The idiot son of an a**hole

Man, kinda breathtaking hyprocrisy you crying about offensive remarks when, even aside from the offensive content of your frequently erroneous posts, you liberally refer to anyone who fails to concur with your factless diatribe as a pathetic, underachieving, whinging pinko. Try addressing your own small-mindedness and nasty language and you might just receive a little less heat and a bit of respect.

Herm is completely right in that most people who vote for Bush, if they get their "news" from anywhere, will get it from Fox and the tabloid press. Just like people who think that the Mail or the Sun are actually newspapers and not toilet paper, they will not look behind biased headline grabbing storylines or bare stats. Like everyone you met being Bush lovers, you'll unquestionably take on board and spout out the line which suits your position of the moment.

quote:

---

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.

---

The prevailing view is that none of the world's main oil producers care much for the instability and increased terrorist threat that Bush's policies have brought about and aren't likely to do a whole lot to ease the price of oil and help his re-election. So ironically, Bush's tenure appears to be an obstacle to lower fuel prices. Russia is very uneasy about the Iraq situation as well as growing US schmooxing in the 'stans and Georgia. Government action in respect over it's oil companies might suggest that Putin is looking to consolidate control and use the power as he sees fit rather than leaving it to market control. China manages to produce 2/3 of it's domestic demand and is frantically buying drilling licences in Africa and the Midlle East so that they can build up a domestic reserves. Most definitely not about to step in and help out at a low price.

quote:

---

just learn to accept the democratic process.

---

Sunday last, Chavez receives 60% of the vote in a recall referendum. The markets breathe a sigh of relief and prices dip slightly. International monitors endorse the result. But politically, Chavez doesn't dance to the US tune, you would call him a "pathetic pinko" and so they refuse to endorse the vote and tacitly support calls of fraud. How do you square your wholehearted support of Bush with this democratic act?

If you going to repeat your earlier statement

quote:

---

the system is the system

---

IIRC, that's what Aziz or Ibrahim said to a TV reporter who was questioning the validity of the election that left Saddam with a vote of 100%. Would you like wise defend such a system or would it just be a system that produces the results you desire?

The crow was Saddam out cheap oil in and 1 year on the price is through the roof. The forecast was a secure Iraq, but sad to say the insurgency is strong and growing, just as many military and intell advisors warned. I hope the mess gets sorted, but the fact is that it's a mess caused by the US/UK action and a lot of people will be killed before it's sorted. However you spin it Mick, you were badly wrong about an awful lot of things here and no matter how often you say it, whether or not Bush gets in doesn't make what he's done or what you've said in his defence, right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by herm:
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.

---

that's a sweeping generalisation, if ever I heard one!

TN

OK, I'll improve on that generalisation. Most people, when they pour a drink, don't even bother to tune into the news. Most news shows have been eliminated or turned into weird concoctions of showbiz news and footage of the latest blizzard / hurricane, because items of that kind offer more human interest.

The growth of talkradio with all these very angry guys venting has been a most frightening factor in the increasing polarization of the political debate, and its result is a cynical electorate. Nobody believes anything anymore. It's as if facts have ceased to exist in the US. Most people don't regard spin and bias as a challenge to make their own analysis. They just have stopped caring. So on the one hand we're looking at a very hot and close election season, and on the other hand a lot of people seem to have lost all belif that their vote really matters one thing. (And the messy Florida thing sure didn't help in that respect.)

herm,

quote:

---

OK, I'll improve on that generalisation. Most people, when they pour a drink, don't even bother to tune into the news.

---

that's still a sweeping generalisation!
you have no *real* understanding of what "most people" do when watching, or listening to the news, in the privacy of their home, in the US, or anywhere else for that matter.
I appreciate your rationale, which was well thought-out, but may I suggest that in future you express your opinions as being just that, and not fact?
if I was the type with delicate sensibilities, I may have considered your observation as rude, condescending, as well as wholly inaccurate.
my american friends would probably just laugh!

TN

I'm off to pour a drink... might watch the news, might not, might listen to some music, might not...

I consider myself intelligent, curious, cynical and motivated about current affairs yet I suspect my knowledge on the vast majority of issues is superficial, occasionally inaccurate and lead by media and political spin. I skim headlines. When I read about something that I do know a lot about I often find it misleading or plain wrong.

With respect, I'm supposedly in the top few percent of the population in terms of IQ/educational attainment, whatever. I don't think it is a generalisation to say that the overwhelming proportion of the population are ill-informed. What may also be true is that they are not that bothered either.

Debate that generalisation now!

Bruce

bruce,
the difference is you're talking about yourself... someone you know rather well!
therefore you can comment accurately on your behaviour regarding following current affairs, or whatever.
with respect, herm is in no position to surmise the behaviour of people he doesn't know, and then express this guesswork as fact.
he's entitled to his opinion, of course, but that's all it is: an opinion.
making such sweeping generalisations, as he did, without the necessary proof, makes him come across like an arrogant buffoon, which I'm sure he isn't.
however I don't want to get bogged down with discussing the ins and outs of opinions.
let's try to stay on topic.

TN

Stallion coming back as a hotelier from the English Riviera was funny for a while but now its just Stallion again.

eh?

Trolling paranoia

If Trevor is Stallion then Ludwig is Vuk (just kidding.)

The similarities between Stallion and Trevor are so few as to be pure coincidence if they exist at all.

Stallion used to blow his stack whist Trevor is much more mild-mannered and much less easily provoked.

Stallion never used to post on political threads.



Regards,

Steve.

None of you took my Jon Stewart links seriously, did you?



PS- Do NOT take the Esquire link seriously. That one was for Mick but misfired.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
making such sweeping generalisations, as he did, without the necessary proof, makes him come across like an arrogant buffoon, which I'm sure he isn't.

---

Dubya being in the WH is my proof.

If only the 5% highest incomes would have voted for Bush that would have made sense, since his biggest thing apart from launching the War on Terrorism wrongheadedly and turning back all environmental protections is the huge tax cut for the top incomes.

However, many more people voted for Bush, in some cases pretty much voting themselves out of their Health Care or even jobs - just because they thought he was more of a pal than the Wooden Prince Gore.

They didn't read the small print, but went for the sound bites and the photo ops. Maybe it's arrogant to say that's stupid, but it's the way I feel.

Whils't enjoying an early evening constitutional some half an hour ago I
happened to read this letter which I found rather interesting and relevant
possibly to the Great Debate, innit ?

America's Presidents

SIR - You say (May 9th) that "America gets bad presidents because it gets bad
candidtaes..." Seen from outside Washington, the presidents since Eisenhower
have actually been rather distinguished. None was less than competent; several
were much more than that. They compare much more favourably with such products
of the convention system as Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland and Harrison, to
name but a few.
Do you really want to go back to the days of deadlocks (the
Democratic convention of 1924 took 112 ballots to nominate a totally unsuitable
candidate), dark horses, bosses making deals in smoked filled hotel bedrooms?
While it was in force, all experienced observers agreed that the convention
system automatically eliminated the strongest candidates and placed maximum
emphasis on being all things to all men.
Lincoln is a case in point. A
second-line politician, he was nominated as the compromise candidate because of
a stand-off between two more prominent men. He had difficulty in getting elected
in both 1860 and 1864, and he attracted critisism throughout his term as
president, not least from The Economist. His greatness appears only in
retrospect.
Americans expect too much from their presidents and they are poor
judges of how they actually perform. As with cricket, there is a golden age and
it is always about 50 years ago. No amount of tinkering with the system will
change that. It goes with the job.

M.L. Burstall, Guilford, Surrey,

The Economist 23-29 May 1987:


Fritz Von Nothingnew

P.S. I wonder if President Clinton of New York lied in 1808 ?

herm,

quote:

---

Originally posted by herm:
If only the 5% highest incomes would have voted for Bush that would have made sense, since his biggest thing apart from launching the War on Terrorism wrongheadedly and turning back all environmental protections is the huge tax cut for the top incomes.

However, many more people voted for Bush, in some cases pretty much voting themselves out of their Health Care or even jobs - just because they thought he was more of a pal than the Wooden Prince Gore.

---

it seems to look that way, but short you of being able to read the minds of voters, what you're saying is merely supposition.
I do agree with you though.
the 'I'm your pal, vote for me' approach seems to appeal to the american mentality.
candidates wandering around in public with their children in an attempt to portray themselves as down to earth family men was a cheap stunt.
my american friends must be in the minority though, because they hate that carry-on as much as I do.

TN

Re: Previous Post:

Absolute irrellevant piffle², irrespective of what "Gossip/hearsay/Guttersnipe Rag" it may eminate from, utter BULLSHIT³

Fritz Von Haveyouevermetapollster ?