and isn't providing work for ordinary Americans.

Not everyone Bush-Bashing is looking to their pocket/power/paranoia, but I guess many people judge others buy their own characteristics. Others care about your country too.

It is a pity that your options are so limited. Maybe that's where the problem lies. You have a choice between Mr.Crazy-evangelical-moron and Mr.Too-bland-and-wet.

I'd better stop...I'm starting to really want Bush to win.

 

[SRW]

Actually, probably not. Bush and his antics have been directly responsible for an additional $7 million in the last quarter for one of the companies I work for. That's money that isn't in America and isn't providing work for ordinary Americans.

Not everyone Bush-Bashing is looking to their pocket/power/paranoia, but I guess many people judge others buy their own characteristics. Others care about your country too.

The fact that companies are growing internationally is not in neccacerraly bad for the U.S.. Bush and his policies will be good not only for domestic growth but internationally as well. Kerry on the other hand it proposing a hodgepodge of short sited and ultimately disastrous economic sanctions against U.S. companies.

From what I have read, unlike most Americans, foreign economists have read Kerry's proposals and see a opportunity to make inroads in US dominated markets.

A growing prosperous middle class in China and India may mean the loss of some jobs in the U.S. but that expansion will happen with our without or cooperation. The U.S. should be embracing that growth and solidifying our markets share.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I didn't get to read it, all that was posted there when I went was:

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

So, to be in line with the Euro mindset, we should be flippant and tasteless? I can do that.

 

[csense]

So, to be in line with the Euro mindset, we should be flippant and tasteless? I can do that.

In the last line of text, he was implying a call to arms for the assissination of the President of the United States. The Gaurdian may call that flippant and tasteless, I call it at the very least, irresponsible, and quite possibly unethical. No matter who the President is and what your political ideology may be, things like this are simply uncalled for.

I didn't get to read it, all that was posted there when I went was

Here's the complete text:


Dumb show

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?

 

[csense]

Oh, and he can take his apology...or shall I say the Gaurdian's apology, since the cowardly weasel didn't write it himself...and shove it up his ass.

 

[richardm]

Oh, and he can take his apology...or shall I say the Gaurdian's apology, since the cowardly weasel didn't write it himself...and shove it up his ass.

Oh, do try to get a sense of perspective. Charlie Brooker writes a humourous column in the TV pages of the Guardian. It's not intended to be a serious piece. And he has now realised that it was perhaps unnecessarily offensive, and published an apology (which he did, in fact, write himself).

I'm always quite surprised by how seriously Americans take threats - even joke ones - against their president. There does seem to be a much stronger sense of gallows humour in the UK with respect to politicians.

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm always quite surprised by how seriously Americans take threats - even joke ones - against their president. There does seem to be a much stronger sense of gallows humour in the UK with respect to politicians.

Nearly one in four of the men who've ever taken the presidential oath have suffered serious assassination attempts, and nearly one in ten has been killed. I guess the gallows humor wears a bit thin.

 

[geni]

Nearly one in four of the men who've ever taken the presidential oath have suffered serious assassination attempts, and nearly one in ten has been killed. I guess the gallows humor wears a bit thin.

We had a primeminister shot dead at one point. The IRA had a couple of goes at adding to the list but failed.

 

[Zep]

You can afford to live with "anyone but Bush" But I have to live in this country. Kerry is a lightweight, and despite your simple view he would be a disaster as president. I am a Democrat and had my party put up a viable candidate I would vote for him. As someone who cares about my country I am making and informed choice.

Also as a Vetnam era vet there is no way I could ever vote for Kerry.

For the love of everything you hold dear and holy, why can't you persuade Colin Powell to run as the Repub. candidate? Against both of the current candidates, he would absolutely walk it in going backwards while half asleep with a 100 yard handicap. Sure, he has "issues", but the guy is well-regarded outside the USA as an educated and responsible person, and capable of reasonable dialogue as well as cracking the military whip if needs be. You would hear the mass exhalation of relief right across the Atlantic, and pounds to peanuts the Middle East would be a different place very rapidly.

 

[Rob Lister]

For the love of everything you hold dear and holy, why can't you persuade Colin Powell to run as the Repub. candidate? Against both of the current candidates, he would absolutely walk it in going backwards while half asleep with a 100 yard handicap. Sure, he has "issues", but the guy is well-regarded outside the USA as an educated and responsible person, and capable of reasonable dialogue as well as cracking the military whip if needs be. You would hear the mass exhalation of relief right across the Atlantic, and pounds to peanuts the Middle East would be a different place very rapidly.

While I like Powell somewhat, I don't think he could swing the Republican nomination because he's too liberal. He'd have less chance swinging the Democrat nomination because he's too conservative. In the nomination process, the middle of the road is reserved for dead possums and other roadkill. Either way, he'd have to fabricate his positions on everything from the war to the economy. Dishonesty is not his strong suit, IMO.

He’d be better off running as an independent but then both parties would seek to destroy him. He’d never attempt that because he knows they’d be successful. I’m not sure which main party would benefit (a la Bush Sr, Clinton, Perot) and reap a landslide election.

He has, in the past, expressed a grave disinterest in seeking that office. I don’t blame him.

 

[Zep]

Rob, I understand the cleft stick Powell would be in if he did decide to run. To be honest, I don't think there would be a great deal of concern if he did take a tougher stance, perhaps even get fairly hawkish, and ran as a Repub. candidate. The point from here would be that on a score out of 10 for respect, Powell would be an 8 or 9, Kerry about 5 or 6, and Bush a definite 0. And probably ditto for political ability. And broad-scale management skills too. In fact, most of the skills required to be a good president.

And Powell's military record is pretty darn good compared to the current candidates, too.

Secretary Powell was a professional soldier for 35 years, during which time he held myriad command and staff positions and rose to the rank of 4-star General. He was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from December 1987 to January 1989. His last assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including Operation Desert Storm in the victorious 1991 Persian Gulf war.

US Department of State biography

More's the pity he's not running, more's the pity...

 

[BPSCG]

During Clinton's second term, there was a lot of interest in Powell as the Republican nominee in 2000, and few people doubt he could have had the nomination for the asking.

Thing is, he didn't ask; in fact, he stated flat-out that he would not run. The "inside baseball" on this is that he didn't have the great passion to do so, while his wife was absolutely dead-set against it.

 

[Chaos]

*snip*
The "inside baseball" on this is that he didn't have the great passion to do so, while his wife was absolutely dead-set against it.

Considering what the Bushies did to McCain in 2000, that´s perfectly understandable.