The idiot son of an a**hole
Posted by: Bhoyo on 13 August 2004
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Mick P
I could say yours is the classic and predictably pathetic left wing drivel.
The main difference between us is that I am supporting those in power and you are supporting the losers.
I suspect you will still be supporting losers, even after November.
Regards
Mick
The main difference between us is that I am supporting those in power and you are supporting the losers.
I suspect you will still be supporting losers, even after November.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Camlan
Mick
I normally smile and sometimes approve of what you say but this just beggars belief.
Bush has not had the majority of popular support, indeed there is a very nasty smell about his election. As previous posters have said Florida was virtualy bought by his brother and even with that he did not have a popular majority. Subsequent to his election he has pursued an America first policy which even Reagan would have blenched at. What about Kyoto? Moreover he invaded Iraq on a WMD pretext that has subsequently proved to be absolute bunk. OK doesnt matter blame the intelligence community.
Beyond this, there seems to have been no consideration whatsoever of the aftermath to the invasion or the end game. What we have is chaos where American and British soldiers are dying and the indigenous population is dying at an even greater rate.
These people are winners???
I have always been a supporter of the USA and all it stands for. This man is debasing all of that.
As for Blair, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt (god save us from Howard) but at best he made a terrible error of judgement over Iraq.
I normally smile and sometimes approve of what you say but this just beggars belief.
Bush has not had the majority of popular support, indeed there is a very nasty smell about his election. As previous posters have said Florida was virtualy bought by his brother and even with that he did not have a popular majority. Subsequent to his election he has pursued an America first policy which even Reagan would have blenched at. What about Kyoto? Moreover he invaded Iraq on a WMD pretext that has subsequently proved to be absolute bunk. OK doesnt matter blame the intelligence community.
Beyond this, there seems to have been no consideration whatsoever of the aftermath to the invasion or the end game. What we have is chaos where American and British soldiers are dying and the indigenous population is dying at an even greater rate.
These people are winners???
I have always been a supporter of the USA and all it stands for. This man is debasing all of that.
As for Blair, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt (god save us from Howard) but at best he made a terrible error of judgement over Iraq.
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Mick P
The best bet is to await the results of the election.
I am certain that Bush will walk it.
I take on board the comments about the overall majority vote, but the system is the system.
If Bush loses, then fine.......what will Kerry do about Iraq and the answer to that is goodness knows.
At least with Bush, you know where you stand.
Regards
Mick
I am certain that Bush will walk it.
I take on board the comments about the overall majority vote, but the system is the system.
If Bush loses, then fine.......what will Kerry do about Iraq and the answer to that is goodness knows.
At least with Bush, you know where you stand.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
At least with Bush, you know where you stand.
Ironically the same would have applied with keeping Saddam "contained".
BTW I totally agree with Ludwig, a bunch of posts up that really Bush is the flip flop waffle King - and yet Republican adherents are talking about his "character". Elections are compleat fiction these days. The only constant factor in Dubya's life is he's lazy and irresponsible.
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Mick P
I have to disagree.
Saddam was a past master at dividing the UN.
He would have continued to play games with goodness knows what results. The UN would be squabbling amongst themselves over every single reaction he made.
Just think how he would have exploited the oil price.
Bush deserves re election, if nothing else, for putting Saddam in chains. You may not agree with what he done, but he had the guts to do it with your lot howling in the background.
Regards
Mick
Saddam was a past master at dividing the UN.
He would have continued to play games with goodness knows what results. The UN would be squabbling amongst themselves over every single reaction he made.
Just think how he would have exploited the oil price.
Bush deserves re election, if nothing else, for putting Saddam in chains. You may not agree with what he done, but he had the guts to do it with your lot howling in the background.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by JonR
Mick,
Bush invaded Iraq on the back of a neocon-led desire to settle his father's 'unfinished business' in respect of Gulf War 1. In so doing not a single effort was made to understand the country and the likely consequences of deposing Saddam from power. [For the record the State Department did, I believe, make an effort in this regard but was subsequently overruled by the Pentagon.]
Naturally it was convenient for Bush to try and link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam whereas even the most cursory inspection by a barely half-interested onlooker with any common sense would have revealed not a shred of evidence of Saddam's involvement.
The result is a country riven with violence at every turn, with coalition soldiers and innocent civilians losing their lives, homes, livlihoods almost daily.
The icing on the cake, of course, is that the invasion has made the world are for more dangerous to live in, with al Queda stronger than ever.
This is Bush jr's legacy. If you seriously think he deserves re-election for that, you really are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Regards,
JonR
Bush invaded Iraq on the back of a neocon-led desire to settle his father's 'unfinished business' in respect of Gulf War 1. In so doing not a single effort was made to understand the country and the likely consequences of deposing Saddam from power. [For the record the State Department did, I believe, make an effort in this regard but was subsequently overruled by the Pentagon.]
Naturally it was convenient for Bush to try and link the 9/11 attacks to Saddam whereas even the most cursory inspection by a barely half-interested onlooker with any common sense would have revealed not a shred of evidence of Saddam's involvement.
The result is a country riven with violence at every turn, with coalition soldiers and innocent civilians losing their lives, homes, livlihoods almost daily.
The icing on the cake, of course, is that the invasion has made the world are for more dangerous to live in, with al Queda stronger than ever.
This is Bush jr's legacy. If you seriously think he deserves re-election for that, you really are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Regards,
JonR
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Bhoyo
Mr. Parry
As you are obviously a satirical creation - a minor version of Henry Root or Henry Raddick, for example - it's pointless to take your views seriously.
However, just for fun, let's take you at face value. Your silly, fact-free assertions clearly show you to be clueless about the issues in the forthcoming presidential election. A visit to to the United States in June is not good enough; an ability to parrot right-wing sound bites is less than impressive. Half-baked slogans are a poor substitute for informed debate about the economy, health care, education, the welfare system - or Iraq.
Anyway, we have had a major (non-political) disaster here in Florida, and I have more important things to do than trade barbs with a pompous blowhard.
Take a sabbatical, old chap.
Regards,
Davie
PS If anyone wants to help, please go here
As you are obviously a satirical creation - a minor version of Henry Root or Henry Raddick, for example - it's pointless to take your views seriously.
However, just for fun, let's take you at face value. Your silly, fact-free assertions clearly show you to be clueless about the issues in the forthcoming presidential election. A visit to to the United States in June is not good enough; an ability to parrot right-wing sound bites is less than impressive. Half-baked slogans are a poor substitute for informed debate about the economy, health care, education, the welfare system - or Iraq.
Anyway, we have had a major (non-political) disaster here in Florida, and I have more important things to do than trade barbs with a pompous blowhard.
Take a sabbatical, old chap.
Regards,
Davie
PS If anyone wants to help, please go here
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by ErikL
Okay time for a few laughs-
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos.jhtml
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by ErikL
The "conventional wisdom" bit is also a fav- http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?p=stewart
Posted on: 15 August 2004 by Mick P
Let us wait for the American people to decide.
You both know he will win.
Regards
Mick
You both know he will win.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by Mick "the black shirt" Parry:
At least with Bush, you know where you stand.
Regards
Mick "the black shirt" Parry
Bit like Adolf really.
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Tim Danaher
Hmm...Did someone say "The Banality of Evil"?
Cheers,
Tim
_____________________________
Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...
Cheers,
Tim
_____________________________
Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by herm
Davie,
there have been two pieces of news coming out of your Florida this weekend. One of course is the devastating hurricane, and I hope you were well out of its path (and something's telling me you don't live in a mobile home either).
The other piece of Florida news is that police officers have been going into black neighbourhoods visiting people who volunteer for get-out-the-vote organizations (driving elderly or poor people to the voting place etc), asking intimidating questions etc etc. Last time around many black people were struck off the rolls because their name was very simiilar to that of people who lost their voting rights because of a conviction. Black people (particularly if they're not professionals) tend to vote Dem - or not at all.
So I guess brother Jeb is doing his best again to hand over the state to Dubya.
Of course Mick has a right to his opinions, and he doesn't have to think too deep and long about the elections anyway, since he's not going to vote. However what's worrying is his statements present a clear picture of how most people these days make up their mind about politics. The overwhelming portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, patience and skills to inform themselves well. They watch TV while pouring a drink and skim te headlines instead of reading the whole story.
So an average guy still has those pictures of Saddam captured and humiliated by an army dentist, and the guy thinks Bush did a great job. No matter that in reality Saddam's capture did not change a thing in the way the war in Iraq is going, let alone the war on terrorism is going - i.e. not too good for the west. There's no end in sight; we could be fighting big conflicts like this for the rest of our lives if we let Bush's people call the shots.
The guy sees "160.000 jobs created" and thinks that's a lot of jobs. Guy doesn't reflect what kind of job those are, what the number of jobs lost is, and what the comparative numbers are (i.e. Bush's earlier projections for that period were much higher - i.e. he didn't deliver; or what Clinton's numbers were for a comparable period).
In a good paper those issues are discussed in the story below the headline, but our guy is just too lazy to read all that stuff. What's the difference anyway? Both candidates are rich bastards, so what's there to choose. Our guy likes Bush a whole lot better; he's just a guy like our guy; easy going, not a fine-print kinda guy - in fact he's said himself he never reads the papers. So let's give the sumbitch another four years.
there have been two pieces of news coming out of your Florida this weekend. One of course is the devastating hurricane, and I hope you were well out of its path (and something's telling me you don't live in a mobile home either).
The other piece of Florida news is that police officers have been going into black neighbourhoods visiting people who volunteer for get-out-the-vote organizations (driving elderly or poor people to the voting place etc), asking intimidating questions etc etc. Last time around many black people were struck off the rolls because their name was very simiilar to that of people who lost their voting rights because of a conviction. Black people (particularly if they're not professionals) tend to vote Dem - or not at all.
So I guess brother Jeb is doing his best again to hand over the state to Dubya.
Of course Mick has a right to his opinions, and he doesn't have to think too deep and long about the elections anyway, since he's not going to vote. However what's worrying is his statements present a clear picture of how most people these days make up their mind about politics. The overwhelming portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, patience and skills to inform themselves well. They watch TV while pouring a drink and skim te headlines instead of reading the whole story.
So an average guy still has those pictures of Saddam captured and humiliated by an army dentist, and the guy thinks Bush did a great job. No matter that in reality Saddam's capture did not change a thing in the way the war in Iraq is going, let alone the war on terrorism is going - i.e. not too good for the west. There's no end in sight; we could be fighting big conflicts like this for the rest of our lives if we let Bush's people call the shots.
The guy sees "160.000 jobs created" and thinks that's a lot of jobs. Guy doesn't reflect what kind of job those are, what the number of jobs lost is, and what the comparative numbers are (i.e. Bush's earlier projections for that period were much higher - i.e. he didn't deliver; or what Clinton's numbers were for a comparable period).
In a good paper those issues are discussed in the story below the headline, but our guy is just too lazy to read all that stuff. What's the difference anyway? Both candidates are rich bastards, so what's there to choose. Our guy likes Bush a whole lot better; he's just a guy like our guy; easy going, not a fine-print kinda guy - in fact he's said himself he never reads the papers. So let's give the sumbitch another four years.
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Trevor Newall
{big yawn}
who cares what the yanks get up to?
just let them get on with it.
TN
who cares what the yanks get up to?
just let them get on with it.
TN
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by herm
Why should you care?
1 last time I looked your PM's nose was way up Dubya's hiney
2 ever heard those stories of the likelyhood of a London terrorist attack?
3 we're on the same planet; they've got big guns these days
1 last time I looked your PM's nose was way up Dubya's hiney
2 ever heard those stories of the likelyhood of a London terrorist attack?
3 we're on the same planet; they've got big guns these days
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Trevor Newall
true.
I just don't care which idiot wins the bloody election!
TN
I just don't care which idiot wins the bloody election!
TN
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Kevin-W
The problem is that Dubya is a boy doing a man's job. He just isn't up to it. In these terrible times, and in particular after its 9/11 agony, America needed a great statesman, someone of the stature of Roosevelt or Churchill.
What it had was a well-connected but barely competent President who has got where he has by a combination of down-home charm (someone I know has met Bush, and says that his charm can be devastating on occasion), an easily digestible cracker-barrel philosophy, a powerful family and whose personal beliefs and political philosophy chime beautifully with the neocon mainstream.
It's interesting to speculate how Clinton, who, despite his faults, was touched by statesmanlike qualities (if perhaps not in the Roosevelt class) and who had charisma in spades, would have coped with 9/11. I think that, as one of the shrewdest political operators ever to make the top spot, Big Bill would have nursed America throutgh its agony in the aftermath of that awful day (Clinton would never have let Giuliani beat hhim to Ground Zero) and would probably have built bridges with the Islamic world.
Dubya just wasn't capable of that, and never will be. That's the crux - he's simply nnot up to the job. Of course, it's all slightly academic now, and whether Kerry is capable of juggling American interests while repairing some of the damage done by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and co is debateable (from what I've seen, I'm not sure he is - he's too patrician, too inert. It may be that most Americans will want to support Bush "to see the job through". He may get through simply because of inertia and a lack of a really credible opposition (same problem as here in Blighty, really), although I think it will be an extremely closely-run thing.
As for GWB's alledged intelligence or lack of it, well, he had a (well-deserved, by all accounts) reputation as the densest man in Harvard when he was there; but intelligence is not the issue – what is far more important is his critical lack of imagination.
This is why he is a political pygmy. He simply cannot (or refuses to) see what so many millions of others in world can see. Whether or not he gains a second term, he will go down in history, quite deservedly in my view, as a disaster for America - particularly in itsrelations with the rest of the world. And he has the fucking cheek to model himself on Churchill - I ask you!
On a side note, Mick often has a refreshing way of cutting through the bullshit, which is why his posts are often so valuable to this forum. However, on this thread his posts betray a rather tiresome sub-Auberon Waugh/Peter Hitchens childishness, a desire to shock. It's not big, Mick, and it's certainly not clever and ill becomes a man of your intelligence and (I hope) wisdom. Also, Thatcher was a disaster for this country whose baleful influence can still be felt today.
Kevin (BBC Radio 4 - superb documentary on Shanghai)
What it had was a well-connected but barely competent President who has got where he has by a combination of down-home charm (someone I know has met Bush, and says that his charm can be devastating on occasion), an easily digestible cracker-barrel philosophy, a powerful family and whose personal beliefs and political philosophy chime beautifully with the neocon mainstream.
It's interesting to speculate how Clinton, who, despite his faults, was touched by statesmanlike qualities (if perhaps not in the Roosevelt class) and who had charisma in spades, would have coped with 9/11. I think that, as one of the shrewdest political operators ever to make the top spot, Big Bill would have nursed America throutgh its agony in the aftermath of that awful day (Clinton would never have let Giuliani beat hhim to Ground Zero) and would probably have built bridges with the Islamic world.
Dubya just wasn't capable of that, and never will be. That's the crux - he's simply nnot up to the job. Of course, it's all slightly academic now, and whether Kerry is capable of juggling American interests while repairing some of the damage done by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz and co is debateable (from what I've seen, I'm not sure he is - he's too patrician, too inert. It may be that most Americans will want to support Bush "to see the job through". He may get through simply because of inertia and a lack of a really credible opposition (same problem as here in Blighty, really), although I think it will be an extremely closely-run thing.
As for GWB's alledged intelligence or lack of it, well, he had a (well-deserved, by all accounts) reputation as the densest man in Harvard when he was there; but intelligence is not the issue – what is far more important is his critical lack of imagination.
This is why he is a political pygmy. He simply cannot (or refuses to) see what so many millions of others in world can see. Whether or not he gains a second term, he will go down in history, quite deservedly in my view, as a disaster for America - particularly in itsrelations with the rest of the world. And he has the fucking cheek to model himself on Churchill - I ask you!
On a side note, Mick often has a refreshing way of cutting through the bullshit, which is why his posts are often so valuable to this forum. However, on this thread his posts betray a rather tiresome sub-Auberon Waugh/Peter Hitchens childishness, a desire to shock. It's not big, Mick, and it's certainly not clever and ill becomes a man of your intelligence and (I hope) wisdom. Also, Thatcher was a disaster for this country whose baleful influence can still be felt today.
Kevin (BBC Radio 4 - superb documentary on Shanghai)
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
I have been accused of being a blackshirt (do you know what a blackshirt stood for and to accuse someone of that is downright offensive) and also thick for supporting Bush.
Also look at this self appointed intellucuals statement..." The overwhelming portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, patience and skills to inform themselves well." Who the hell does this man think he is. How dare he insult the people who vote. What makes him think that he is better than the rest.
The truth of the matter is that Blair and Bush took a course of action and the electorate will have the opportunity to either back them or sack them.
My guess is that they will both be re elected but you do yourselves no service by adopting a psuedo intellectual stance that you are superior to the rest of the electorate or cat calling blackshirts.
Again Maggie was slagged off and yet she won 3 elections. Just learn to accept the democratic process. No system is perfect but ours is far better than most.
Regards
Mick
I have been accused of being a blackshirt (do you know what a blackshirt stood for and to accuse someone of that is downright offensive) and also thick for supporting Bush.
Also look at this self appointed intellucuals statement..." The overwhelming portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, patience and skills to inform themselves well." Who the hell does this man think he is. How dare he insult the people who vote. What makes him think that he is better than the rest.
The truth of the matter is that Blair and Bush took a course of action and the electorate will have the opportunity to either back them or sack them.
My guess is that they will both be re elected but you do yourselves no service by adopting a psuedo intellectual stance that you are superior to the rest of the electorate or cat calling blackshirts.
Again Maggie was slagged off and yet she won 3 elections. Just learn to accept the democratic process. No system is perfect but ours is far better than most.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by John C
Mick, as the hot knife of logic cutting through the Naim forum liberal butter mountain even you must have occasional moments of self-doubt? That cheap oil you guaranteed us after Saddam's fall, any chance of a gallon or two?
John
John
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Also look at this self-appointed intellucual's statement..." The overwhelming portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, patience and skills to inform themselves well." Who the hell does this man think he is. How dare he insult the people who vote. What makes him think that he is better than the rest.
Well, Mick, I took a couple of your remarks as my cue. Your apparently not being too deeply interested in what's really going on in Iraq, just as long as Saddam got captured, or how the US job market really looks, or whether the fact that everybody you meet is a Republican really means anything, doesn't make me an intellectual. Unless your feel you you have to be an intellectual if you spend 30 minutes reading the papers every day.
I don't know what "insulting the people who vote" means. US elections, with their advertizing budgets that run in many tens of millions of dollars etc are not known for their issue depth and veracity. Many people vote because they just happen to like the one guy marginally better the other one, or for ideological reasons, rather than what x or y really intend to do once they're in office. People have been known to pretty much vote themselves out of their jobs because they were duped into supporting weird social issues.
And in the case of Bush: some people just like the idea of (other people) going to war and bash up a couple of cities (where they don't live themselves, obviously). The results don't really seem to matter, but apparently it feels good to know some people are getting killed somewhere. You predicted the oil prices would go down. They haven't. Bush keeps saying he's made the world safer, while it's blindingly obvious this is not the case. Nonetheless you say he's delivering on what he said. I have no intention of insulting anyone, but I'm just a little puzzled by these things. You either just don't care, or you're not too well-informed. It's true, either way wouldn't make any difference, because you don;t have to vote in the US elections, and if you had to you would blindly vote Republican anyways, for life-style reasons. (I don't approve of the blackshirt and Hitler references that were made by some here. Of course not.)
Herman
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Mick P
I think this thread is due to expire. The elections will sort out the result. At the end of the day, you have to trust the American people to make the right decision.
As regards to oil prices, they are being kept artificially high by the fear of terrorist attacks on refineries and to be honest, it suits the oil companies for this to continue.
The normal rule of supply and demand will take over and prices will drop. Russia and China are awash with the stuff and are eager for American Dollars. I used to buy fuel in the last job and still keep in touch with several pundits in the oil industry. They still believe that the future trading price will be 15-18 Dollars a barrel.
Regards
Mick
As regards to oil prices, they are being kept artificially high by the fear of terrorist attacks on refineries and to be honest, it suits the oil companies for this to continue.
The normal rule of supply and demand will take over and prices will drop. Russia and China are awash with the stuff and are eager for American Dollars. I used to buy fuel in the last job and still keep in touch with several pundits in the oil industry. They still believe that the future trading price will be 15-18 Dollars a barrel.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 16 August 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Mick,
Interesting post above about oil prices. I've never quite understood how it is in the interest of the big oil producers to lower prices either. However I do keep hearing that Russian production is falling and that China has demand increasing almost exponentially. I though this supply/demand equation was one reason that prices were rising, am I being mislead?
Without wishing to further stir the debate about the US elections I'll just say that I am not sure I do trust the people to 'make the right decision'. They elected Arnie.
Bruce
Interesting post above about oil prices. I've never quite understood how it is in the interest of the big oil producers to lower prices either. However I do keep hearing that Russian production is falling and that China has demand increasing almost exponentially. I though this supply/demand equation was one reason that prices were rising, am I being mislead?
Without wishing to further stir the debate about the US elections I'll just say that I am not sure I do trust the people to 'make the right decision'. They elected Arnie.
Bruce
Posted on: 17 August 2004 by Alex S.
The great thing about democracy is you can always trust the people to make the wrong decision.
Posted on: 17 August 2004 by Berlin Fritz
MICK FOR PRESIDENT
innit.
innit.
Posted on: 17 August 2004 by Kevin-W
Quote from MP: Again Maggie was slagged off and yet she won 3 elections. Just learn to accept the democratic process.
Where is the logic in your "argument"? The fact that Thatcher won three elections does not make her tenure as PM any less disastrous, does it?
If Blair wins a third term (as looks likely) does that mean you'll then be siding with him, Mick? Will you be praising the electorate for its wisdom and perspicacity?
I think we should be told.
Kevin (BBC Radio 4: Woman's Hour, well I'm such a PC-ridden liberal...)
Where is the logic in your "argument"? The fact that Thatcher won three elections does not make her tenure as PM any less disastrous, does it?
If Blair wins a third term (as looks likely) does that mean you'll then be siding with him, Mick? Will you be praising the electorate for its wisdom and perspicacity?
I think we should be told.
Kevin (BBC Radio 4: Woman's Hour, well I'm such a PC-ridden liberal...)