From One Aspiring Dictator to Another
After failing to get the endorsement of the New York Times, President George W. Bush went out and got the next best thing: An endorsement from Vladimir Putin.
Putin said, "International terrorists have set as their goal inflicting the maximum damage to Bush, to prevent his election to a second term. If they succeed in doing that, they will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror coalition. In that case, this would give an additional impulse to international terrorists and to their activities, and could lead to the spread of terrorism to other parts of the world."
Translation: Vote for Kerry and terrorism will get worse.
Funnily enough, Putin disagrees with the war on Iraq:
"Today, our views on [Iraq] differ from the views of President Bush."
Translation: We don't like the war on Iraq, but we'll support Bush since as long as he's in office the U.S. won't make a big fuss about all that violation of human rights stuff going on over here.
Bush and Putin get along great and have more in common than one might at first think.
1. They are both hilariously shorter than most other world leaders.
2. Their best argument for staying in office is that they are "Strong Leaders."
3. They both favor suppression of the media. And if you don't think Bush supporters want to give the media a Putin-style makeover so that Bush is praised from every corner, then please just check out the comments here.
The original post is here.
And if you don't think this administration is authoritarian, and getting more so by the second, then you haven't been paying attention.
The Real Choice: Putin-style repression or Kerry.
Vote. Keep the faith.
my feed
7 Comments:
Well at least your man has picked up endorsements from leaders in North Korea, Iran, and France.
Its funny how countries that have been victims of Terrorism support Bush, while countries that support it hope your spineless liberal candidate succeeds in weakening America.
Go figure.
And while your at it ponder why most young inexperienced Americans are liberal minded, and the older and wiser the demographic gets the more conservative they become.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thanks for coming back to visit. Missed ya. Let's get right to it.
Well at least your man has picked up endorsements from leaders in North Korea, Iran, and France.Can you give me links to those endorsements, or are you just feeding me more of that Bush "The terrorists want Kerry to win" bullshit rhetoric again? Not that France is a terrorist nation. It's not. We all hate Chirac, but putting France in a league with N.K. and Iran is a bit of an "exaggeration".
Even if N.K. and Iran do want Kerry to win, they're going to be real surprised when he's more successful at neutralizing them than Bush has been in the last 4 years.
Its funny how countries that have been victims of Terrorism support Bush, while countries that support it hope your spineless liberal candidate succeeds in weakening America.
Go figure.Countries which have recently suffered terror attacks and support Kerry:
Australia linkColombia
Indonesia
Ireland
Japan
Pakistan
Russia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
India is tied.
Scientific SourceNon-scientific worldwide voting--Kerry wins in all the countries listed here, and on all continents.
And those are just the ones that I could think of off the top of my head that have suffered terrorist attacks within the last five or six years. Some of the governments of these countries support Bush (notably Australia, Russia and the U.K.), but their populations (the victims of the terrorism) are all heavily anti-Bush.
Two interesting notes:
1. Nigeria, where there are plenty of oil-hoarding religious zealots (I'm biting my tongue on the Texas jokes), and where they are stoning women-- as you know-- supports Bush.
2. Poland also supports Bush according to this poll. From my experience, most folks here strongly dislike Bush's foreign policy, but don't know anything about Kerry. Then again, I live in cosmopolitan Warsaw. The uneducated "Potato-throwers" (the Economist's term) in the vast countryside support Bush. They also supported Andrzej Lepper. Check out the link!
And while you['re] at it ponder why most young inexperienced Americans are liberal minded, and the older and wiser the demographic gets the more conservative they become.Ohh. . . it's experience that gives Republicans their wisdom.
Thankfully, I've already pondered it. I could say that:
Young folk are idealistic and equality-minded. They also dislike authority and constraint. They don't like people telling them which god they should worship or who they should invite into their bedroom. Older folks long for "the good old days" (which weren't so good after all since, for example, homophobia was the norm, and minorities were lynched) and so want to conserve the cultural status-quo. Young folks want to make the world their own, and support a more accepting social policy.
OR, I could say:
It's also probably because younger voters are all almost exclusively poor students, and thus have more empathy towards the lower classes. More mature voters have a stable job and a bit more money, and usually a family to support. They are desperately afraid of being as poor as they were when they were young students, because they wouldn't be able to support the lifestyle they live now. Hence, they fall hook line and sinker for Republican rhetoric that says "The government will take all your money away, and the Democrats want big, big, huge, giant government that will turn America into Marxland. They want to take all your money!" I'm not a student anymore, and I'm still a Democrat, thank goodness. So Red, how long until the Republicans steal my soul?
I might also add that:
The population of Europe is older than that of the U.S. and it supports Kerry by a huge margin. Some of the oldest populations, like in Sweden even elect Socialists by God! (and still manage to have successful societies and capitalist markets to boot). What about their experience?
Seniors vote democratic. If they're not experienced, I don't know who is.
----Go figure.----
You're not very good at disguising loaded questions Red. Maybe I should ask you why more educated voters-- those with Master's Degrees and PhDs-- vote hugely Democratic. I suppose you'd answer that it was all a communist conspiricy to help the terrorists take over America by studying real hard first.
These are irrelevant questions. In the end, everybody has their own reasons for voting the way they do. One man, one vote. The logic is that you can be experienced or educated and still not agree with the values of the majority.
And BTW: IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE BOTH AGAINST THE TERRORISTS AND AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH AT THE SAME TIME. To believe otherwise is to invite the beginnings of dictatorship.
I endorse vodka too. Belvedere's a real good one, and it's Polish too.
Sorry I been gone so long. Your blog takes forever to load from my limited home bandwidth, and I just haven't had much spare time to blog from work lately.
You might want set your video card's resolution to 800x600 and have a look at your blog. Your verbiage dont start till way down on the page, below your right content "3D" flags .jpg. 25% of the visitors to my blog are still running 800x600 like me. Your blog look fine on my higher res / Bigger monitor at work. Or maybe you dont give a shit, I dont know. Just thought you might like to know about it.
I have been pondering why America is split almost exactly 50 / 50 down ideological lines. I figure its because the 2 party system's platform issues are always in a state of change to pick up what the other one is against.
My questions about becoming more conservative as you get older wasn't a loaded question, as much as it accurately reflects my personal life experiences. Hell I was raised a liberal. Like most of my generation I spent my youth "giving it to the man". I think when your young, and forced to live by rules you dont particularly like, there is nothing more important than "being free". While as you get older, and start having to pay for that freedom, your attitudes shift and based on learned experiences you can see the flaws in your youthful ideology.
I am not sure why academia is so militantly liberal. Obviously as I am so convinced that my well thought out logical approach to human nature and politics is correct, that I have to assume they are wrong because they have not thought the issues through. But I am sure you are so confident you are right that you think the same thing about me. I group academia in with entertainers in that they are just left brain wired to look at issues from a skewed perspective.
I do honestly think that many of the voters that make up Kerry's Base (Unions, Govt. Employees, minorities, homo-sexuals) are putting their personal enrichment goals ahead of their consciences when it comes to voting for what is best for America as a whole. I'm sure you dont agree with that either.
But you got to admit man, you and the Democratic party are going to ridiculous extremes to win this election. You cant really compare life in America under the Bush administration to a real repressive dictatorship. That just make you and them look like blind partisan whores, when anyone with eyes can see its just simply not true. The closest thing I have seen to repression in this country is the Democratic party's strong-armed abusive measures they have exercised to keep Nader off the ballot in many states. They are the ones that are looking like old soviet style opposition killing party thugs. And yet even though Nader's views come closer to aligning with yours, you are turning a blind eye to the injustices the Democratic party is using to dis-enfranchise any independent minded person that wants to vote for Nader.
You know you seem to harbor some rather extreme socialistic ideas on politics. Your not really a Marxist are you?
You have also painted a rather inaccurate picture of me as well as you falsely accuse Bush of tyranny. I abhor as many republican party platform issues as you guys do. I am a pro-abortion, anti-religion, sinnin son of a bitch. I think that the FCCs witch hunt against obscenity is sickening. I think both parties are guilty of putting corporate interests over the peoples, but despite all my problems with Bush and his fairy-tale believing partisan whores, I got to go with him over that even richer lying spineless stick with legs you want to trust our children's security to.
Thanks for the tip on the lower resolution. I tried it out on my Windows XP, and my blog just got bigger, but the post didn't start any lower. I've had some problems with formatting this blog. It's supposed to be 1000 pixels wide, with each of the sidebars at 200. When I set the content to 600 pixels, the damn thing looks perfect in Firefox and Netscape, but the content does just what you say in Internet Explorer (even with the higher res). In order to make the borders even in Explorer (which I assume 90% of my few readers are using) I have to set the content to 550 pixels. Then, of course, in Firefox (which I have recently discovered and love-- worlds faster and more efficient than explorer) and Netscape the content starts 50 pixels to the right. Shit. I have no idea how to solve this browser problem OR the video card problem either (I've tried adjusting "View" "Options" and "Properties" of the browsers). I'm just starting with this website template adjustment and HTML stuff. Any advice or link is appreciated. I'm afraid I'll be working out the kinks until way after the election.
Here we go.
I have been pondering why America is split almost exactly 50 / 50 down ideological lines. I figure its because the 2 party system's platform issues are always in a state of change to pick up what the other one is against.I don't think so. We've had the two party system for a long time, with each party doing just what you say. Although the country is always split between Republicans and Democrats, most of the time one party has the advantage. I think that all the gerrymandering going on has forced both parties to go to the far side of their ideologies rather than the center. Also, since evangelists and atheists are evenly split in this country (with a big variety of religious hues in the middle), the religious right's co-opting of the Republican Party has forced the country to take sides on religion. It's bad for the country. I also think that BOTH parties have gotten away from making logical arguments, and have gotten into over-simplifying for soundbites on the nightly news. Those simple soundbites degenerate really quickly into name calling, which the party's supporters amplify, eg: "You ignorant fucker" (but seriously, NoParty's comments make my day. I laugh my ass off when I read them. I really feel like I've accomplished something if I can tick him off on your page Red, but I think he's an example of what's wrong with politics in our country. We need fewer conservatives like him, and more like you).
My questions about becoming more conservative as you get older wasn't a loaded question, as much as it accurately reflects my personal life experiences. Hell I was raised a liberal. Like most of my generation I spent my youth "giving it to the man". I think when your young, and forced to live by rules you dont particularly like, there is nothing more important than "being free". While as you get older, and start having to pay for that freedom, your attitudes shift and based on learned experiences you can see the flaws in your youthful ideology.I agree with everything above but I would add more. I think when you get older you you see flaws in your youthful ideology, just like when you're young you think you see the flaws in your parents and grandparents ideologies, and when you're a grandparent you see flaws in your children's and grandchildren's ideologies. ALL of these ideologies are flawed. I like talking politics with conservatives 'cause it helps me to see where the flaws (or as I prefer, vulnerabilities) in my philosophies are, and I honestly try to examine them critically. Believe it or not, such self-examinations have turned me on issues like gun rights and affirmative action (though not completely toward the Republican viewpoint, but somewhere in between).
I am not sure why academia is so militantly liberal. Obviously as I am so convinced that my well thought out logical approach to human nature and politics is correct, that I have to assume they are wrong because they have not thought the issues through. But I am sure you are so confident you are right that you think the same thing about me.No, I'm pretty sure you've thought the issues through. You're too passionate about your politics to have left too many stones unturned. I think that you simply have a collection of different life experiences from me, which has led you to a different set of assumptions. Those assumptions, when used as the basis of a logical argument, lead you to different conclusions. In our country at the moment, everybody is just attacking the other side. I wish we had two candidates who kicked the BS to the curb and laid their assumptions out on the table and let the public decide.
I group academia in with entertainers in that they are just left brain wired to look at issues from a skewed perspective.
Very possible.
I do honestly think that many of the voters that make up Kerry's Base (Unions, Govt. Employees, minorities, homo-sexuals) are putting their personal enrichment goals ahead of their consciences when it comes to voting for what is best for America as a whole. I'm sure you dont agree with that either.
You're right, I don't agree. I'd put it this way: These folks vote their self-interest, and very often self-interest becomes conscience. Then again, that's a huge generalization. I can't tell you who is voting their conscience and who isn't.
I can tell you that the minorities and homosexuals I know are voting their conscience. I'm not a minority or a homosexual, and I agree with them, and when I voted, I voted my conscience. So I guess it's possible to vote in the interest of these groups and your conscience at the same time.
But you got to admit man, you and the Democratic party are going to ridiculous extremes to win this election. You cant really compare life in America under the Bush administration to a real repressive dictatorship. That just make you and them look like blind partisan whores, when anyone with eyes can see its just simply not true.I admit it. The Republicans are going to extremes too. The Republicans have been doing it for longer-- we learned from the best. Which extremists do you prefer? Which group of liars? I've been talking to some Democrats who don't like the way Kerry has stepped the up ugly tactics (insisting Bush will institute the draft, lying about Social Security). I don't like it either. We Dems used to put it this way about Clinton: Yeah, he's a liar, but he's our liar. It's the same way with Kerry and Bush. Kerry is my liar this time 'round; Bush yours. I think Bush is the BIGGER liar, but I'm sure we'll disagree on that. Politicians always "exaggerate" so if you want to vote, you've got to pick the liar whose values are most in line with yours.
I don't want to imply that I think America under Bush is like a dictatorship: it's not, and I don't. I just think that your view on asking the media to support President Bush in a time of crisis even though it's against their values is dangerous.
It's that type of view that allowed Putin to strongarm his way to total media control. I think free criticism makes our democracy stronger. I think suppression of the media kills it. Once again, different assumptions.
The closest thing I have seen to repression in this country is the Democratic party's strong-armed abusive measures they have exercised to keep Nader off the ballot in many states. They are the ones that are looking like old soviet style opposition killing party thugs. And yet even though Nader's views come closer to aligning with yours, you are turning a blind eye to the injustices the Democratic party is using to dis-enfranchise any independent minded person that wants to vote for Nader.
That's the closesst thing you've seen? Lemme let you in on a few I think are closer:
1. There's the Ohio secretary of state (Republican) who looked up and enforced an outdated Ohio law that said that voter registration forms must be on 80 lb paper, thus eliminating thousands of recently-completed registration forms.
2. Nathan Sproul, who has long worked for the Republicans (and is probably working with them now), has set up an organization posing as a non-partisan voter-registration group. Problem is, when they register a Democrat or likely-Democrat, they rip up the forms. Link3. Republican gerrymandering in Texas and around the country.
And the Democrats are repressing voters because they're challenging Mickey Mouse's signature on a petition? C'mon. If Nader gets on the ballot legally, then I support his right to be here. What's really crooked is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are donating money to Nader (link), and Jeb Bush pressured the Florida Supreme Court to get him on the ballot there.
You know you seem to harbor some rather extreme socialistic ideas on politics. Your not really a Marxist are you?I've been called a socialist more than once. I believe that a country can be capitalist and have a socially responsible government at the same time. If that makes me a socialist, fine.
You have also painted a rather inaccurate picture of me as well as you falsely accuse Bush of tyranny. I abhor as many republican party platform issues as you guys do. I am a pro-abortion,--I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
anti-religion, sinnin son of a bitch.--I'm not anti-religion. I think it's good. I just don't like it in my government. But I'm with you on the sinnin SOB thing.
I think that the FCCs witch hunt against obscenity is sickening.--I agree!
I think both parties are guilty of putting corporate interests over the peoples,--I agree!
but despite all my problems with Bush and his fairy-tale believing partisan whores, I got to go with him over that even richer lying spineless stick with legs you want to trust our children's security to.--Replace "Bush" with "Kerry" and you've got my position.
You see, if we can find some common ground, then there's hope yet for our country.
Whats better about Firefox?
8% of my readers use it.
I wonder if Google makes a toolbar for it?
Thanks Andrew, I just downloaded Firefox and it does seem a little, got to get used to it a little first befire I can pass judgement in it.
The first thing I missed was the time saving "Blog This" Icon, and a full screen mode icon, but F11 does maximize.
This 3rd Party Modification incorporated my "Blog this" button into Firefox's toolbar.
Thanks for the heads up.
BTW Gus, your page loads correctly, and faster with Firefox even though I am still runnin 800x600.
OH SHIT I just discovered my crutch "IE Spell" right click spell checker is gone. Thats gpoing to be a BIGG problem, especially after I threw a stone at Andrew from the lawn of my glass house.
Post a Comment
< Main