NationStates Jolt Archive

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

Half-hilarious, half-disturbing. I cracked up several times and felt like moving to Europe other times... man. People can be so stupid.

As an American, that just embarassed me. I can't believe what some of those people said.

Once again Brits and other europeans attempt to reinforce the idea that all americans are like the examples shown.

We arent.

Half of us might be....the other half, even though we dread the idea of another four years of Bush, resent the implication.

And you see now for some strange reason, the rest of the world has the impression that the US are isolationists and xenophobes. I can't imagine where they get THAT idea from.

I do find it rather hilarious that these people took time off of rouging their necks to post insults back to us.

And you see now for some strange reason, the rest of the world has the impression that the US are isolationists and xenophobes. I can't imagine where they get THAT idea from.
Come on, be fair. Some of those letters were reasonable, sensible, and well-written. If you have that impression, it's been willfully cultivated without regard to contradicting viewpoints.

Neither can I, since more people immigrate to the U.S, than any other country.

Once again Brits and other europeans attempt to reinforce the idea that all americans are like the examples shown.
Beg pardon, are you saying thats its very stereotypical of British people and europeans to cast stereotypes of the US?

*irony meter explodes*

hahahah what a hoot

we do get a little bit testy eh?

i got a call from the democratic party the other day (i am a registered democrat) asking who i was going to vote for. i told them it was a cheeky question and none of their business!

Come on, be fair. Some of those letters were reasonable, sensible, and well-written. If you have that impression, it's been willfully cultivated without regard to contradicting viewpoints.
No, I don't have that impression, I like the USA. I'm just saying that I can see where some people get their ideas from.

I do find it rather hilarious that these people took time off of rouging their necks to post insults back to us.
Oh, very ironic. Debunking stereotypes by reinforcing another one? All Americans are rednecks now, huh?

No, I don't have that impression, I like the USA. I'm just saying that I can see where some people get their ideas from.
It's was a general, non-specific "you" that I used, then. ;)

I find it appalling that the Guardian was trying to tell people how to vote in our elections.

Also, I've heard what some of those letters back to them stated and though I agree with half of them, could've been stated better that doesn't require swearing.

I say that the Guardian should keep its noses out of our elections. They have no right to tell the American Voters how to cast their ballot.

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.

Oh, very ironic. Debunking stereotypes by reinforcing another one? All Americans are rednecks now, huh?
No, see now that was intended to be ironic ;)

I can't BELIEVE these people took time off rouging their necks and polishing their shotguns to perpetuate BLATENTLY FALSE stereotypes about us being tea drinking, foppish old limeys

I find it appalling that the Guardian was trying to tell people how to vote in our elections.

Also, I've heard what some of those letters back to them stated and though I agree with half of them, could've been stated better that doesn't require swearing.

I say that the Guardian should keep its noses out of our elections. They have no right to tell the American Voters how to cast their ballot.
See, over here, we consider Americans, for all their quirks, our friends. And as the old saying goes: "Friends don't let friends vote Republican"

And because you are an American you have the right to tell us, not to talk about the elections that are being talked about in every part of the world?

I say that the Guardian should keep its noses out of our elections. They have no right to tell the American Voters how to cast their ballot.Pfft, by your logic, the Bush and Kerry campaigns have no rights telling the public how to vote! They aren't like us, they don't know us, they should keep their big noses out of it!

But they have a large stake in this election, so they should be able to convince people, you say? Bah - so does the rest of this world. Hello, we share a planet with them, and with the kind of communications, travel expediency, and globalization trends we have today, I'd say it matters very much to other people who wins in the US.

And whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?

"KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT!
PROUD AMERICAN VOTING FOR BUSH!"


Hehehe.

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics.
American politics is world politics. No man is an island and all that.

A lot of brits need to do this kind of thing now they don't have the empire anymore. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

A lot of brits need to do this kind of thing now they don't have the empire anymore. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)
A lot of yanks need to do this kind of thing now they're trying to have an empire. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most yanks aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the New York Post. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

A lot of brits need to do this kind of thing now they don't have the empire anymore. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

First you say "A lot of brits" then it is a "vocal minority". Make up your mind, please.

Pfft, by your logic, the Bush and Kerry campaign have no rights telling the public how to vote! They aren't like us, they don't know us, they should keep their big noses out of it!

They are Americans running for an American Office. The highest political office in the US.

But they have a large stake in this election, so they should be able to convince people, you say? Bah - so does the rest of this world. Hello, we share a planet and with the kind of communications, travel expediency, and globalization trends we have today, I'd say it matters very much to other people who wins in the US.

We may share a planet but no foreigner will tell us how to cast a ballot. We don't need anyone telling us how to vote. I already sent in my absentee ballot and no one told me how to cast it. The Guardian has no right to tell the American people not to vote for Bush. The people of Ohio have full right to Vote for Bush just like they have full right to Vote for Kerry.

And whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And where did this come from?

Just FYI everyone, we don't have "empire envy". The British empire is not, for most of us, the crowning moment in our history, so much as a historical oops-a-daisy we'd much rather forget about if at all possible.

And whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?

And where did this come from?
I believe it was Voltaire

No man is an island and all that.

Yes, but some continents and some countries are.

A lot of brits need to do this kind of thing now they don't have the empire anymore. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

And most brits don't know what happened in China in the 1793! The Chinese Emperor rejected their request to establish relations. Hell, Lord Macartney bowed to an empty chair that only had the scroll on it that stated the rejection.

That was the ultimate humiliation! LOL! I guess China wanted nothing to do with them either till they were forced to after the Opium War of 1839-1842!

Yes, but some continents and some countries are.
I know, Britain is one of them. :lol:

I don't think a continent can be an island though

Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

Compared to what? The Sun?

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.


Trouble is, that American politics affect the entire world.

So, if the U.S is going to be the world police, like it or not, then the rest of the world should get a say in wich nutjob we elect.

. . . If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.

Ah, the irony reaches the stratosphere--Americans chewing out other countries for "interfering" with American politics while, at this very moment, America is merrily interfering (with arms, in many cases) with the politics of other nations around the globe.

Yes, I'm an American. But even we cowboys can appreciate the humor here ;)

Just FYI everyone, we don't have "empire envy". The British empire is not, for most of us, the crowning moment in our history, so much as a historical oops-a-daisy we'd much rather forget about if at all possible.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

The British need to learn from their mistakes as well as not forget that they once had until they lost a third of it in 1783 :p

We may share a planet but no foreigner will tell us how to cast a ballot. We don't need anyone telling us how to vote. I already sent in my absentee ballot and no one told me how to cast it. The Guardian has no right to tell the American people not to vote for Bush. The people of Ohio have full right to Vote for Bush just like they have full right to Vote for Kerry. Erm, the Guardian encouraged people to write letters, not to write letters For Kerry. I know, cos I read the article.

No right? So, what, the right to free speech, enshrined in your constitution, not even needing to be written to be enforced in ours, is not in fact a right? How bizzare.

I know, Britain is one of them. :lol:

I don't think a continent can be an island though

Australia is a continent and a Country.

Australia? Antarctica? A real big island would be a better word.

"He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

The British need to learn from their mistakes as well as not forget that they once had until they lost a third of it in 1783 :p
Again, really, not feeling bad about losing the colonies. I probably would have been on your side if I'd been alive at the time. If anyone though is forgetting the evils of imperialism... I don't think its us.

Erm, the Guardian encouraged people to write letters, not to write letters For Kerry. I know, cos I read the article.

No right? So, what, the right to free speech, enshrined in your constitution, not even needing to be written to be enforced in ours, is not in fact a right? How bizzare.

Dude, they were telling people not to vote for Bush! That is what has people upset! You don't tell an American what to do unless you want to get what the Guardian got.

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.
our local paper is full of letters to the editor titled delgihtfully intelligent things like

"kerry is a traitor"
"voting for sin"
"liberal dummies"
"liberals are dumb"
"bush is the best"
"the worst liberal"

Australia is a continent and a Country.
I think that its so big that its classed as a continental landmass and NOT an island though.

ahhh, the americans may be obnoxious and rude, but theyre right. If you want to have a say in american politics, come over here, become a citizen and vote for whoever you want. I dont care, but dont try and play with fire-foreigners should stay out of the elections because it's AMERICA DECIDES, not BRITAIN DECIDES.

One thing for liberals--why would you say that Bush mislead the world into war (he was mislead himself by Mosad, MI-6, CIA and NSA) when a fellow Liberal (tony blair) supposedly did the same?

Australia? Antarctica? A real big island would be a better word.

Australia is a continent. It is also a country!

Antartica is a continent

ahhh, the americans may be obnoxious and rude, but theyre right. If you want to have a say in american politics, come over here, become a citizen and vote for whoever you want. I dont care, but dont try and play with fire-foreigners should stay out of the elections because it's AMERICA DECIDES, not BRITAIN DECIDES.

One thing for liberals--why would you say that Bush mislead the world into war (he was mislead himself by Mosad, MI-6, CIA and NSA) when a fellow Liberal (tony blair) supposedly did the same?
no the cia said leave iraq the fuck alone! he was like ahh fuck you cia the brits are smarter than you! then after that he repeatedly had to change his reason for going to war as each reason was debunked

ahhh, the americans may be obnoxious and rude, but theyre right. If you want to have a say in american politics, come over here, become a citizen and vote for whoever you want. I dont care, but dont try and play with fire-foreigners should stay out of the elections because it's AMERICA DECIDES, not BRITAIN DECIDES.

One thing for liberals--why would you say that Bush mislead the world into war (he was mislead himself by Mosad, MI-6, CIA and NSA) when a fellow Liberal (tony blair) supposedly did the same?
Teflon Tony will replace Guy Fawkes as the effigy we'll all be burning on November the 5th.

And calling Blair a liberal, jeez. You really are starved for choice in the states.

I think that its so big that its classed as a continental landmass and NOT an island though.

Well it is classified as an Island and a Continent acording to the last geography class I had

A lot of yanks need to do this kind of thing now they're trying to have an empire. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most yanks aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the New York Post. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

Who reads the New York Post. Do you even know what that is or what its editorial position is?

And no, the US is not trying to have an "empire" and it never really has either except for when theodore roosevelt was in office.

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign. That's presumptious and implies that US citizens can't be trusted to choose their own leaders.

Well get on the clue train. The UK hasn't had a decent leader since thatcher, but we don't tell you assclowns that your not fit to choose your PM. So unlike you implied americans do not act all morally superior. Up yours.

Is Tony Blair a liberal? Seriously, I didn't take notice..

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

I guess you're reinforcing your own.

Dude, they were telling people not to vote for Bush! That is what has people upset! You don't tell an American what to do unless you want to get what the Guardian got.
Yeah, some of the letters were pro bush or pro kerry, but the article that suggested you write was impartial.

I do tend to stereotype American's, but mainly because American's are always stereotyping us Aussies :)

I think that its so big that its classed as a continental landmass and NOT an island though.

Why then is it refered to as 'the island continent'?

Why then is it refered to as 'the island continent'?

Because saying "The continental landmass continent" doesn't make any sense?

Yea......Europeons need to stop worring about American Politics. They pay more attention to our leaders then theirs. Frankly, most American's don't wonder....the British Political Party is this and that......we really don't care. I don't view us as the Almighty nation on the world anyway....... :sniper:

We may share a planet but no foreigner will tell us how to cast a ballot. We don't need anyone telling us how to vote. I already sent in my absentee ballot and no one told me how to cast it. The Guardian has no right to tell the American people not to vote for Bush. The people of Ohio have full right to Vote for Bush just like they have full right to Vote for Kerry. You missed my point entirely. No one is telling you how to vote - just that there's thousands of groups out there urging you and trying to convince you to vote one way or another. The fact that this paper is British in no way makes it's urgings less meaningful. You're perfectly free to vote however you like - I would just rather you consider other people's arguments for and against the candidates instead of blowing them off in the name of patriotism.

And where did this come from?It's a fundamental and profound principle of free speech and equal application thereof. A very American concept, if you will.

Dude, they were telling people not to vote for Bush! That is what has people upset! You don't tell an American what to do unless you want to get what the Guardian got.:rolleyes: No one is telling you what to do. Kerry has never told you "don't vote for Bush" and this British paper never told you that either. It's called a recommendation or a request, not an order.

See, over here, we consider Americans, for all their quirks, our friends. And as the old saying goes: "Friends don't let friends vote Republican"
my sister and i both have republican husbands (oh the shame of it all!!)
we decided to NOT mention early voting and to hope that they somehow forget to vote on election day (we wont be here to remind them).

it could happen. the only other option is to tie them up and toss them into the closet until we get home 11 days after the election.

Yea......Europeons need to stop worring about American Politics. They pay more attention to our leaders then theirs. Frankly, most American's don't wonder....the British Political Party is this and that......we really don't care. I don't view us as the Almighty nation on the world anyway....... :sniper:

Maybe you don't view it that way, but you cannot deny that America has a leading position in this humble world at this very moment. You need not care about European (Yes European) politics as they don't influence the world as much as the American politics do.

Who reads the New York Post. Do you even know what that is or what its editorial position is?

And no, the US is not trying to have an "empire" and it never really has either except for when theodore roosevelt was in office.

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign. That's presumptious and implies that US citizens can't be trusted to choose their own leaders.

Well get on the clue train. The UK hasn't had a decent leader since thatcher, but we don't tell you assclowns that your not fit to choose your PM. So unlike you implied americans do not act all morally superior. Up yours.The New York Post is a rabidly conservative newspaper.

According to more than a few historians, the US empire is the 38th empire in world history.

I don't think an american newspaper ever has, but then again, I don't think an american newspaper has even COVERED an election outside of its own country, so that level of activism would be rather unusual. And no, it doesn't imply that you can't be trusted to choose your own leaders any more than any of your own news networks does. Its a new and different perspective.

The "clue train" seems to have left you behind at the station. Thatcher drove the country halfway to hell. And it was the original post that implied that brits were all superior, my satire merely changed the names around

Up yours is a flame. Its been reported to the mods.

Why then is it refered to as 'the island continent'?
Not having ever heard of it reffered to as such, I really couldn't say.

Oceania (the continent) is Oz plus New Zealand, a large number of South Pacific islands and the indonesia/papua new guinea etc archipelego.

Ah, the irony reaches the stratosphere--Americans chewing out other countries for "interfering" with American politics while, at this very moment, America is merrily interfering (with arms, in many cases) with the politics of other nations around the globe.

Yes, I'm an American. But even we cowboys can appreciate the humor here ;)
You really gotta wonder, haven't you?

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign.

Do the names 'William Randolph Hearst', "New York Morning Journal" and "Spanish-American War" ring any bells?

Who reads the New York Post. Do you even know what that is or what its editorial position is?

And no, the US is not trying to have an "empire" and it never really has either except for when theodore roosevelt was in office.

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign. That's presumptious and implies that US citizens can't be trusted to choose their own leaders.

Well get on the clue train. The UK hasn't had a decent leader since thatcher, but we don't tell you assclowns that your not fit to choose your PM. So unlike you implied americans do not act all morally superior. Up yours.

Well well, we have a flamer. Consider yourself officially warned. If you continue, you may end up forum banned.



http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EyeOfMyrth.jpg
Myrth
The Eye of Myrth is upon thee
Forum Moderator

Cheers Myrth.

And bump.

Consider this: stay out of American electoral politics. Unless you would like a company of US Navy Seals - Republican to a man - to descend upon the offices of the Guardian, bag the lot of you, and transport you to Guantanamo Bay, where you can share quarters with some lonely Taliban shepherd boys.
United States

Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI.
United States

What is going on in the heads of some of these people?

Thankfully a large number of both the supporting and opposing responses were at least in some way civil. Unfortunately there will always be idiots.

A lot of yanks need to do this kind of thing now they're trying to have an empire. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most yanks aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the New York Post. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)

Tru dat.

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.

That sounds a little rich coming from a country that used Saddam Hussein's dictatorship as one of the justifications for war. I agree that it doesn’t seem right for someone in, say Europe, to be debating in US internal politics – but it does seem rich coming from the US of A. A country which is the world's self-appointed policeman, the country which claims to be leading the freeworld.

"We as Americans will do whatever we want"... yeah, you got that right.

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

Ugh! That second one on the list really sickened me. I live right next to Wading River. However, it's on Long Island, and when the Nazi's tried to set themselves up here in WWII, this was one of their biggest cultural beachheads :(

What is going on in the heads of some of these people?
Basicly, they're whackos.

You missed my point entirely. No one is telling you how to vote - just that there's thousands of groups out there urging you and trying to convince you to vote one way or another. The fact that this paper is British in no way makes it's urgings less meaningful. You're perfectly free to vote however you like - I would just rather you consider other people's arguments for and against the candidates instead of blowing them off in the name of patriotism.

Maybe so but they are trying to influence voters to vote against Bush! To me that i trying to tell people how to vote. Since it is British, its meaningless. The American People will vote for whom they want not because some British newspaper tells them to vote, or anyone else for that matter.

It's a fundamental and profound principle of free speech and equal application thereof. A very American concept, if you will.

True but Americans don't like to be talked to as if we are a child. we are not children and have been deciding our own affairs since 1783! I think we're doing quite well for only being in exsistence for over 200 years.

:rolleyes: No one is telling you what to do. Kerry has never told you "don't vote for Bush" and this British paper never told you that either. It's called a recommendation or a request, not an order.

He actually has said don't vote for Bush! Just not in those terms! LOL! The British paper was trying to influence this election and the people of Ohio told them to go away.

It's not necessarily xenophobic or isolationist to resent the implications made by the Gaurdian's voting program. Rudeness and profanity are only expressions of that resentment, and while they might have been uncalled for, they may have been necessary to represent the degree of resentment towards those implications.
The effect of this election effects them, and so they are only trying to advance their own interests. Unfortunately, when elements in a foriegn country try to tell you how you should vote, and justify it by telling you it is because of their own self interest, that doesn't really harbor the spirit of cooperation. Some may even see it as an attempt to encroach on american sovergneity.

Republicans in the US know that Europe is heavily anti-Bush. They don't feel themselves to be governed by foriegn, or even domestic opinion, and rightly so. They have developed their own opinions, and while some may have done so on false premises, they don't have to submit them for public approval.

Now I'm not saying that people in England and other countries shouldn't try to advance their own interests, those interests will not be welcomed, so they are not served by the attempted course of action. They also shouldn't feel miffed or persecuted by the response they recieve, as no one has attempted to advance their interest upon them.

That said, vote Kerry! :p

I for one applaud the efforts of The Guardian. As an American from birth, I am of limited intellect, and am unable to adequately synthesize the barrage of information I receive concerning the US Presidential election.

I do, however, have one complaint. I have been hungry for several days, and don't know what to do. Could someone from The Guardian please call me to tell me what to eat?

Thank you in advance.

Im still laughing at the thought of Tony Blair being liberal!

Its like when My lecturer called him a socialist! That was the funniest thing hes ever said, well bar when he asked us if we were on drugs!

That said, any American that dares to accuse us of interefering will eat their words when a pro American government is set up by the US, i mean Iraqi people and gets lots of money from the US until it thinks for itself.

It seems to me that something might be getting missed in this thread (or maybe it was me that was missing it, I am a bit sleepy at atm).

There has been a very recent huge backlash here in America against 'spam' emails being placed in our boxes. Now I don't know if these emails have been solicited by those people in the particular counties of ohio and (iowa?) or not, but it could quite possibly be that these people did not want to hear from anyone telling them how to vote, whether they agreed with the opinion of the sender or not.

Alot of us spend $$ for programs just to block spam type emails and it could be quite enraging that someone has possibly distributed voter roles that they did not want distributed. By that measure, the one quite respectful reply that the efforts being made might be counter productive could be a very valid point. While I realize that there are free programs out there, I also realize how easy they are to circumvent, so we need not go down that path as a reply. Some people do shell it out and I am only presenting this as one possibility and not the answer to every rude reply.

Still, I have the feeling the very few opinions will be changed by this emailing campaign. It will probably serve to annoy more than persuade and an annoyed and (supposedly) undecided voter can possibly cast their vote out of shadenfruede and/or spite. It is a sad state of affairs to think that it could happen that way, but we have seen countless posts on this very forum where people have advocated a position that they have taken, not because they necessarily believe so much in it, but because they want so badly to vote against the opposite position.

In 10+ days we will be debating about the litigation and voter intimidation charges. When the point finally arrives when the US actually gets down to discussing those policies that do affect the rest of the world, then we can begin seeing what the new (or returning) president will do with the job.

This is not going to end in November is it?

Good wholesome descriptive American language. YOu've got to love it. Why is it that some of the dumbest people are some of the most colorful? It's the people of average intelligence that are the most boring.

SOme of the 'genuises' are not very exciting either. Except for the quantum physicists. They're all fucking nuts. :)

THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HAVE SPENT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROTECTING THE PEOPLES OF THE EU, AND WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN. BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL. I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT.

MAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TOOTH CAPPED. I UNDERSTAND IT TAKES AT LEAST 18 MONTHS FOR YOUR GREAT MEDICAL SERVICES TO GET AROUND TO YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY.
Harlan, Kentucky


Wish I could be that persons friend.

Wow!

I didn't know Scotland and Wales were also Limeys?

I might as well give up arguing that we aren't all dum? :p

As long as no American urges me to vote Blair in the next election, no American invades another country who's politics it dislikes and does not interfere in anyway with another country's domestic government, I am happy to keep my opinions on the US elections to myself.

Oops.

Funny, Americans telling others to butt of their politics while they can interfere with elections of other nations, overthrow democratically elected governments and act like God in general.

Funny, Americans telling others to butt of their politics while they can interfere with elections of other nations, overthrow democratically elected governments and act like God in general.
because god is on our side *thumbs up*

because god is on our side *thumbs up*

No, that was Satan. God is waiting for his turn to blow up America (reference to SuperVolcano in Yellowstone National Park).

Let's say I go into a blue collar pub in Liverpool, order a Guinness, and then begin to tell the people seated at the bar whom I think they should vote for. What response do you think I would get?


A) "Why thank you Mr. Yankee for your astute point of view. I shall surely take it into consideration when next I cast my ballot."

or

B) "Sod off."

or

C) "Sod off." Then get my nose broken.

Funny, Americans telling others to butt of their politics while they can interfere with elections of other nations, overthrow democratically elected governments and act like God in general.

I knew Jimmy Carter should've stayed home.

This has to be the strangest reply:
Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI.
United States
What the hell are they going to do about this? Invade Britain?
Weird, just plain weird.

The lamest threat award surely goes to this person:
I used to visit the UK every year. I love the history and culture of your country. But after I heard about your campaign to influence our elections, I've decided that neither myself, nor my family will ever visit again
Ohhhh....One less Yankee family waddling around London gawking at the old buildings. I bet the locals are upset about that. ;)

Here's the most outrageous simile from someone in serious need of a reality check:
You radical leftwingers are worse than the Taliban.
Yep, sending out an email is in the same league as oppressing a Nation, executing hundreds of people in public for the most minor of arbitrary apllied infringements and harbouring terrorists who have carried uncountable attacks around the World (including in and on the US of course) which have murdered tens of thousands. :rolleyes:

Actually I only noticed only one reasoned (and resonable) reply against the email (and one sarcastic one). The rest were mindless, abusive rants, bordering on the surreal. What does this say about Bush supporters?

It's not necessarily xenophobic or isolationist to resent the implications made by the Gaurdian's voting program. Rudeness and profanity are only expressions of that resentment, and while they might have been uncalled for, they may have been necessary to represent the degree of resentment towards those implications.
No, its not xenophobic or isolationist per-see, but saying "we don't give a shit what no foriegners think and if you disagree we'll drop navy seals on you" is.


The effect of this election effects them, and so they are only trying to advance their own interests. Unfortunately, when elements in a foriegn country try to tell you how you should vote, and justify it by telling you it is because of their own self interest, that doesn't really harbor the spirit of cooperation. Some may even see it as an attempt to encroach on american sovergneity.



Now I'm not saying that people in England and other countries shouldn't try to advance their own interests, those interests will not be welcomed, so they are not served by the attempted course of action. They also shouldn't feel miffed or persecuted by the response they recieve, as no one has attempted to advance their interest upon them.Nah, you're right. I should take being called a limey tea-drinking hippy faggot in my stride.

Who reads the New York Post. Do you even know what that is or what its editorial position is?

And no, the US is not trying to have an "empire" and it never really has either except for when theodore roosevelt was in office.

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign. That's presumptious and implies that US citizens can't be trusted to choose their own leaders.

Well get on the clue train. The UK hasn't had a decent leader since thatcher, but we don't tell you assclowns that your not fit to choose your PM. So unlike you implied americans do not act all morally superior. Up yours.

*chokes*

Thatcher?

Decent?


Thatcher?



Decent?




Thatcher??

Decent??




Thatcher???


Decent????

Let's say I go into a blue collar pub in Liverpool, order a Guinness, and then begin to tell the people seated at the bar whom I think they should vote for. What response do you think I would get?
A) "Why thank you Mr. Yankee for your astute point of view. I shall surely take it into consideration when next I cast my ballot."
or
B) "Sod off."
or
C) "Sod off." Then get my nose broken.
Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer!

I for one applaud the efforts of The Guardian. As an American from birth, I am of limited intellect, and am unable to adequately synthesize the barrage of information I receive concerning the US Presidential election.

I do, however, have one complaint. I have been hungry for several days, and don't know what to do. Could someone from The Guardian please call me to tell me what to eat?

Thank you in advance.But when Fox or Sky news tell you who to vote for, it is legitimate? They're not exactly american as apple pie themselves y-know.

Let's say I go into a blue collar pub in Liverpool, order a Guinness, and then begin to tell the people seated at the bar whom I think they should vote for. What response do you think I would get?


A) "Why thank you Mr. Yankee for your astute point of view. I shall surely take it into consideration when next I cast my ballot."

or

B) "Sod off."

or

C) "Sod off." Then get my nose broken.
Go into a pub in Liverpool and say hi to a random stranger and you're likely to get your nose broken.

Try a different analogy. If you were at some kind of college debate and you put forward a rational arguement of who is the better candidate, do you think you'd get an unfavourable response? I don't think so. Now I think that sending a letter to someone's house would probably lie between those two extremes, maybe ignoring, maybe saying that you already had reasons for deciding, no?

Try a different analogy. If you were at some kind of college debate and you put forward a rational arguement of who is the better candidate, do you think you'd get an unfavourable response? I don't think so. Now I think that sending a letter to someone's house would probably lie between those two extremes, maybe ignoring, maybe saying that you already had reasons for deciding, no?

And the response from some who received the letters was somewhere between a broken nose and a favorable response. People don't like unsolicited advice, particularly from an individual or individuals whose grasp of the matter at hand may be no better or worse than those they seek to advise.

Originally Posted by Togarmah
Who reads the New York Post. Do you even know what that is or what its editorial position is?

And no, the US is not trying to have an "empire" and it never really has either except for when theodore roosevelt was in office.

And when did an american newspaper ever start a letter writing campaign to influence a UK campaign. That's presumptious and implies that US citizens can't be trusted to choose their own leaders.

Well get on the clue train. The UK hasn't had a decent leader since thatcher, but we don't tell you assclowns that your not fit to choose your PM. So unlike you implied americans do not act all morally superior. Up yours.


*chokes*

Thatcher?

Decent?


Thatcher?



Decent?




Thatcher??

Decent??




Thatcher???


Decent????

Awww, you beat me to it. :p Can some country out there start doing this for Australia? We need a little guidance when it comes to voting... Seriously...

Awww, you beat me to it. :p Can some country out there start doing this for Australia? We need a little guidance when it comes to voting... Seriously...

I'll be happy throw pies at people come the next election over there.

And the response from some who received the letters was somewhere between a broken nose and a favorable response. People don't like unsolicited advice, particularly from an individual or individuals whose grasp of the matter at hand may be no better or worse than those they seek to advise.
Maybe they'd have less of a grasp on the matter, but I'd bet that anyone willing to write a letter halfway around the world has at least SOME idea and interest in whats going on.

Go into a pub in Liverpool and say hi to a random stranger and you're likely to get your nose broken.

Try a different analogy. If you were at some kind of college debate and you put forward a rational arguement of who is the better candidate, do you think you'd get an unfavourable response? I don't think so. Now I think that sending a letter to someone's house would probably lie between those two extremes, maybe ignoring, maybe saying that you already had reasons for deciding, no?
Going into a Liverpool pub and ordering a Guinness is probably going to get your nose broken.
That aside, I agree with you. There is a big difference between physically confronting someone and telling them how to vote and sending them an email (or letter). Had none of these ppl noticed a 'delete message' button on their email viewer?

I'm an American, currently living in China. I just sent out a letter to my friends back home about the stakes involved in this election, partly from the POV of someone who is watching first-hand what a society without free speech is like. It's even got the history of extreme isolationism and provincial thinking behind it to make it a worthy study.

I'm glad the Guardian decided to try to get through to Americans about their part in the world. We really need to realize it, or the consequences will be grave for all of us. I'm not surprised some folks in the US got upset and acted stupid -- I mean, have you BEEN to Ohio? :)

Ge-Ren

How about you direct your concerns to Tony Blair? He does everything George Bush asks of him.

Maybe they'd have less of a grasp on the matter, but I'd bet that anyone willing to write a letter halfway around the world has at least SOME idea and interest in whats going on.


I don't think the letter writers are ignorant, but being highly motivated by a dislike or hatered of Bush does not necessitate that they are educated about much of anything.

Going into a Liverpool pub and ordering a Guinness is probably going to get your nose broken.
That aside, I agree with you. There is a big difference between physically confronting someone and telling them how to vote and sending them an email (or letter). Had none of these ppl noticed a 'delete message' button on their email viewer?


A venomous reply is aided by anonymity. People act through emails and in chat rooms in ways they would never act face to face.

I'm an American, currently living in China.

Where in China are you?

Dear Concerned British Friends,
Go shog off, gits!

Sincerely,
American Voter.

I don't think the letter writers are ignorant, but being highly motivated by a dislike or hatered of Bush does not necessitate that they are educated about much of anything.
Dislike or hatred of Bush OR Kerry, there were some of each.

Dear Concerned British Friends,
Go shog off, gits!

Sincerely,
American Voter.(is this satire?)

According to a recent poll 3 out of 4 self-described Bush supporters STILL believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein provided “substantial support” to al Qaeda. In fact the number of Bushies who believe this actually WENT UP (!) after publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports debunking both notions.

These people are as willfully ignorant as the man they support.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...965431098444910

Oh, by the way, how many of these GOP idiots were offended when Bush and Co. recently interjected themselves into the Australian election, openly campaigning for Conservative John Howard and opposing Labor's Mark Latham?

Dear Britain,

How are you? I've been fine. The weather here is increasingly cold and gray (er, I mean grey). Luckily it's not so bad as it usually is over there, ha ha! How about that Channel? Still cold? Well, gotta go, see you later.

Love,

Santa Barbara

Dislike or hatred of Bush OR Kerry, there were some of each.


Well, the way public opinion is, I would think it's safe to say that a good majority were probably anti-Bush.

Disclosure:

I am a (libertarian) conservative who will be unhappily voting for John Kerry in November. Bush has been highly destructive for American conservatism.

Well, the way public opinion is, I would think it's safe to say that a good majority were probably anti-Bush.
Yeah, but that's a statistical reality, not any kind of conspiracy, and it'd be misleading to suggest that all the letters were anti-Bush.

ahh its grand and the rains smashin, still its better than living on land stolen from native americans and then killing half of them because they complained. Also when did 13 colonies represent half the empire? i suppose most of africa, the caribean, india, australia, nz, canada just dont add up to as much as i thought.

*Chuckels* i can just shake my head and smile, being swedish this whole way the american elections are done. Are foreign, it amazes how far people go in their political beliefs.

And the numerous times US has interfred in others elections is staggering..

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.
Voting for Kerry.
I find it amusing how obviously retarded Brits feel some need to constantly re-enforce their own withered egos by lodging mindless attacks against Americans.
I am disgusted that a British Newspaper would seek to effect a foreign election.
I find it sad for this site that it leaves itself and its members in the care of mods who are little better then flaming trolls.
Waiting for my ban.

Yeah, but that's a statistical reality, not any kind of conspiracy, and it'd be misleading to suggest that all the letters were anti-Bush.

Nobody suggested conspiracy......

How about...virtually all? How about a supermajority were anti-Bush?

ahh its grand and the rains smashin, still its better than living on land stolen from native americans and then killing half of them because they complained. Also when did 13 colonies represent half the empire? i suppose most of africa, the caribean, india, australia, nz, canada just dont add up to as much as i thought.


Where in the hell do the native americans fit into this? Ah....they don't...

Yeah, but that's a statistical reality, not any kind of conspiracy, and it'd be misleading to suggest that all the letters were anti-Bush.


I'm not saying it doesn't exist....but I haven't seen one pro-Bush letter. Hmmm....

Go into a pub in Liverpool and say hi to a random stranger and you're likely to get your nose broken.

Try a different analogy.

What is the point of everyone arguing about using cultural stereo-types and then backing up ideas with *other* stereo-types? I'm willing to bet everyone who replied to this insulting view of Liverpool has never actually been there. Personally it annoys me a lot more to see my home casually insulted then to have the whole country insulted.

But please, if any of you have actually walked into a bar in Liverpool, said 'Hi' in a normal fashion and then been punched, prove me wrong.

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

Myrth: Simple sheepism. I.E. "I hate you for being a Brit, and having your own opinion." I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt: "I don't think you are an Idiot until You Prove it.

Well, some people have proved that they are idiots.

And to point out one thing to all Americans and Everyone else in the world: If you are American; you have a vote. If You are not, you don't.

What is the point of everyone arguing about using cultural stereo-types and then backing up ideas with *other* stereo-types? I'm willing to bet everyone who replied to this insulting view of Liverpool has never actually been there. Personally it annoys me a lot more to see my home casually insulted then to have the whole country insulted.

But please, if any of you have actually walked into a bar in Liverpool, said 'Hi' in a normal fashion and then been punched, prove me wrong.

There is nothing wrong with Liverpool. Frankly, Hamburg, Munich, Boston, Dublin, Pittsburgh, or practically any other can be substituted and the point remains the same, and accurate, in my opinion. It just so happens that I was reversing roles in this scenario between the UK & the US.

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.

The problem is that "our" - that is to say AMERICAN- politics do affect the rest of the world. Because, no matter how small OR large the issues seem to be, the world is "shrinking" at a fast enough rate that what happens in one country affects the others- especially our close allies, like France and Britain.

That isn't to say that I think everyone should ONLY listen to people outside of America on how to vote- quite the opposite: I think that the American electoral college is, well, America's business. I'm firmly, PROUDLY American, I just think that some peoples' logic has holes.

Respectfully,
Another American

MODALERT!

This guy just said "asshole".

I can only laugh at the stupidity on both sides of the argument.
Firstly the people at the magazine had no right to influence the outcome fo the election even though it affects them.
Secondly those people in Ohio had no right to be such retarded arses for no reason other than. "We'd like you to vote for this fellow here." Even though other Americans do it all the time.

YAR!!!

And people wonder why I want to leave *sigh*

KEEP YOUR FUCKIN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT!

Umm... The war of 1812 could be considered a win for either side. Canadian forces (British troops and First Nations warriors) defeated invading Americans along the Great Lakes, and Americans successfully defended New Orleans.

;)

As a Canadian, I like to think of it as a Canadian win, but I'm more than a little biassed.

:)

Wikipedia's Article on the War of 1812 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812)

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

Lol, I never knew you were a Brit (not that it affects my opinion of you or anything). Well, you learn something new everyday...

psh, there are idiots in this world; there are stupid, arrogant brits as well- and there also are educated Americans.

Nah, you're right. I should take being called a limey tea-drinking hippy faggot in my stride.
I'm not trying to defend all of the responses, or saying that you should embrace any profanity people throw your way. I'm just trying to show where these people are coming from.
I probably wasn't clear enough when I said profanity was somewhat justified. When I said profanity, I meant when used to emphasize the point, to show the depth of the feeling of offence, or whatever. I did not mean for that to include bigoted flaming. Sorry, I should have qualified my statement the first time around.

By the way, I didn't see the response threatening military invasion. Some people are just stupid xenophobic isolationists, but I didn't see that represented in the majority of the responses that I read.

What is the point of everyone arguing about using cultural stereo-types and then backing up ideas with *other* stereo-types? I'm willing to bet everyone who replied to this insulting view of Liverpool has never actually been there. Personally it annoys me a lot more to see my home casually insulted then to have the whole country insulted.

But please, if any of you have actually walked into a bar in Liverpool, said 'Hi' in a normal fashion and then been punched, prove me wrong.
Sorry, that was hyperbole. I have nothing against Liverpool, I just wanted to move past that bit and show him his arguement was stupid.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist....but I haven't seen one pro-Bush letter. Hmmm....
Well, given that I have, and its impossible to prove a negative like yours, then shall we just accept that I'm correct?

Voting for Kerry.
I find it amusing how obviously retarded Brits feel some need to constantly re-enforce their own withered egos by lodging mindless attacks against Americans.
I am disgusted that a British Newspaper would seek to effect a foreign election.
I find it sad for this site that it leaves itself and its members in the care of mods who are little better then flaming trolls.
Waiting for my ban.

*salutes* If you're banned, just know that you made a damn good point. Though I don't think calling somebody who wrote in to The Guardian a retard constitutes flaming (in the context of these forums), Myrth's comments were indeed trolling. The only reason Myrth didn't get his ass flamed by multiple users was that he's a Mod.

Also, I'm voting Libertarian. I found this response particularly amusing:

My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio

Once again Brits and other europeans attempt to reinforce the idea that all americans are like the examples shown.

We arent.

Half of us might be....the other half, even though we dread the idea of another four years of Bush, resent the implication.
I've yet to meet an American who is intending to vote for Bush, or who behaves in the stereotypical way we're all so familiar with. Sadly, this is the image served up by your own media - and by extension, ours.

Once again, some idiots make the rest of us look bad.

*Is talking about the people woh think the english are "Evil inferior foreginer scum". Pfeh.*

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

But if you think about it, the idea of anti-Bush Brits attempting to sway the opinions of voters in closely-contested states in the US is both stupid and outrageous. I can't stand Bush, I think he should lose the election, but this type of thing is only going to backfire.

People who loathe Bush won't be bothered, Republicans will obviously hate it, but more importantly people who are undecided will not like this type of appeal. I mean, the British, of all people, advising Americans on how they should vote? We kicked them out of America, we saved them in WW1, and WW2, what do they have to say to us that we need to hear?

This type of foreign interference in domestic elections is not to be advised. Especially not from British liberals.

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.I must say, as an american, I find you slightly amusing, for your lack of knowledge of America.

If you are American; you have a vote. If You are not, you don't.

Actually, no. Only about 2/3rds of us get to vote. Age requirements and all that then.


[/quote=Democratic Nationality]But if you think about it, the idea of anti-Bush Brits attempting to sway the opinions of voters in closely-contested states in the US is both stupid and outrageous. I can't stand Bush, I think he should lose the election, but this type of thing is only going to backfire.

People who loathe Bush won't be bothered, Republicans will obviously hate it, but more importantly people who are undecided will not like this type of appeal. I mean, the British, of all people, advising Americans on how they should vote? We kicked them out of America, we saved them in WW1, and WW2, what do they have to say to us that we need to hear?

This type of foreign interference in domestic elections is not to be advised. Especially not from British liberals.[/quote]

On the wars part. We kicked them out of america over two hundred years ago in the revolution(Not in 1812 though, we provoked it and still lost, the war ending with our invasions failing and our coast being blockaded, our leaders desperate to achieve peace as the napoleonic war was ending), we didn't save them in ww1(At best, germany could have taken france, and probably not even that without america intervention. Nobody knows what would have happened in the second battle of the somme, but the French were going strong. Either way, germany could not have invaded britain, its navy was obliterated). We didn't save them in ww2, our small contribution in the BoB did not save them.

I just wanted to clear that up.

My opinion on the whole thing, stop freaking out. Someone gave their opinion. Big deal. Don't listen to it if you don't like it. People in america talk about how North Korea, or Iran has oppresive governments. An opinion is just that.

If Britain invaded america on the basis of helping the people(lets say that they win somehow, this is theoretical and the fighting part isnt important), would it be more justified then? I mean, they are only continuing the tradition of invading nations with bad government. They can hardly be faulted for that, even if their own government is bad. We surely can't say anything to them on those grounds.

I must say, as an american, I find you slightly amusing, for your lack of knowledge of America.

I must say, as an american, he(myrth) is right on the dot.

I do tend to stereotype American's, but mainly because American's are always stereotyping us Aussies :)

No we don't. We think you limeys are ok! ;)

To paraphrase the brilliantly turned words of George Carlin, I'm not a very good American, because I like to form my own opinions. Only the most insecure person who knows he stands in an indefensible position gets touchy about people making suggestions, or trying to influence his decision. If you're really as devoted to King George II as you claim you are, some thoughtful Brits voicing their concerns shouldn't faze you all that much.

- American citizen, living Abroad.

On the wars part. We kicked them out of america over two hundred years ago in the revolution(Not in 1812 though, we provoked it and still lost, the war ending with our invasions failing and our coast being blockaded, our leaders desperate to achieve peace as the napoleonic war was ending), we didn't save them in ww1(At best, germany could have taken france, and probably not even that without america intervention. Nobody knows what would have happened in the second battle of the somme, but the French were going strong. Either way, germany could not have invaded britain, its navy was obliterated). We didn't save them in ww2, our small contribution in the BoB did not save them.

I just wanted to clear that up.

My opinion on the whole thing, stop freaking out. Someone gave their opinion. Big deal. Don't listen to it if you don't like it. People in america talk about how North Korea, or Iran has oppresive governments. An opinion is just that.

If Britain invaded america on the basis of helping the people(lets say that they win somehow, this is theoretical and the fighting part isnt important), would it be more justified then? I mean, they are only continuing the tradition of invading nations with bad government. They can hardly be faulted for that, even if their own government is bad. We surely can't say anything to them on those grounds.

The WW1 and WW2 issue was just an aside. But just to say that it's widely recognized that without American intervention Britain would have been doomed in the long term in both world wars. But that's not what I am talking about.

I have an issue about the British Guardian newspaper organizing a letter-writing campaign to people in swing states and telling them which way to vote. Bush is bad, Kerry is good. That's what they are writing. It may well be true but it's patronizing because it assumes that Americans are so stupid that they can't find out/decide for themselves who to vote for. As if Guardian readers have any idea of the concerns of voters in some county in Ohio they've never heard of.

It's just typical British arrogance. When you combine British arrogance with liberalism you have a truly noxious mixture. This is a prime example. The Brits know best, they know how we should run our lives. That's what they are suggesting by telling us who to vote for.

You know, if the roles were reversed, and the Guardian was supporting Bush at the expense of Kerry, you'd all be on opposite sides of the argument.

You know, if the roles were reversed, and the Guardian was supporting Bush at the expense of Kerry, you'd all be on opposite sides of the argument.

Completely wrong. I don't support Bush or Kerry, I will vote for Nader. No matter who I support, The Guardian is wrong to suggest to anyone in America who s/he should vote for.

Let me rephrase that: The Guardian as a newspaper has a right to express an editorial opionion on who should win the election, but to organize a letter-writing campaign among its readers to oppose Bush in swing states in the US is beyond that. It's foreign interference in our election.

Let me rephrase that: The Guardian as a newspaper has a right to express an editorial opionion on who should win the election, but to organize a letter-writing campaign among its readers to oppose Bush in swing states in the US is beyond that. It's foreign interference in our election.Emphasis added

They shouldn't be readers of the paper if they don't want its opinions, lol.

It may well be true but it's patronizing because it assumes that Americans are so stupid that they can't find out/decide for themselves who to vote for.

Many, many americans are. The constant spin that both parties puts out makes it hard to know any fact. You have to dig deep to find truth.

If these swing state people dont want to hear another side, they can delete the letters. I would like it if someone sent me information on something I wasn't sure about, even if it was a partisan source. I like being well informed. Some people don't care; They can hit delete. This is a good tribute for those who do want to hear, but aren't interested in doing tons of searching.

They shouldn't be readers of the paper if they don't want its opinions, lol.

Obviously you are incapable of understanding what I'm trying to express. Let me explain it very simply for your benefit:

Of course if they read the paper they want its opinions. But the paper going beyond normal op/ed articles and actively recruiting its readership to try to influence the result of a US election is very unusual. I've never heard of it before.

Do you understand it now? Or is too hard a concept for you to grasp?

Obviously you are incapable of understanding what I'm trying to express. Let me explain it very simply for your benefit:

Of course if they read the paper they want its opinions. But the paper going beyond normal op/ed articles and actively recruiting its readership to try to influence the result of a US election is very unusual. I've never heard of it before.

Do you understand it now? Or is too hard a concept for you to grasp?

Wow, instead of just replying, somehow you felt flaming would get your point across better. You must be incredibly mature in real life.

I misread your statement from before, and was planning on editing the statement.

Also, it happens all the time, so you must be the one who can't grasp concepts.

Wow, instead of just replying, somehow you felt flaming would get your point across better. You must be incredibly mature in real life.

I misread your statement from before, and was planning on editing the statement.

Also, it happens all the time, so you must be the one who can't grasp concepts.

What I wrote was not flaming, you have enough experience in here to know that, however old you are in real life.

I would suggest that you think about what you write before you post it. Supporting one-sided interference in a domestic US election is not really a "mature" thing to do, unless you are very partisan. I mean, unless you support Kerry, as you obviously do.

What I wrote was not flaming, you have enough experience in here to know that, however old you are in real life.

I would suggest that you think about what you write before you post it. Supporting one-sided interference in a domestic US election is not really a "mature" thing to do, unless you are very partisan. I mean, unless you support Kerry, as you obviously do.

Wow, many assumptions. You know what an assumption is, don't you?

Yes, I support kerry, though I don't really care. I don't plan on being in the country either way, navy with kerry, or french foreign legion with bush. Maturity has nothing to do with helping a political side in an election. It just irks some americans that this is done overtly, and not in the covertly way america has influenced many other nations domestic policies.

I just don't see any difference between the democrats doing this and the british doing this. Both have an opinion on the matter, both will be influenced. What exactly is wrong with doing this? I keep hearing its "wrong", etc, but no actual answers.

The reason why a lot of Americans are upset in those responses in because the Founding Fathers didnt want foreigners interfering with US elections in anyway. Its the whole reason why there will never be a President Schwarzenegger we dont want foreigners running for or choosing who becomes our President. Many people view others folks writing to them through email telling them who to vote, or through regular mail who to vote for as spam, especially if its from another country. Americans generally dont like to have their lives be intruded upon by folks who they dont know. So while they'll be more receptive to say their local newsreporter you get someone from the UK trying to suggest who they should vote for and frankly thats gonna touch a nerve in many who feel the US should have nothing to do with the rest of the planet. Frankly I dont care who the Guardian was supporting its wrong to be so intrusive(and no peoples arguements over the US influencing the elections of others does not mean a damn thing to me.) with something people actually hold dear. Going back to my little aside though, the US is doing what it must to keep certain nations from spiraling out of control once more. To bad we've fallen asleep on Haiti..they could really use help again. Or better yet armed troops into the Daffur(sp?) region of Sudan..Oh well.

Also Spoffin, you doubt any American newspaper covered any foreign election? Well thats funny, you've never picked up the NY Times then have you? Of course you havent otherwise you wouldnt have made such a stupid comment.

Also to the person who mentioned what the New York Morning Journal did during the Spanish American war..exactly how did that influence a foreign election? I thought that had more to do with influencing US public opinion for the attacking of Spain in retaliation to whatever happened to the BB Maine in Havana harbor.

Yes, I support kerry, though I don't really care. I don't plan on being in the country either way, navy with kerry, or french foreign legion with bush. Maturity has nothing to do with helping a political side in an election.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please say something coherent and stop rambling. Thanks.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please say something coherent and stop rambling. Thanks.

Try reading the other half.

Maybe so but they are trying to influence voters to vote against Bush! To me that i trying to tell people how to vote. Since it is British, its meaningless. The American People will vote for whom they want not because some British newspaper tells them to vote, or anyone else for that matter.



True but Americans don't like to be talked to as if we are a child. we are not children and have been deciding our own affairs since 1783! I think we're doing quite well for only being in exsistence for over 200 years.



He actually has said don't vote for Bush! Just not in those terms! LOL! The British paper was trying to influence this election and the people of Ohio told them to go away.

Rome was doing excellent after 200 years as well. Unfortunately, they only lasted a total of 900 years or so. I love America, being an American myself, though I'd hate to see such a tragedy repeated because of the corruption inherent in the governmental system being swollen to monumental proportions (like hell bush doesn't give goodies to his corporate buddies). However, humanity has a strange way of always being able to recover, and as such, no matter what happens to the US, as long as there is not a matter of xenocide that happens (AKA WW3 - nuclear style) things will recover. That is, of course, assuming that nothing along the lines of 1984 happens, which is entirely a possibility considering the level of technology we have risen to acquire.

Last thing I'm going to say: 4 years is 4 years. Bush may be able to royally F things up, but there will always be a way to recover. And for those of you going nuts about the religious right, remember that the Enlightenment in the 1700's managed to shake off religious fanaticism and take an objective look at things, so there's entirely the possibility of that happening again.

God is dead, and I have killed him.
-Nietzsche

P.S. Feel free to quote me for others, but don't bother responding to me personally.

Try reading the other half.

I'd prefer it if you'd explain what you mean when you write:

"Yes, I support kerry, though I don't really care. I don't plan on being in the country either way, navy with kerry, or french foreign legion with bush. Maturity has nothing to do with helping a political side in an election."

What does it mean?

THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS HAVE SPENT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROTECTING THE PEOPLES OF THE EU, AND WHAT DO WE GET IN RETURN. BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL, BETRAYAL. I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR COUNTRY, THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, AND I KNOW WHY THEY LEFT.

MAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TOOTH CAPPED. I UNDERSTAND IT TAKES AT LEAST 18 MONTHS FOR YOUR GREAT MEDICAL SERVICES TO GET AROUND TO YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY.
Harlan, Kentucky


Wish I could be that persons friend.

Pimp: we have spent all that. Not to protect the EU but to ultimately buy and conquer it. Whos troops are in whos country(s) now? Whos social norms and pop culture now dominate? What wall fell?

Not the USA's
;)

The reason why a lot of Americans are upset in those responses in because the Founding Fathers didnt want foreigners interfering with US elections in anyway. Its the whole reason why there will never be a President Schwarzenegger we dont want foreigners running for or choosing who becomes our President. Many people view others folks writing to them through email telling them who to vote, or through regular mail who to vote for as spam, especially if its from another country. Americans generally dont like to have their lives be intruded upon by folks who they dont know. So while they'll be more receptive to say their local newsreporter you get someone from the UK trying to suggest who they should vote for and frankly thats gonna touch a nerve in many who feel the US should have nothing to do with the rest of the planet. Frankly I dont care who the Guardian was supporting its wrong to be so intrusive(and no peoples arguements over the US influencing the elections of others does not mean a damn thing to me.) with something people actually hold dear. Going back to my little aside though, the US is doing what it must to keep certain nations from spiraling out of control once more. To bad we've fallen asleep on Haiti..they could really use help again. Or better yet armed troops into the Daffur(sp?) region of Sudan..Oh well.

Also Spoffin, you doubt any American newspaper covered any foreign election? Well thats funny, you've never picked up the NY Times then have you? Of course you havent otherwise you wouldnt have made such a stupid comment.

Also to the person who mentioned what the New York Morning Journal did during the Spanish American war..exactly how did that influence a foreign election? I thought that had more to do with influencing US public opinion for the attacking of Spain in retaliation to whatever happened to the BB Maine in Havana harbor.

I'm sure you are equally as critical of George W. Bush and Co. interfering in Australia's recent election when Dubya and Cheney openly supported Conservative John Howard and publicly criticized Labor's Mark Latham.

I'm sure you are equally as critical of George W. Bush and Co. interfering in Australia's recent election when Dubya and Cheney openly supported Conservative John Howard and publicly criticized Labor's Mark Latham.

and George's good friend John Howard effectively endorsed his friend to return the favour. I wonder if any Americans are going to criticize him? Of course not, he's a winner.

I'm sure you are equally as critical of George W. Bush and Co. interfering in Australia's recent election when Dubya and Cheney openly supported Conservative John Howard and publicly criticized Labor's Mark Latham.

However there is a difference between political leaders critizing political leaders of other nations, and starting a grassroots campaign movement to support one candidate over the other. Thats commonplace in world politics. If Bush and Cheney went to Australia, or wrote Australians to vote for John Howard then that would be out of line entirely. However endorsing one guy over the other through media is different and happens all the time.

Then again I dont think he should have done it. I'm all in favor of withdrawing US troops from around the globle, maintaining only trade ties, and allowing the world to spiral into the 7th level of hell as long as it doesnt involve the US. Traditional isolationist to the extreme.

Last thing I'm going to say: 4 years is 4 years. Bush may be able to royally F things up, but there will always be a way to recover. And for those of you going nuts about the religious right, remember that the Enlightenment in the 1700's managed to shake off religious fanaticism and take an objective look at things, so there's entirely the possibility of that happening again.

God is dead, and I have killed him.
-Nietzsche

P.S. Feel free to quote me for others, but don't bother responding to me personally.

Bush may be a Christian, but there's nothing his administration has done that suggests Christians should support him. What has Bush done for his core Christian supporters? Given them a few Federal judges who are Christian conservatives. Nothing else whatsover.

The GOP - the people who lead it that is - is a corporate-dominated, globalist, pro-empire outfit that has no real respect for the people who vote for it. They take them completely for granted.

Outsourcing of jobs is okay with the GOP. Running up massive trade deficits with communist China is also okay. Both result in the destruction of the manufacturing base of this country, but the supply-siders who dominate the GOP say that that's okay too. We'll benefit in the long term.

Huge amounts of legal and illegal immigration, that drives down wages for the lower-middle class - many of whom live in southern states and are conservatives - is fine according to Bush. I could go on for ever about how the GOP betrays the people who support it. And they portray Kerry as the liberal bogeyman who, if elected, will make things worse. Worse that what?

Kerry is just like Bush - same on immigration, same on Iraq, same on economic globalization and free-trade, same on NAFTA... The difference between the candidates is tiny.

Kerry is just like Bush - same on immigration, same on Iraq, same on economic globalization and free-trade, same on NAFTA... The difference between the candidates is tiny.

They are both assy limeholes.

*post chopping mine*

Let me rephrase that. Kerry *is* different to Bush on Iraq. Kerry now disagrees with the motivation for the war - even though as a senator he voted for it - but he wants to put more troops there to "get the job done".

It seems that Bush - or rather some of the people who control Bush, because Bush is just a mindless cypher - wants to get us out of Iraq sooner rather than later.

Well, given that I have, and its impossible to prove a negative like yours, then shall we just accept that I'm correct?


I've seen Martians and since you can't prove that I haven't should we assume I'm correct?

Sorry, that was hyperbole. I have nothing against Liverpool, I just wanted to move past that bit and show him his arguement was stupid.


Um...no...you've done no such thing.

I'll make it really simple for those of us in the cheap seats: go into any room, tell any group of people (particularly those of another nationality) whom to vote for, and you will get a certain percentage of hostile responses (aside- perhaps this is because it is arrogant to assume citizens of one country aren't competent enough to vote for president without the two pence--or Euros-- of another. No inference, no conclusion, nothing can be drawn from this. It should be expected. The hostile answers were for entertainment purposes only.

Many, many americans are. The constant spin that both parties puts out makes it hard to know any fact. You have to dig deep to find truth.

This is contradictory...are we stupid or are we just spun silly. Which is it? Enlighten me! And I'm sure that the Brits have done the digging required to know the truth. Please inform us benighted Americans!

If these swing state people dont want to hear another side, they can delete the letters. I would like it if someone sent me information on something I wasn't sure about, even if it was a partisan source. I like being well informed. Some people don't care; They can hit delete. This is a good tribute for those who do want to hear, but aren't interested in doing tons of searching.

Obviously you don't live in a "swing state" because if you did...you'd get to hear "the other side" almost constantly. You can't turn to any form of media without hearing the "other side". So, English letters to Ohio citizens just adds one more voice to the din, albeit with a touch of hubris.

This is amazing, an American who appreciates Brit humour!

My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio

You know, if the roles were reversed, and the Guardian was supporting Bush at the expense of Kerry, you'd all be on opposite sides of the argument.
I already admitted that. Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

I only use the free speech spiel against people who say they have "no right" to tell people how to vote.

Also Spoffin, you doubt any American newspaper covered any foreign election? Well thats funny, you've never picked up the NY Times then have you? Of course you havent otherwise you wouldnt have made such a stupid comment.
No, no I fully admit, I have never read the New York Times, but given that the circulation in my area is, to say the least, minimal, I'm not too ashaed about that.

I am however aware of what some commentators call a "magic trick" that any foreigners can do upon arriving in America: Pick up a newspaper, and see your country disappear. Maybe it is too extreme to suggest that no US newspaper has EVER covered a foreign election

I've seen Martians and since you can't prove that I haven't should we assume I'm correct?:rolleyes:

"A lot of brits need to do this kind of thing now they don't have the empire anymore. They like to act all morally superior to everyone else so they can carry on the illusion that they are the most special people on the planet. Fortunately most brits aren't like that and are actually quite nice people, it's just the vocal minority at who read the guardian. (But frankly I don't believe that its ever really been a serious newspaper anyway.)"

What is this obsession with ancient history? And, actually, the Guardian is probably the most rabid detractor of Empire in British public life.

"The WW1 and WW2 issue was just an aside. But just to say that it's widely recognized that without American intervention Britain would have been doomed in the long term in both world wars. But that's not what I am talking about. "

Which is just as well, since it is entirely irrelevent.


"Maybe so but they are trying to influence voters to vote against Bush! To me that i trying to tell people how to vote. Since it is British, its meaningless. The American People will vote for whom they want not because some British newspaper tells them to vote, or anyone else for that matter. "

Are you saying that "The American People" are all so set in their views that they are incapable of appreciating another point of view? Surely rational discussion is a good thing, no matter the source.

No, no I fully admit, I have never read the New York Times, but given that the circulation in my area is, to say the least, minimal, I'm not too ashaed about that.

I am however aware of what some commentators call a "magic trick" that any foreigners can do upon arriving in America: Pick up a newspaper, and see your country disappear. Maybe it is too extreme to suggest that no US newspaper has EVER covered a foreign election
Spoffin, I am not attacking you.
However, There are over 1000 respectable newspapers in the United States.
SO first the field must be narrowed to national rags. Before I do this however I will address my local Major News Papers: The Detroit News, and The Detroit FreePress.
The coverage of Canadian politics is common in these two papers, as Canada is so close(geographically/financially/socially) to my area.

While I lived in Tucson Arizona the local papers were very active in the coverage of Mexican politics- as well the coverage of the Zapatistas(who are never mentioned in Michigan papers) and Mexican politics get mentioned in Michigan papers as a result of several auto plants in the Mexican nation.

Now back to National rags.
Washington Post--Excellent foreign services department.
New York Times--I have bad taste in my mouth for their particular bias.
The Wall Street will run Global Political issues and it doing so is common place.
Now these are more respectable papers (commonly) refered to.
The average American more then likly sees the National rag: USATODAY, which everytime I have ever picked it up devotes pages to foreign news.
That of course is the written press.
Radio we rely mostly on NPR to hook us up with the BBC and its own foreign correspondents.
Television...well i dont really have anything good to say about television save for CSPAN.
I understand completely the assumption that American Press doesnt cover foreign issues--the case truly is that like the average Brit, the Average American is more worried about our own problems.
I see no reason for you to blasted for making such an assumption, however now that it has been corrected, tell people to pick a NYTimes,WshPost,WSJ,or USATODAY--dont say thatthe American press doesnt cover it.
Thanks.

Are you saying that "The American People" are all so set in their views that they are incapable of appreciating another point of view? Surely rational discussion is a good thing, no matter the source.


Which is fine, but most people in England - and the Guardian especially - do not really understand enough about the US political system or issues to offer a useful viewpoint.

It's like an American giving advice to the french about their godawful choice of leader.

In any event the Guardain is rabidly anti-US, as evidenced by Charlotte "viscious twat" Raven's oh so timely "A Bully with a Bloody Nose is Still a Bully" Column. Granted in may have had a point, but the week after Sept. 11 2001, was hardly the time to publish it. So I don't think any advice from a Guardian reader is suspect.

Which is fine, but most people in England - and the Guardian especially - do not really understand enough about the US political system or issues to offer a useful viewpoint.

It's like an American giving advice to the french about their godawful choice of leader.

In any event the Guardain is rabidly anti-US, as evidenced by Charlotte "viscious twat" Raven's oh so timely "A Bully with a Bloody Nose is Still a Bully" Column. Granted in may have had a point, but the week after Sept. 11 2001, was hardly the time to publish it. So I don't think any advice from a Guardian reader is suspect.

Or how about this humdinger in The Guardian:

"Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, sniggering, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5045652-113623,00.html

Suggesting that the US President should be assasinated? Now that's class...errr crass? Should this clown be considered representative?

It's a joke.
I thought quite an amusing, if not particularly subtle, one.
Perhaps you don't find it particularly funny, but that's your opinion.
If you don't like it, don't read it.

when a fellow Liberal (tony blair) supposedly did the same?
Tony Blair isn't a liberal.

It's a joke.
I thought quite an amusing, if not particularly subtle, one.
Perhaps you don't find it particularly funny, but that's your opinion.
If you don't like it, don't read it.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my post. If you are, that defense is asinine.

:gundge:

I don't see why.
Different people have different kinds of humour.
Some people appreciate humour that other people could call crude or crass.
I assume there are people that find that above quote amusing, and so leave them to it.
It is a harmless, mildly amusing statement about which I've seen people kicking up a storm for no real reason.

I don't see why.
Different people have different kinds of humour.
Some people appreciate humour that other people could call crude or crass.
I assume there are people that find that above quote amusing, and so leave them to it.
It is a harmless, mildly amusing statement about which I've seen people kicking up a storm for no real reason.

I frankly don't see much attempt at humor. It's just lambasting Bush. And then hoping for an assasin should he win a second term. Should more than a statistically insignificant portion of the British population find an unjoke about assasinating a US president, I shall pronounce Montey Python, AbFab, and Benny Hill DOA.

Besides, where are the telltale signs opf humor...no pun, no irony...nothing! Just an idiotic statement by a person who really isn't that funny. *Kerry is a tree, but in a fight between a Bush and a tree you know which one I'd pick* HARDEEHAR

Maybe that's why I don't recognize it as a joke- the author isn't even remotely funny.

Which is fine, but most people in England - and the Guardian especially - do not really understand enough about the US political system or issues to offer a useful viewpoint.

Bollocks we don't. Many of ours know more about your own system than many, many of yours.


It's like an American giving advice to the french about their godawful choice of leader.


There's no law against opinions...well, not yet.

I've seen Martians and since you can't prove that I haven't should we assume I'm correct?

I am the King of Mars. If you've seen Martians you can tell me what we look like. :D

Bollocks we don't. Many of ours know more about your own system than many, many of yours..

And how did the British people become such experts on the US election system? I'm sure it was required reading in grammar school ;)

I am the King of Mars. If you've seen Martians you can tell me what we look like. :D

They are green with nothing but molars for teeth. They also have a fondness of Jerry Lewis, which non-Matians could never understand.

Well, Friedmanville, I don't see there's anything I can do if we don't share the same sense of humour.
Monty Python thrived on such humour and Benny Hill and 'Absolutely Fabulous' are both extraordinarily tedious.
I'm not saying the author is some kind of comic genius, but he put a bit of life into what could have been an exceptionally dull article.

And how did the British people become such experts on the US election system? I'm sure it was required reading in grammar school ;)

Yeah, because secondary school History is where education ends in the UK.

They are green with nothing but molars for teeth. They also have a fondness of Jerry Lewis, which non-Matians could never understand.

Common misconception. Actually we look just like you lot (but less ugly). :D

Well, Friedmanville, I don't see there's anything I can do if we don't share the same sense of humour.
Monty Python thrived on such humour and Benny Hill and 'Absolutely Fabulous' are both extraordinarily tedious.
I'm not saying the author is some kind of comic genius, but he put a bit of life into what could have been an exceptionally dull article.

That's more or less a cop out. It was a dull rant chock full of cliche's. And then the Guardian tried to pass it off as "irony"....have they ever looked up the definitiion of irony?

And how did the British people become such experts on the US election system? I'm sure it was required reading in grammar school ;)

this amazing technology. been around for years. Called writing. You know squigles on paper? Maybe he has not directly been involved in the process, but that does not mean he is not informed about it. does it?
Maybe you should take it as a compliment that some people actually think your system is worth reading up on?

That's more or less a cop out. It was a dull rant chock full of cliche's. And then the Guardian tried to pass it off as "irony"....have they ever looked up the definitiion of irony?

Agreed. Crappy article, this one.

Common misconception. Actually we look just like you lot (but less ugly). :D

Hey now...I've seen the current male sex symbol...the football star Beckham...and he looks like a grade-A douche bag. The reason the British can lay claim to attractive is because they conquered the Irish :cool:

Hey now...I've seen the current male sex symbol...the football star Beckham...and he looks like a grade-A douche bag. The reason the British can lay claim to attractive is because they conquered the Irish :cool:

What? I'm talking about Martians, although I see how you could confuse the two.

this amazing technology. been around for years. Called writing. You know squigles on paper? Maybe he has not directly been involved in the process, but that does not mean he is not informed about it. does it?
Maybe you should take it as a compliment that some people actually think your system is worth reading up on?

You know what else is found in this technology? They keys to understanding matter. I've read a dozen articles on string theory, but that doesn't mean I know enough to lecture those who do.

It is entirely flattering, especially when I'm lectured by the people who've read a handful of articles, seen Ferenheit 911 and are not experts on our system of governance.

What? I'm talking about Martians, although I see how you could confuse the two.


Sorry....I'm still a little groggy!!!! :p

You know what else is found in this technology? They keys to understanding matter. I've read a dozen articles on string theory, but that doesn't mean I know enough to lecture those who do.

It is entirely flattering, especially when I'm lectured by the people who've read a handful of articles, seen Ferenheit 911 and are not experts on our system of governance.

are you sure that's the sum of their knowledge? considering the level of detail that is shown on some threads, there is the possibility that they might be better informed than you think.

Also if you've read some papers on string-theory, you should feel that you can contribute something. Just because there are people with more knowledge means nothing. Maybe you perspective could be useful. Don't put yourself down. LECTURE THE BASTARDS!!!!

are you sure that's the sum of their knowledge? considering the level of detail that is shown on some threads, there is the possibility that they might be better informed than you think.

Also if you've read some papers on string-theory, you should feel that you can contribute something. Just because there are people with more knowledge means nothing. Maybe you perspective could be useful. Don't put yourself down. LECTURE THE BASTARDS!!!!

Daroth, I'm sure there are a number of Brits that are knowledgable about the US system of government. I find it highly unlikely that the UK population as a whole is more educated about the goings on in our country and government than are the people who live under that government. I was repsonding to a generalization with a generalization. Furthermore, it has been my experience that the view of many Brits on this board are blindly partisan, filled with emotion and devoid of fact. For some to suggest on this board that the British people, on the whole, are more informed about US issues and US politics than are US voters I find to be completely vapid.

As for string-theory, as with US politics, most degreed physicists don't really understand it. And I understand it less, but I only have a passing interest.

It does offend my eyes to see that the only way some can wax lyrical is through the prolonged use of capital letters. I guess we may have shot ourselves in the foot with this one, having said that the votes of the Americans may cast no shadow on the outcome of these elections - all hail to the thief.

This is in reference to......?

Its a reflection...am I not allowed to contemplate?

Its a reflection...am I not allowed to contemplate?

This is a crime against humanity.

Its a reflection...am I not allowed to contemplate?

It was a question! Am I not allowed to question? :p

Daroth, I'm sure there are a number of Brits that are knowledgable about the US system of government. I find it highly unlikely that the UK population as a whole is more educated about the goings on in our country and government than are the people who live under that government. I was repsonding to a generalization with a generalization. Furthermore, it has been my experience that the view of many Brits on this board are blindly partisan, filled with emotion and devoid of fact. For some to suggest on this board that the British people, on the whole, are more informed about US issues and US politics than are US voters I find to be completely vapid.

As for string-theory, as with US politics, most degreed physicists don't really understand it. And I understand it less, but I only have a passing interest.

true the assumption would be that americans should know more about their system that non-americans. But i try never to assume.

Partisan, how so if i may ask?

It was a question! Am I not allowed to question? :p

Can you guess what this is?

Yes, and your point is. Alot of people hate illegal immigrants, I know I do and I think they should be rounded up and forced to build a massive wall across the Mexican border. But I have no problem with legal immigrants my ancestors moved here LEGALY from Ireland back in the 1820s.

Yes, and your point is. Alot of people hate illegal immigrants, I know I do and I think they should be rounded up and forced to build a massive wall across the Mexican border. But I have no problem with legal immigrants my ancestors moved here LEGALY from Ireland back in the 1820s.

What does your racism and/or xenophobia have to do with this thread?

NO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO QUESTION...he he he...

true the assumption would be that americans should know more about their system that non-americans. But i try never to assume.

Partisan, how so if i may ask?

Many who dislike Bush do so in such a blind manner, disregarding contrary evidence. This is no different than those who dislike Bush in the US, but perhaps I'm being provincial in my aggrevation. Conservatives in the US had the same stupid blind hatred of Clinton, even though Clinton accepted their agenda to some extent. The accepting of ludicrous conspiracy theories or the accepting of allegations when fairly conclusive proof to the contrary exists would be a couple symptoms I would point to.

The premise that the British understand American politics better than the Americans it more directly impacts is a statement the should be looked on with suspicion until backed up with some sort of evidence beyond "They're not doing what we would do, thus they are ignorant."

Yes, and your point is. Alot of people hate illegal immigrants, I know I do and I think they should be rounded up and forced to build a massive wall across the Mexican border. But I have no problem with legal immigrants my ancestors moved here LEGALY from Ireland back in the 1820s.

My poor eyes, they're being bombarded with offences today! Humour me, in giving me an answer to this: if you were in Cuba, or Mexico, or wherever, you had a family which you could not viably support, and you were facing a life of poverty for yourself and your children which may last generations, would you not skip the border? I wonder if empathy is becoming an archaic term these days...

The premise that the British understand American politics better than the Americans it more directly impacts is a statement the should be looked on with suspicion until backed up with some sort of evidence beyond "They're not doing what we would do, thus they are ignorant."

Also, I would add, that it reeks of the arrogance Americans are often accused of.

Bollocks we don't. Many of ours know more about your own system than many, many of yours.


That’s a ridiculous thing to say, and another example of uninformed British arrogance. I am somewhat au courant with the british educational system, and I find it highly improbable that the average brit knows more about the US political system than an US citizen.

Last I checked civics was still taught in a lot of US schools - plus school house rock explains how a bill becomes a law very nicely. On the other hand there is no such analog in the UK. And in fact most brits do not even understand their own government, never mind someone else’s

I read through the replies from that Guardian article and I thought it was great how 3 main points kept coming up.
Firstly, that the Americans had kicked the British out 200 years ago and that somehow this was still a valid arguement for ignoring that the rest of the world exists.
Secondly, that America single-handedly saved the world in both World Wars and that if they hadnt intervened, everyone would be speaking German. Newsflash, Mr. Patriot - English is a Germanic language. Not only do the British already speak "German", so do Americans. Besides, it took America 3 years to get involved involved and they only did that because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.
And thirdly, the belief that English people all have bad teeth. I dont even know where this comes from. Because they dont wear braces and retainers as much as Americans? Because they're not shallow enough to get their teeth straightened and whitened just because popular American culture says they should? Im not entirely sure why these Americans are so offended by people having natural teeth. Maybe it just makes them realise how sad and pathetic they are.
Last of all I'd like to add that calling the British "tea-drinkers" is the most pointless insult ever devised. Yes, they drink tea. Ooooh, thats so bad. They must be really evil, huh? At least they can point out America on a world map. Let's see these Americans do vica-versa.

And in fact most brits do not even understand their own government, never mind someone else’s
Of course we know how our government works:

a) George tells Tony what to do
b) Tony pushes it through parliament regardless of opposition

Simple

:D I like these ones especially...

My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio

Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI.
United States

Get your history straight
1. the only reason the colonists won independense is because you had french help. your system is built on foreing intervention
2. the guardian sent pro-bush letters, just people seem to ignore this
3. sending letters shows how much they care.
4. west point was set up as an officer training camp for a colonial army.
5. you had an empire, lots of phillipinoes and cubans died, the army wasnt on holiady there.

I dont care what you say, just say something meaningful

5. you had an empire, lots of phillipinoes and cubans died, the army wasnt on holiady there.




Remember the Maine !

Firstly, that the Americans had kicked the British out 200 years ago and that somehow this was still a valid arguement for ignoring that the rest of the world exists.Secondly, that America single-handedly saved the world in both World Wars and that if they hadnt intervened, everyone would be speaking German. Newsflash, Mr. Patriot - English is a Germanic language. Not only do the British already speak "German", so do Americans. Besides, it took America 3 years to get involved involved and they only did that because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour.
And thirdly, the belief that English people all have bad teeth. I dont even know where this comes from. Because they dont wear braces and retainers as much as Americans? Because they're not shallow enough to get their teeth straightened and whitened just because popular American culture says they should? Im not entirely sure why these Americans are so offended by people having natural teeth. Maybe it just makes them realise how sad and pathetic they are.
Last of all I'd like to add that calling the British "tea-drinkers" is the most pointless insult ever devised. Yes, they drink tea. Ooooh, thats so bad. They must be really evil, huh? At least they can point out America on a world map. Let's see these Americans do vica-versa.

All of those are ad hominem attacks and pretty worthless, unless they were involved in some sort of pissing contest.

* I think the 'bad teeth' stereotype comes from the idea that Brits do not have flouride in their drinking water, and thus get cavities easier. I could be wrong.

Of course we know how our government works:

a) George tells Tony what to do
b) Tony pushes it through parliament regardless of opposition

Simple


A) A leader always takes his orders from foreign nations...what are you? Vicci France?

B) Nothing more than the legislative process. The opposition gets to go home, cry in their milk, and develop a counter-strategy.

Get your history straight
1. the only reason the colonists won independense is because you had french help. your system is built on foreing intervention

I think 'built on' would be a gross exaggeration. 'Aided by' would be more accurate

2. the guardian sent pro-bush letters, just people seem to ignore this

I was unable to find any on The Guardian online. I'm sure the relies would've been equally interesting.

3. sending letters shows how much they care.

You're probably right, and it annoys me when my mother-in-law tells me how to raise my children. Same effect.

5. you had an empire, lots of phillipinoes and cubans died, the army wasnt on holiady there.

We propped up corrupt dictatorships...I'm not sure if that can truly be considered an empire.

Get your history straight
1. the only reason the colonists won independense is because you had french help. your system is built on foreing intervention
2. the guardian sent pro-bush letters, just people seem to ignore this
3. sending letters shows how much they care.
4. west point was set up as an officer training camp for a colonial army.
5. you had an empire, lots of phillipinoes and cubans died, the army wasnt on holiady there.

I dont care what you say, just say something meaningful
I direct you (since you're so interested in getting history "straight") to this site. (http://www.americanrevolution.com/Timeline.htm)

Notice just how many critical battles and victories there are before the treaty with France. I argue that while the French involvement was the turning point in the war, the Americans, before that, hadn't just been sitting on their bums, sticking pies with thumbs, pulling out plumbs, wishing they were dum-dums.

All of those are ad hominem attacks and pretty worthless, unless they were involved in some sort of pissing contest.

* I think the 'bad teeth' stereotype comes from the idea that Brits do not have flouride in their drinking water, and thus get cavities easier. I could be wrong.
I thought we did have flouride.

I might be wrong...

Daroth, I'm sure there are a number of Brits that are knowledgable about the US system of government. I find it highly unlikely that the UK population as a whole is more educated about the goings on in our country and government than are the people who live under that government. I was repsonding to a generalization with a generalization. Furthermore, it has been my experience that the view of many Brits on this board are blindly partisan, filled with emotion and devoid of fact. For some to suggest on this board that the British people, on the whole, are more informed about US issues and US politics than are US voters I find to be completely vapid.

As for string-theory, as with US politics, most degreed physicists don't really understand it. And I understand it less, but I only have a passing interest.
Oh, sorry. See all this time I was taking you seriously. I realise you're actually just trolling. My mistake.

I thought we did have flouride.

I might be wrong...


It might just be BS. Or maybe it was once true but is now BS.

Oh, sorry. See all this time I was taking you seriously. I realise you're actually just trolling. My mistake.

How do you figure I was 'trolling'?

Oh, sorry. See all this time I was taking you seriously. I realise you're actually just trolling. My mistake.


Okay...here's what wiki has to say...

On the Internet, troll is a slang term used to describe:

*A person who makes posts (on newsgroups or other forums) that are solely intended to incite controversy or conflict, or cause annoyance or offense.

*A post that is intended to incite controversy or cause offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)

Under these definitions, any discussion of religion or politics could be considered trolling.

I think that it's probably a bit counter productive to try interfering in American politics. I'm inclined to agree that the elections aren't any of our business. Though the morons could have not resorted to pathetic stereotypes. All I'm interested in is the UK pulling out of Iraq, then the outcome of the US election is completely irrelevant to us.

Oh, sorry. See all this time I was taking you seriously. I realise you're actually just trolling. My mistake.

I don't believe you should even comment on this topic until you actually read an american newspaper.

You know nothing about the US, other than what the Guardian tells you to believe. And as most Americans know Winston Churchill -the greatest Englishman of the 20th century - specifically disparged the Guardian, and its readers, in his seminal work, The Gathering Storm. (He also disapproved of the Mail, as do I.)

I thought we did have flouride.

I might be wrong...

Fluoridation of water isn't particularly beneficial as far as prevention of dental caries goes, and, in fact, causes damage to teeth (fluorosis) in approximately 10% of those exposed. In all, I'd call a lack of fluoridation (which is spotty in the US, pretty much up to the individual municipalities) a pro, not a con.

http://www.nofluoride.com/

As one of those obnoxious reaterded Americans, I'd like to say: If you're not an American stay out of American politics. I think some of the things people said were really stupid and vulgar, and shouldn't have been said. But quite frankly, we, as Americans, will do whatever we want and don't need foreigners telling us who to vote for in our own electon.
"I'm not xenophobic, honest!" Dick

I don't believe you should even comment on this topic until you actually read an american newspaper.

You know nothing about the US, other than what the Guardian tells you to believe. And as most Americans know Winston Churchill -the greatest Englishman of the 20th century - specifically disparged the Guardian, and its readers, in his seminal work, The Gathering Storm. (He also disapproved of the Mail, as do I.)
Anyone with eyes disparages the Mail. Your discernment is nothing special.

Does the Durango Herald (I think it was that) count as an American Paper? How about the Crawford Iconoclast?

I don't believe you should even comment on this topic until you actually read an american newspaper.

You know nothing about the US, other than what the Guardian tells you to believe. And as most Americans know Winston Churchill -the greatest Englishman of the 20th century - specifically disparged the Guardian, and its readers, in his seminal work, The Gathering Storm. (He also disapproved of the Mail, as do I.)
Because we all know that you can be English without being British.
That the Guardian still has the same team of journalists working for it.
And that it only provides hear say and misinformation about the US :rolleyes:

The Grauniad are well-known lefties, of course, so while they aren't explicitly telling people "vote Kerry", it wouldn't come as a surprise if they preferred him to Bush. I find it very odd that they're going to such lengths to encourage their readers to tell the Americans this, and I have difficulty understanding exactly why. Being a UK paper, the final political and moral situation won't really affect them, and the only influence I can immediately see is an economic one. Their main rival is the Times, with Rupert Murdoch as proprietor - Murdoch obviously also runs the fair and balanced Fox News along with everything else in his empire, and is a noted Republican sympathiser. But if it IS to do with building up their fan base in opposition to the Murdoch Empire, then they've got a damn funny way of going about it.

I simply don't believe they're doing it because they think it's doing the right thing for democracy or something. There must be some kind of economic benefit behind it all. But what?

I simply don't believe they're doing it because they think it's doing the right thing for democracy or something.
The Guardian are strongly anti-Bush. I don't agree with what they did, but they feel that another 4 years of him will be damaging to the world.

The Guardian are strongly anti-Bush. I don't agree with what they did, but they feel that another 4 years of him will be damaging to the world.

Still it's taking things a bit far, even for the Guardian. They usually stick to producing articles that are a bit difficult for the people they don't approve of. It's a different approach they've taken this time, that's for sure. And a very odd one.

Fluoridation of water isn't particularly beneficial as far as prevention of dental caries goes, and, in fact, causes damage to teeth (fluorosis) in approximately 10% of those exposed. In all, I'd call a lack of fluoridation (which is spotty in the US, pretty much up to the individual municipalities) a pro, not a con.

http://www.nofluoride.com/
Absolutely. Dental flourosis ("mottled enamel") is a very damaging and (relatively) widespread problem in areas which flouridate water. As high-minded as the thought is, it still isn't practicable without increasing occurences of this socially-hurtful syndrome.

what will the right come up with next? i got it...bush is jesus, kerry is satan.

right-wing nuts

I must say, as a Brit, I found this highly amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

Funny how many of the obviously retarded Americans replying with abuse don't seem to understand that they're just reinforcing stereotypes that all Republican voters are obnoxious, abusive, xenophobic idiots.

I shouldn't want to judge all Brits by one; or even by a selection taken from their loony left. I've known some very charming & likable Brits.

Of course, the ones that I know, are mostly naturalized US citizens now; smart people, those.

My best to the Queen. :cool:

well i guess not all republicans are obnoxious idiots...there are a couple out there...i hope

I don't believe you should even comment on this topic until you actually read an american newspaper.

You know nothing about the US, other than what the Guardian tells you to believe. And as most Americans know Winston Churchill -the greatest Englishman of the 20th century - specifically disparged the Guardian, and its readers, in his seminal work, The Gathering Storm. (He also disapproved of the Mail, as do I.)
Okay, sure, what the hell. I'll take you on in a short answer quiz, american history, politics and government. We'll find an objective way of proving whether or not I know nothing.

Fluoridation of water isn't particularly beneficial as far as prevention of dental caries goes, and, in fact, causes damage to teeth (fluorosis) in approximately 10% of those exposed. In all, I'd call a lack of fluoridation (which is spotty in the US, pretty much up to the individual municipalities) a pro, not a con.

http://www.nofluoride.com/That looks like one of those dodgy science sites.

The Grauniad are well-known lefties, of course, so while they aren't explicitly telling people "vote Kerry", it wouldn't come as a surprise if they preferred him to Bush. I find it very odd that they're going to such lengths to encourage their readers to tell the Americans this, and I have difficulty understanding exactly why. Being a UK paper, the final political and moral situation won't really affect them, and the only influence I can immediately see is an economic one. Their main rival is the Times, with Rupert Murdoch as proprietor - Murdoch obviously also runs the fair and balanced Fox News along with everything else in his empire, and is a noted Republican sympathiser. But if it IS to do with building up their fan base in opposition to the Murdoch Empire, then they've got a damn funny way of going about it.

I simply don't believe they're doing it because they think it's doing the right thing for democracy or something. There must be some kind of economic benefit behind it all. But what?Well, it could just be that someone thought it was an interesting article.

A) A leader always takes his orders from foreign nations...what are you? Vicci France?
So who does Georgy Boy take orders from? Apart from his dad? You'll notice that Britain is technically more attached to Europe than the US. The rest of Europe say no, but Blair does it anyway.

Who's Vicci France?

B) Nothing more than the legislative process. The opposition gets to go home, cry in their milk, and develop a counter-strategy.
I was talking about the million or so protestors who crowded London to demonstrate against the war (before it began). Now you see, Britain claims to be one of those Democracy things, where it's MPs' take into account the views of their constituents and act accordingly, voicing the constituents views in parliament and thereby (in theory) influencing the decision of the Dictator.. er.. Prime Minister.

On top of that Blair likes to push tiny little issues through parliament using the Parliamentary rule/law/something or other. See the soon-to-be ban on foxhunting. The parliamentary law/wojj/thingummy should be used as an emergency measure in cases of the utmost importance.

you mean the parliament act, where if acted upon makes a proposition a law avoiding the house of lords...

you mean the parliament act, where if acted upon makes a proposition a law avoiding the house of lords...
that be the one, thanks. And as the conservatives are a little stupid and Labour are just trying to hit the upper classes it's going to go through, even though the HoL are proposing a fairly good compromise (aren't they?).

Wonder why there's no fox-hunting thread round here. Of course.. half of NS users have never seen wildlife!! :D

well i guess not all republicans are obnoxious idiots...there are a couple out there...i hope

...there are a couple out there who make the rest of the obnoxious idiots seem positively erudite by comparison...mostly 'cause of the drool they haven't yet licked off their hospital gowns.

My grandfather fought in the Second World War. He was in the US Army artillary. When I was a kid, he told me a story about a time he and a buddy were in Sicily. They were at an outdoor cafe drinking coffee when a couple of British soldiers walked by. His, buddy, who didn't like the look on the British soldiers faces, got up and started swinging. My grandfather got up and jumped into the fight and they beat the shit out of the two Brits. Afterward, he and his buddy were busted down to privates. He laughed his ass off when he told this story. I didn't understand why it was so funny to him. The British, after all, are our allies. After reading about the British letter writing campaign, I now find that story very funny.

The general consensus in the world is that Americans arent a bad lot, but a few of them are complete idiots and as such the US is endowed with a supreme arrogance treating other nations like dirt. While I realise that not all Americans are bad and infact thyey have a reputation for being nice.

After reading your story I can understand why people think very little of Americans however.

I mean the guardian. Its lto newspapers as scream is to horror movies. Its nearly there and like them at points, but there are certain things that make it little more than a parody.

Sadly its one of the more intellegent UK newspapers... :(

Tunnel-visioned mouthbreathers, all.

I don't believe you should even comment on this topic until you actually read an american newspaper.

You know nothing about the US, other than what the Guardian tells you to believe. And as most Americans know Winston Churchill -the greatest Englishman of the 20th century - specifically disparged the Guardian, and its readers, in his seminal work, The Gathering Storm. (He also disapproved of the Mail, as do I.)
Do you have any idea what a pretentious twat you sound like when you make the statement "(Churchill) also disapproved of the Mail, as do I"? I mean, really? Do you know? Whether intended or not, by making such statements you're making comparisons (and infering their greatness on yourself) between yourself and famous ppl. Do you throw such snippets into every day speech as well?
As a bit of advice, you shouldn't do it. It just makes you look magniloquent and pompous (as my dear friend Oscar Wilde would no doubt say - if he wasn't dead).

The only bloody reason the Guardian came up with the idea was so that it could get the kind of unpleasant response it did and justify it's anti-american stereotypes. Passive/aggressive propaganda... the world has a new horror.

Also, to all those equating Guardian readers with British citizens... nope. ;) Heh heh heh...

Oh yeah, and who says we ain't proud of our Empire? Sour grapes impresses no-one... just because we lost it, we shouldn't say it wasn't great while it lasted.

I find this funny, especcaly the Americans still bringing up the revelotionary war. Thats was many, many years ago yet still you bring it up, why?

And the sterotypes, there funny as well, especcally the one about tea sipping noses. And the one about us betraying you. Ah well, it's given me a laugh at least, and to those americans who wrote letters of support, thanks.

So who does Georgy Boy take orders from? Apart from his dad? You'll notice that Britain is technically more attached to Europe than the US. The rest of Europe say no, but Blair does it anyway.

Who's Vicci France?

Georgy boy takes orders from nobody. He is held accountable by the American electorate. We will see what they think come Tuesday.


I was talking about the million or so protestors who crowded London to demonstrate against the war (before it began). Now you see, Britain claims to be one of those Democracy things, where it's MPs' take into account the views of their constituents and act accordingly, voicing the constituents views in parliament and thereby (in theory) influencing the decision of the Dictator.. er.. Prime Minister.

You stated that the MPs are supposed to take into account the view of the electorate. I agree. I'm sure they do. But that doesn't mean that they have to follow the majority opinion of the electorate. As a general statement, leadership does not necessarily require popular support of a policy. Some might argue more leadership is shown when going against popular opinion. In the US, had Lincoln gone with what was popular there never would have been a civil war. Not all, but the vast majority of people and historians believe Lincoln was right in what he did, despite some serious civil liberties infringements that make the PATRIOT ACT pale in comparison.

On top of that Blair likes to push tiny little issues through parliament using the Parliamentary rule/law/something or other. See the soon-to-be ban on foxhunting. The parliamentary law/wojj/thingummy should be used as an emergency measure in cases of the utmost importance.

What is the difference between parliamentary law and any other piece of legislation? Why is it undemocratic? Please expand....

...

What is the difference between parliamentary law and any other piece of legislation? Why is it undemocratic? Please expand....

The Parliament Act is a quirk of our stupid (non-existent) constitution.

The House of Commons (elected) debates a bill (putative legislation). It goes to the House of Lords (unelected) for another debate. If the Lords reject the bill, it goes back to the House of Commons for further debate, deletion and/or amendment. And so it goes on. If it gets rejected by the Lords twice (I think), the House of Commons can vote to invoke the Parliament Bill to tell the Lords where they can shove their rejection, and the Bill becomes law.

Stupid but necessary, given our system.

(Stupid House of Lords!)

The poster was probably referring to the bill outlawing bloodsports that is currently, painfully, making its way through through Parliament. The Lords keep rejecting it, on the grounds they enjoy baiting poor people or something, and the Commons may well be about to invoke the Parliament Act to make it illegal to bait poor people. Or at least it'll be illegal with hounds. Or something.

....

I simply don't believe they're doing it because they think it's doing the right thing for democracy or something. There must be some kind of economic benefit behind it all. But what?

Nope. The Guardian is owned by a not-for-profit trust. If the journalist who wrote the article behind the campaign is to be believed, it started as an amusing idea down the pub and turned into a space filler. And then turned into a REALLY big space filler.

Nope. The Guardian is owned by a not-for-profit trust. If the journalist who wrote the article behind the campaign is to be believed, it started as an amusing idea down the pub and turned into a space filler. And then turned into a REALLY big space filler.

Just because a publication is non-profit, doesn't mean that it isn't shilling for a certain point of view. In the US, Harper's is nonprofit, but it is propped up by the McCaurther Foundation which happens to be seriously lefty and that is reflected in its stories and its covoluted theories about American conservatism.

Nope. The Guardian is owned by a not-for-profit trust. If the journalist who wrote the article behind the campaign is to be believed, it started as an amusing idea down the pub and turned into a space filler. And then turned into a REALLY big space filler.

surely that makes it more likely its politically driven?

Just because a publication is non-profit, doesn't mean that it isn't shilling for a certain point of view. In the US, Harper's is nonprofit, but it is propped up by the McCaurther Foundation which happens to be seriously lefty and that is reflected in its stories and its covoluted theories about American conservatism.

surely that makes it more likely its politically driven?

Don't know about more likely - that would depend on the terms of the trust, which I don't know in The Guardian's case. Traditionally, the paper has been more liberal in the UK sense, which is to say centrist on economics and progressive on social policy, so I suspect the trust itself is apolitical and was simply established to maintain the newspaper's independance.

The paper used to support the the Liberal Party, which was then in the centre of UK politics. The perceived 'leftist' slant arose as a consequence of the eighties, when the vast majority of the national press swung sharply to the right. The paper became something of a refuge for journalists and opinions unwilling to act as cheerleaders for Thatcherism. And the perception of The Guardian as left-wing was actively encouraged by New Labour following their election in 1997 when it became the first of its ex-supporters to voice scepticism about their administration. It suited Blair's PR strategy to be seen as being attacked from the left. So, while such perceptions can become self-perpetuating as new employees are drawn to the brand image, I would say that The Guardian is better characterised as independant, bloody minded, or a bunch of professional whingers (according to taste).

Anyhoo ... my point wasn't about political agendas, but economics. TPLAC suggested the Guardian sought some kind of economic benefit from the Ohio campaign, which I took to mean the profit motive. That wouldn't apply in The Guardian's case, because they can't make a profit. That's all.

(My personal suspicion, based on reading the journalist's post-hoc analysis of the campaign and its effects, is that the motive was mildly irresponsible, though amusing, mischief making. One part wind-up to one part serious intent, mixed with several parts under-estimation of the extent to which the campaign would take off.)

The poster was probably referring to the bill outlawing bloodsports that is currently, painfully, making its way through through Parliament. The Lords keep rejecting it, on the grounds they enjoy baiting poor people or something, and the Commons may well be about to invoke the Parliament Act to make it illegal to bait poor people. Or at least it'll be illegal with hounds. Or something.
Unfortunately that's also the main belief of our ruling party. Well, with foxes more than poor people. Although the last couple of Big Issues I've bought have smelt scarily of rabbit's blood. Maybe that's why the government encourage homeless people to have dogs...

You see the reality of the subject is that while a hunt itself consists of maybe twenty posh people, in pretty red jackets and stupid trousers, and a couple of thousand hounds to make sure of the kill, the staff behind a hunt are far more numerous. By banning foxhunting the government is in effect killing off numerous jobs for every hunt. Jobs which are occupied by the average person who just happened to live in the country.

Remember the demonstration? Weren't many posh people there. There was the odd one who got slapped on the head by a copper and fell to the floor screaming. The majority were just ordinary people who happened to have jobs connected with foxhunting. So, well done Labour. You're soon going to be terminating the employment of many, many people. And I don't think they'll be voting for you..

Anyhoo ... my point wasn't about political agendas, but economics. TPLAC suggested the Guardian sought some kind of economic benefit from the Ohio campaign, which I took to mean the profit motive. That wouldn't apply in The Guardian's case, because they can't make a profit. That's all.

Indeed. Being generally ignorant about the proprietorship of such rags, I had no idea that the Grauniad was a charitable organisation, rather than a powerhouse of creeping capitalism like the rest of Fleet Street. :D I think your final conclusion of "Idea that was born over a few lunchtime pints of Newcastle down at the Laughing Ferret that got a bit out of control" is the best one. Being a bit of a Dave Spart, I have a tendency to see conspiracies lurking behind every paragraph I read.

So, well done Labour. You're soon going to be terminating the employment of many, many people. And I don't think they'll be voting for you..
You can't please anybody if you're a government, you know. On one hand you've got people saying "nobody ortn't to be goin down a mine in this day an' age!" and on the other people saying "oi work here, yer know!"
A similar argument, I surmise, only the banning of fox-hunting is unlikely to be quite as extreme as the closing of the mines and shipyards.

Before any of you old blokes correct me on my history, please remember I'm a youngin and don't remember the Red Baroness, except from the scary tales me mam used to send me to bed with when I'd been naughty.

...

Before any of you old blokes correct me on my history, please remember I'm a youngin and don't remember the Red Baroness, except from the scary tales me mam used to send me to bed with when I'd been naughty.

*Shudders at the thought of the damage your old ma might have done to your burgeoning sexuality.*