Bush V Kerry

Kerry may not have advocated a policy of isolationism but he did advocate one of protectionism and to my mind the two are linked and there is a good chance that one will lead to the other. Of course you could argue that he wouldn't adopt either of them and just wanted to look different to Bush during the campaign, but that doesn't make him worth voting for.
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Nov 4 2004, 02:28 PM
About Bush
I dont think he is so limited in intellegince as Michael Moore had said to the europeans in his rubish films.

If you think Bush is so limited you should be witness of the one we have in Spain leading the country.
sunybay,

Who cares what Michael Moore thinks?

Once again, I don't need some so-called ''opinion former'' to help me make up my mind.

I've heard enough from Bush to be convinced his status as leader of the world's biggest nation is a farce and an insult to the concept of an intellectual meritocracy.
 
I think you both mean Michael Moorer.

Anyhow, why all this anti-Bush feeling, at least he was voted in in a free and fair election?

I don't like his policy regarding Iraq, and Blair's schoolboy crush on him has proved disastrous. We should have never got involved. We should have rowed in with the French and Germans.

Having said that, the idea that Bush is some dimwitted redneck religious bigot is well wide of the mark, and an insult to the American electorate (why do we patronise them so?). I'm a lot nearer to the French than to New Labour in my distaste for our slavish adherence to, and admiration, of all aspects of American life and culture, including politics, but I (grudgingly) believe that the average American voter applies a lot more brainpower to political matters than the average Brit.

He may not be Einstein, but he's a lot brighter and smarter than Kerry, or Bob Dole (remember him?). Love him or hate him, at least you know where he stands, and that ought to make it easier for we Europeans to deal with him.
 
Michael Moore makes anti Bush films

Michael Moorer was a heavyweight boxer about 5-10 years ago.
 
Great full page editorial to-day in the only English newspaper (x R.P.) worth reading---TELEGRAPH.
Highly recommended .
Good to know that some Londoners appreciate Bush and his policies.
 
While Bush's brain power (or lack of it) is a matter for discussion and his oilman's attitude to foreign affairs is worrying to say the the least, the one and only cause for concern about his re-election (compared to having Kerry) is that he is taking the economy down the pan.
Remember - 'It's the economy, stupid'.
The plain fact is that the dollar needs and will get a drastic devaluation which will hit hard. When the US catches an economic cold we all suffer so hang on to your hats.
 
Good point, Archie.

Venusian,

I don't always agree with your postings, but I do usually think they have a sound foundation in logic.

How can you collectively defend 200 million people?

There are many intelligent Americans - I know a few of them - but there are also a lot of them who are idiots, the same as a lot of British people are idiots.

Did you watch any of the BBC Election Night interviews with voters in bars and bowling halls in Ohio?

Did you hear the reasons some of these neanderthals gave for voting for Bush?

Woeful stuff.

Moreover, in terms of global awareness, the average American would be lost if he stepped outside his state, never mind his country.

I also find your apparent belief that Bush is an intelligent man absolutely staggering.

Kerry - for whom I hold no great brief (colourless man who squandered a great opportunity) - was clearly brighter and he's no genius either.

America and the world deserve better tha having this God-fearing war-mongering cretin in charge of the world's greatest power for four more years.
 
Ian, I'm not saying that Bush is particularly intelligent, I just don't see why he gets picked on for this, and Dole and Kerry don't. Dole's academic record is worse than Bush's, and surely no intelligent man these days would sport a bouffant hair style like Kerry's.

I'm sure we can agree on the latter point - I've seen your haircut and it's the same as mine.

The two American presidents who I think were/are pretty bright are Carter and Clinton, especially Carter, although little good did it do him. Reagan was probably brighter than most people gave him credit for.
 
Bush is not as stupid as people think.
While he is not the most articulate politician of our time, he surrounds himself with people who are. Karl Rove is probably the greatest political mind of my ime and Bush is very clever in keeping him close by his side.

I'd rather Bush/Rove than the Ketchup Kid anyway.
 
It is common in different ages that other countries hate the empire that rules the world, the Roman empire was hated by many others,England ,France or Spain have suffered the same.



I find it fascinating how many people discredit and think all the yankees are all stupid,it is very funny the sense of superiority most of us have against the americans.
It is a subject very interesting to be studied in Psicology.


America is the present and Asia will be the future and in the same time, here in Europe we think we are the centre of the world, we think the american are stupids and that they should expend their money in the Army to save us in we needed but when they need our help to save the positive things we have in common we insult them and we say they are stupid becasue they vote Bush.


I think Europe is a decadent continent and things must change a lot in recent times.I have envy of the differnt reaction against a terrorist attcack between countries like Usa and Spain.
 
Agreed Suny, America-hating and Bush-baiting has become a "trendy" thing in certain circles now.
All this left-wing, Michael Moronism has been taken to extremes and it all came back to haunt the Democrats. They thought by bringing out the youth vote and getting "hip" they could defeat the Republicans. However they lost sight of the one issue that Americans really cared about, the war on terror. GWB didn't. That's why the Democrats lost the most winnable election in US history.
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Nov 4 2004, 11:35 PM
I find it fascinating how many people discredit and think all the yankees are all stupid
sunybay,

Your posting leaves me wondering why I bother to take care to include qualifiying statements when constructing my postings, as you clearly don't bother to read them. :lol:

I'd have thought by, by writing ''There are many intelligent Americans'' I'd have given you a pretty good clue that I don't think ''all the yankees are stupid.'' :lol:

Apparently not. :rolleyes:

This dismissal of any criticism of a superpower as being motivated by resentment or envy is feeble - America was powerful under Clinton, but I didn't resent the USA then.
 
The one aspect of the election I've yet to hear much comment on is the amount of money spent by the Bush and Kerry campaigns which I believe totalled just short of a billion dollars.

Those who criticise Bush or Kerry need to understand they are products of the democratic "process" that exists in the United States. In that process, power is obtained not through reasoned argument but through financial muscle and the negative advertising that money buys. It is a system that allows billionaires easy access to political power and makes it more or less inaccessible for the majority. In a country of great diversity, there seems no prospect of a black, hispanic or even female President.

You might of course argue they got a better voter turnout on Tuesday than we managed in 2001 and that's not an unreasonable point. However, it is money that is the road to political power to a far greater extent than in Britain. The "soft" funding of political campaigns in the US has subverted the democratic process and I do feel our system, for all its flaws, is now infinitely superior.
 
Back
Top