I agree that he should vote for whomever he wants, but I cannot respect his choice (or the person) if he’s reasoning is “D’er, d’uh… I vote for whoever pisses off the rest of the world 'cause I don’t care, teehee… No wait, FIGHT TERRORISM! Yeah, that sounds good.”
Perhaps some more choice lines like “Freedom will prevail!” or “Democracy needs to be defended!” would come in handy.
While me saying it should already be good enough, your posturing in this and other threads is a clear indicator that you’re a stooopid nutcase
It’s going to be a close call again so really even if Kerry wins nearly half the country is still going to vote for Bush same situation as if Bush wins. So this whole “We’re not angry at Americans- we’re angry at Bush” distinction could be just as legitimately adheared to or discarded right now- no need to wait for the election.
That’s a good point. Probably the reason why the election would be seen as an important turning point is an emotional rather than a logical one. Right now the opinion of the population doesn’t change the government. Even if 100% of the Americans would like to vote for Nader in this instant, it doesn’t really matter because Bush would still be in office as there is no election yet.
Come November when the individual opinion actually influences the results, it appears as a different matter, even though you are correct that we can already assume with high accuracy that it’s going to be a close call either way.
First: The war in Iraq is not The War Against Terror. It has been shown time and time again that Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, that there were no WMD, that Iraq was incapable and not inclined to launch attacks against the U.S., &c, &c. Attack Afghanistan? Yes. But attacking Iraq is like, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, attacking Mexico. Bush had plans to attack Iraq 13 months before last April. He had no intention of finding a peaceful solution.
Second: There are more reasons to vote against Bush than his Napoleon Complex. Bushco supports the exporting of American jobs; and we’re not just talking about your Wal-Mart crap. It’s not just manufacturing. I was a Senior Data Management Analyst with a large Information company. The ironically named Tata company (of India) sent “consultants” over. Guess what? Half of the department lost their jobs. Hey, why pay Americans when you can export jobs to India? How would you like it if your job was exported and you had to take a job for half of what you were making? Would you like that? Or would you try to get rid of one of the main supporters of taking jobs away from Americans? Or maybe you think it’s a good thing that Bush has put a million Americans out of work?
Not to mention that he and his cronies are running roughshod over the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, one of the most sacred docments ever written.
Or that he supports changing the Constitution to deny rights to 10% of the population.
Or that he insists upon forcing Christianity – virtually instituting a State Religion – upon us.
Or that he is opposed to potentially life-saving medical research.
Or that he thinks he has some God-given right to tell women what they can or can’t do with their bodies.
There are a lot of reasons to boot this guy out of office that have nothing to do with terrorism. (Incidentally, you did notice that he said terrorism cannot be defeated, didn’t you?)
Third: The world has gotten a lot smaller in the past century or so. Just as certain behaviours are expected of citizens when they move to a city, and other behaviours that are acceptable “down on the farm” are considered anti-social in a metropolis, the U.S. must accept that we are members of the world community and behave accordingly.
Way to show the intelligence of the American people, Bubba. :rolleyes: :mad:
Or are you putting on a “hysterically ignorant” hat in the hopes of securing a spot on Talking To Americans?
Maybe using over-wrought irony to suggest that people who make no distinction between a people and their government are able to do so because of their near-total lack of knowledge about both the people and their government?
I had a rather chilling conversation with a friend of mine this weekend.
She and her husband had dinner with a gentleman who is currently serving in some capacity in the American embassy in Egypt.
His job requires him to shuttle between the various American embassies in the Middle East.
He informed them that although he’s never seen such vehement anti-American sentiment in all his 20 years in the diplomatic service, the average Arab citizen blames the current administration rather than the American people.
However, should Bush be re-elected to office, that will change immediately and he believes the Middle East will go up in flames.
The worst part is that this distinction is not supposed to exist at all. A democracy is supposed to, at all times, represent the will of the majority. The implementation of democracy in the US is supposed to represent the will of the majority at all times except when that will would trample on reserved rights of minorities. This is another of life’s cruel ironies. A political system which is supposed to harmonize the actions of government with the collective will of the people is actually seen as seperating the governmental actions/actors from the will of the people.
Even if (shudder) Bush wins again, if the combined Kerry & Nader vote is at least equal to the combined Gore & Nader vote in 2000 - and I think it’s safe to assume it will be - that will mean at least 54 million Americans tried to get Bush thrown out of office.
54 million is a lot of people. It’s not far off from the entire population of Britain, or of France. It is roughly equal to the number of the Canadian, Australian and Irish populations combined.
Please keep that in mind whenever you’re tempted to tar all Americans with the same brush.
Yeah, it’s really amazing how everyone predicted he would suck as a President, isn’t it? Of course, you can tell who they are by the large quantities of egg on their faces, as he has turned out to be a much better President by far.
Where the hell do you get off making a crack like “people who should know better”? I voted for him first time around. He’s done a good job and I’ll vote for him next time around.
Suggestion, amigo. If you want to make remarks like that about the American President, then move here, become a citizen and vote. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
:wally
In this thread I asked what kind of moral responsibility we who oppose Bush have to see that he doesn’t remain in power. My point was that societies that have historically gone over to the Dark Side started out free, or at least, much freer than they later became. But people didn’t know what was happening, as it happened. I am sure that if you could take a bunch of average Germans in 1931 and give them a tour of Germany in 1945, when you returned them to Weimar Germany all you’d have to do is put a gun in their hands and point them in general direction of Adolph.
Now, just to get the conservatives and the iconoclasts and certain folks who are so impartial that they not only don’t have opinions but can’t stand to see them in others off my case, I want to say this:
I AM NOT MAKING A DIRECT COMPARISON BETWEEN BUSH AND HITLER, OR BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE NAZIS. And if you insist on saying I am, I will tell you that you are constructing a strawman, and then I will tell you where to put said strawman.
I am saying that the Republicans under Bush are moving the country strongly to the right, and if elected for another four years will likely move the country a lot further to the right. And I’m worried about what might happen with an administration that has already attempted to legitimize the use of torture, that got election via crooked means, that endangers the lives of covert CIA agents and their contacts for cheap political gain (Valerie Plame) and most of all has led us to war under false pretenses.
How long before this slope gets real … slippery? Too slippery to get back to what we like to regard as normal? We’ve got a chance to stop Bush in this election, but if we don’t, and things do go irretrievably to authoritarian rule a little further down the old timeline, what will be the judgement of history on us? What will are alllies think of us? And will they be wrong to think it?
I’ve always considered the people who canonize Ronald Reagan to be delusional and/or in deep denial about his administrations. I’m finding that the same people are slipping down that slope with regards to Bush II. A “much better president by far”?
How can two people who live in the same country, in the same culture, see the same administration in two such totally diametrically opposed ways? I can only conclude that my political opposites are divorced from reality…
I agree. If Bush is returned to office, the rest of the world will assume, and history will record, that the majority of the American people of 2004 approved of his actions.
Anyone who genuinely disapproves of the things Bush has done (as listed by Johnny L.A., except he left out the rollback of environmental protections) will vote against him. There is only one effective way to vote against Bush, and that is to vote for Kerry, even if you don’t think he’s a great candidate.
There are three ways to fail to vote against Bush: vote for Bush, vote for a minor party candidate, or don’t vote at all. If too many people fail to vote against Bush, he’ll be returned to office, and history will record that the American people of 2004 were in favor of the Iraq War, the rollback of environmental protections, the rollback of civil liberties, the move to the right, the advancement of the religious right agenda, and a big tax cut whose benefits went almost entirely to the very wealthy.
