Not being ones to mince words, heres the latest DailyMirror:
I laughed my ass off when I saw this!
[quote=“Redmenace”]Not being ones to mince words, heres the latest DailyMirror:
I laughed my ass off when I saw this![/quote]
The masses are asses.
[quote=“Danimal”][quote=“Redmenace”]Not being ones to mince words, heres the latest DailyMirror:
I laughed my ass off when I saw this![/quote]
The masses are asses.[/quote]
The Party is looking for a new kommissar to be in charge of resettlement and reeducation. Looking for a job? Your attitude seems to be correct. Please apply and if you are accepted, you will be provided with cattle cars, armed guards and plenty of barbed wire. And of course vodka, a Makarov 9mm pistol and a warm jacket!
Please send you application to:
Comrade J. Stalin
c/o The Kremlin
Moscow, USSR
If Democrats are wondering why they lost, it might be because they think they are so much smarter than everyone else.
This image is from the anti-Bush rally in San Francisco, Nov 3. Somebody’s a sore loser.
Priceless… check out the cover
I’ve already sent them about 20 “Fuck you very much!” emails. 
From the previous thread:
[quote=“Danimal”] Those averages are more or less the same throughout the final week before election. In general, you have about half the population approving of Bush’s job performance, and about half the people disapproving. I don’t know how you could get more dubious than that. Moreover, I’m not sure why anyone would take such offense to my pointing that out. It’s a fairly non-controversial point.
By the way, I hope no one takes my above comments as me “pissing and moaning.” Someone asked why/how I think Bush won, and I am merely trying to explain that. Bottom line–he courted and mobilized the evangelical vote because he knew that these people would care more about Bush’s deeper values than his actual performance as president. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but again, it’s a non-controversial point that only about half of America really approves of Bush’s performance as president. In fact, I think Carl Rove has been fairly upfront about this strategy and the need to mobilize evangelicals, but I admit I can’t point to any sources where he explicitly says this.[/quote]
I asked the question because right after election, many Democrats and non-Americans reacted so negatively, and started screaming stupid Americans, as if Bush won because of that: him getting lots of blind and stupid American folks voting for him, whom are not as well enlightened, global-minded, and well-educated, as the anti-Bush people.
For example:
[quote]1.Somebody asked why Bush was re-elected. It is because that many Americans are too stupid
-
It makes you think that if it was necessary to pass an IQ before voting, dumbo would still be living in his dad’s basement.
-
The religious nuts care so much about things like the gay marriage and stem cell research that they are willing to tolerate disastrous economic policies, environmental degradation, increased crime and incarceration, increased national debt, poor relations with the international community, etc.[/quote]
That seem to be the typical reactions from many Democrats, and if that’s not “pissing and moaning”, then I don’t know what is. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Republican, nor conservative, nor a Bush supporter. In fact I identify more with Democrat’s liberal values such as pro-choice, gay rights, gay marriage, and gun-control. I am non-religious and really dislike the whole church and evangelical thing. Not only that, I strongly oppose the Iraq war, least initially, and thought we messed up the whole Palestinian operation as well.
But despite all that, I think the Democrats lost fair and square, that they ran a really poor campaign, that Kerry/Edward was not the best nomination, and that the Democrats have some issues to work out. They clearly lost the majority in popular votes and also lost in most of the states. I mean, where else had they won besides the Northeastern states (mainly NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, MD) and three other western coastal states (CA, OR, WA)? Only 4 other states they had won, and only barely so in Michigan and Wisconsin. Not only that, their win in PA was so narrow that they would not had won there if not only because of Philadelphia.
You stated it as a fact that Bush’s record was dubious because of what? Because half the population approves his job performance and the other half does not? I mean, okay, I think his job performance was dubious as well, but I really don’t think such reasoning is good enough. And besides, if Bush can do such a poor job as a President, bad economy, etc, but still able to get re-elected, then what does that say about the Democrats? Doesn’t that spell trouble for them?
You said, the bottom line is: Bush courted and mobilized the evangelical voters, and that’s why he won. But! How can you complain about the conservative voters voting based on their conservative values? That doesn’t make sense. So I really don’t think Bush won because of his core base of voters voted for him. And if he won because he was able to convince the swing voters to vote for him based on family values and socially conservative agendas, then perhaps the Democrats should do a better job at explaining their value on these social and cultural issues.
[quote=“Redmenace”]Not being ones to mince words, heres the latest DailyMirror:
I laughed my ass off when I saw this![/quote]
it’s ok. we know the british leftists have had a hard week:
guardian.co.uk/uselections20 … 98,00.html
poor dears.
it’s understandable that they lash out at the american electorate. it suits me just fine. it makes american voters even less likely to listen to what a bunch of pompus euros think in the future. nothing stirs up anti-un feeling more in the states than a bunch of condescending euros throwing insults our way. thanks daily mirror!
“what’s wrong with those yanks?! why don’t they care what we think?!?!” 
Good News from Parallel Earth!
George Bush only garnered 59 votes in Tuesday’s presidential election on Parallel Earth. John Kerry received 54 votes. The winner, Bert Tibbits, a nightshift supervisor for Wal-Mart in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, won the remaining 114,083,293 votes in an unprecedented write-in candidacy that bypassed all normal political channels.
President-elect Tibbits announced the following policy initiatives to be implemented immediately upon his assuming the presidency:
-
Congress will immediately be disbanded and replaced with direct internet voting.
-
A Constitutional amendment capping all corporate and personal income taxes at 10% will be the first order of public business once internet voting has been implemented.
-
All but 100,000 US lawyers will be deported to China which will be required to accept them as a condition for the US not adopting a carbon copy of Chinese restrictions on US exports and business enterprises.
-
Social Security will be fixed by making it a death penalty offense to raid its coffers to pay for anything else.
-
All US troops will be brought back to US soil. All US naval fleets and airbases will be re-positioned to protect the US mainland.
-
Half the money saved from (5) will be re-directed to creating a missile-defense shield to protect North America.
-
The other half will be used to setup up government-run one-stop health clinics and food centers in any community in the country where unemployment rises above 5.5%. Anyone who needs health care or food and can’t afford it will be given both in these centers.
-
Israel will officially be declared a “foreign country” and told it’s on its own financially and politically from now on.
-
President Tibbits will go to Iraq the first week of his presidency and talk directly to the Iraqi people about how to fix the mess there. “We’ll be out of here in six months one way or the other. My theory is you’ve been a country for 5,000 years and you can probably make it on your own without us. Let’s work together with patience and mutual respect to fix this mess and then we’ll be on our way.”
-
The “Patriot Act” will be repealed and John Ashcroft sent to Guantanamo Bay for a “time out.”
I must say, a lot of you Bush supporters have been remarkably gracious and well-mannered in winning. [/sarcasm]
Oh, and Squiddy, checked out that link from the last section of this thread yet?
Those are some good remarks Steve101. Why can’t people just be rational instead of acting so childish and looking for a scapegoat (on the other side as opposed to looking at themselves). Now we have to wait for the over-analysis of the commentators and analysts to explain why Kerry lost.
Here’s something I picked up in the post-election reporting: in comparison with the previous election (2000), Bush picked up more support in every state except Vermont (Howard Dean Land). So according to the logic of the people who lost, we are increasing the number of stupid people at quite an alarming rate (and that includes the left coast and the Northeast…except Howard Dean Land). On top of that, we have a mandate for the first time since 1988. But, as we are repeatedly being reminded by our sharp reporters who can not get enough of that ‘something’s just not right here’, our country is more divided than ever.
No wonder we got problems. We’re all stupid because either you say so or you just can’t figure it out, HA HA HA!
Interesting that the “rational right” use a tabloid and an opinion as an argument to - so I assume - project their views on the “lefties” …
I’m just sick of the “all lefties are treehugging retards” and “all Bushites are warmongering mongoloids” flavored comments from both sides. Must be nice to live in such a black-and-white world.
“If everything isn’t black and white, I say why the hell not.” - John Wayne
Rascal:
Huh? I think you must be confused. You do realize that the Mirror is criticizing the people who voted for Bush for being stupid not the ones for voting against him for being stupid or did I miss something here?
Tetsuo:
Chill out. No one lives in a black and white world. You have been harping on this theme for far too long. I don’t. Most Republicans I know don’t. I therefore disagree. Ironically but viewing us all as black and white are you not equally guilty of perceiving this issue in well all black and white?
Don’t tell me you’re naive enough to think that American Presidential elections are about the “issues”. Looking at every election post-JF “Pretty Boy” K, there’s one inescapable conclusion: it’s a national highschool popularity contest. All that matters is personal charisma. Bush won because he comes across as the type of guy that most people would like to watch football and drink beer with. Kerry doesn’t have that Joe Sixpack vibe at all. Kerry had zero charisma - if there’s a more boring man in America, his name must be Al Gore.
Why did Clinton win? He had tons more charisma than George “Read My Preppie Lips, I’m Off to Yacht at the Hamptons” Bush I and Bob “Viagra Has Given Me My First Erection Since WWII” Dole.
Why did Reagan win? Jimmy “Wild Rabbit Malaise Victim” Carter and Walter “I Can’t Even Remember Any Interesting Anecdotes About This Guy, Heck I Even Forgot What He Looks Like…He Was the One With That Chick V.P. Candidate, Right?” Mondale.
'88 was a real yawn, two of the blandest and boring men in America head to head. No wonder voter turnout was so low during Dukakis vs. Bush I.
If the Democrats want to win the Presidency again, they have to put up a guy who has at least a smidgin of charisma. Kerry’s whole strategy was, “At least I’m not Bush,” and that ain’t good enough to win elections.
Mod Lang:
What cynicism. Surely some people care about issues and the election and I think that was doubly true in this one. Be of good cheer, regardless of who won, it certainly re-energized democracy in America. That’s a good thing despite how many dispirited democrats may feel now. At least, they were part of a compaign that did focus attention on issues such as Iraq, the deficit, cutting taxes, global terrorism, our relations with other nations, our relations with the UN, where we want to go in the next decade. I think these issues were seriously discussed and I think you do most Americans a discredit by thinking that they do not care nor are they capable of understanding this.
The truth is not cynicism. Most people are too ignorant and apathetic to vote, but they do so anyway. And these are the people that swing elections. As good an argument for why we live in a Republic and not a Democracy as any. Makes you wonder if a literacy test or some sort of Starship Troopers-style qualification for citizenship might not be such bad ideas after all.
newyorker.com/critics/atlarg … at_atlarge
[quote]
Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don
Oh come on, most of the campaigning on both sides was - “He said THIS and he’s a liar and/or unable to do that”.
But you’re right - I may not agree with Bush, but you’ve got to give him credit; if it weren’t for his policies, the turnout would never have been as large as it was (from both those that disagreed and those that agreed).
Yep, I realized that but tell me if you really think the Mirror is a media which we should take seriously and if the opinion of one person is representative of all peoples that voted against Bush or dislike the fact that he has been elected?