NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe that we can now say that "The Guardian" helped George Bush win this election. Writing Ohio voters to vote against Bush was an exceptionally bad idea. As has been pointed out enough times on these forums, Americans don't take european criticism very well. In fact, I believe that it only helped to show Kerry to be a cog in the multinational socialist machine that he is. Between those Ohio voters who rallied around a president under attack, those who were pissed at europeans and the UN for their attempts at influencing the election, and those who were finally enlightened to Kerry's status as something akin to "The Manchurian Candidate", I'd dare say that practically no Ohioans were convinced by the Guardians readers to vote against Bush, but at least tens of thousands reacted negatively and were swayed towards Bush. (having an editorial advocating Bush's assassination certainly didn't help there) Without their interference, Kerry might have taken Ohio, or at least Ohio may well have voted within reach of the Provisional Ballots. In hindsight, pissing off many thousands of Ohio voters was pretty stupid. That Liberal elitists are more intelligent is debatable, but they are undoubtedly too clever by half.
Thank You, The Guardian! :p

Your post suggests that Americans are simple-minded and reactionary. If anyone would base their vote for George Bush (of all people) on something as simple as criticism by Europeans, they deserve PRECISELY the type of leader we just elected.

But then, isn't that exactly what Carl Rove and Bush Administration counted on?

It would only take a measly 150k out of all Ohioans to be "simple minded and reactionary" to make what I said true, would it not?

I believe that we can now say that "The Guardian" helped George Bush win this election...
Most Extreme Left Europeans were softly denouncing Bush Policies in Public...BUT secretely wished Bush to Stay at the White house...To finish the Job...they see him destroying the American empire...

Maybe the Guardian is extreme left too...
so yes indeed they helped Bush...just like Ossama did.

The Guardian is at best a very central left paper, the article 'advocating assanation' was a tongue in cheek joke 'irony' I love how some Americans view anything not conservative as 'far left' in the big scheme of things Kerry is a central liberal, by no means a socialist. There is not a single 'far left' governemnt in Europe, but a mix of centre left or centre right governments. The only political difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that while Kerry advocated choice Bush desires to impose his zealous christian beliefs on to the world. The nature of a 2 party system means that your are going to have 2 parties that are very very close to each other politically

True, americans thinks that everything that is not right-wing capitalism to be stalinism

Kerry, a central liberal. That's too funny. Perhaps if you take his campaign personality and rhetoric to actually define him. His record in the senate defines him more truthfully. I guess when you live in or near actual (former) communist states, your definition of socialist differs.
Bush, along with anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that abortion will never be banned in the US. Can't happen, never will. Christians should get over it.

Thanks for highjacking the thread without speaking to the topic.

That's right, and people who make ignorant generalizations about "all Americans" are *far* more informed than us. I don't think Kerry is a true Socialist, but his policies just wouldn't work. That might be why he never explained them himself, but just told everyone to "check out the website". He planned for increased spending, but with no tax raise. Of course, that would equal a higher debt. But of course, he would have raised taxes, which in my opinion are high enough, since we basically spend the first four months of the year working for the money we pay the government.

I think it's human nature. Damned if I ever let somone from, say, Boston, tell me who to vote for.

1. Im from the UK

2. I said *some* Americans

3. Your entire political system is basically centre, Kerry is not a socialist by European standards which is the point I was making, that in your system he looks radical when in global terms he is most definetly not.

4. I did speak on topic as my first point was on the Guardain newspaper.

True, americans thinks that everything that is not right-wing capitalism to be stalinism

Because it is. Sheesh, can't you people get with the program.

But, the europeans generally want the democrat to be elected in America because he is the more socialist (and hence correct-thinking by their standards) candidate. And like new wives, believe that Mr. Right doesn't exist, but Mr. Close Enough can be changed. Make no mistake, Kerry was repudiated by american voters due to his willingness to let america take a back seat to the UN and europe.

[QUOTE=HadesRulesMuch]I don't think Kerry is a true Socialist[QUOTE]
Of course he's not a true Socialist. Democratic Socialism is on a par with National Socialism... an idea brought forward to appeal to as many people as possible, but one that, ultimately, can't work. (Ok, so National Socialism really is a load of crap...next to it, Democratic Socialism looks like it could work). If Kerry really were a Socialist, there wouldn't even have been any point in him running - Nader would have got more votes. True Socialist governments would actually work, but for the fact they ignore human nature, especially with regard to greed. A capitalist society actually relies on this greed, which is why they work so well. And it's also human nature to ignore suffering if it's not directly affecting you - another reason why capitalism works.

Anyway, on the subject of the thread, as an English Guardian reader, I was worried that 'Operation Clark County' was doomed to failure from the start. I know exactly how I'd react if someone from another country told me how to vote. However, some of the reactions from Americans that the Guardian printed, it's hardly a surprise that so much of the world has a generalised view of Americans as coarse rednecks, with no idea of the world outside their borders.

Your post suggests that Americans are simple-minded and reactionary. If anyone would base their vote for George Bush (of all people) on something as simple as criticism by Europeans, they deserve PRECISELY the type of leader we just elected.

But then, isn't that exactly what Carl Rove and Bush Administration counted on?
Interesting take, but innacurate. There may have been a few who voted in reaction to European attempts to influence the election, and in this election every little bit helped, so in that sense it may have been true.

True, americans thinks that everything that is not right-wing capitalism to be stalinism
The problem is the Democrats have let themselves be defined by what the Republicans say they are for far too long. Therefore, the "right" moves to the "center", the "center" moves to the "left", and the "left" moves to the "far left." Simply because the Repblicans have always insisted it was true, and eventually, because the Democrats never stood up for themselves, more and more people believe it.
Kerry, a central liberal. That's too funny. Perhaps if you take his campaign personality and rhetoric to actually define him. His record in the senate defines him more truthfully.
a) see my above point
b) Kerry is ranked as slightly left of the center of the Democratic party over his Senate career. There were, I believe, 3 years when he was defined as the "most liberal" Senator. Two of those years were in his very early career. The other year, 2003, was because he was absent a lot, so they based their ranking off of certain votes he made that did not give a good overall picture of where he stands (OMGWTF Kerry never even shows up for his job!!!!oneoneone.......never mind that he was busy campaigning)

If you look at Kerry's lifetime record, it shows that he is not more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, and a few other senators. That being said, he has voted with the "conservative" viewpoint a grand total of 5% during his senate time.

The Guardian is at best a very central left paper, the article 'advocating assanation' was a tongue in cheek joke 'irony' I love how some Americans view anything not conservative as 'far left' in the big scheme of things Kerry is a central liberal, by no means a socialist. There is not a single 'far left' governemnt in Europe, but a mix of centre left or centre right governments. The only political difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that while Kerry advocated choice Bush desires to impose his zealous christian beliefs on to the world. The nature of a 2 party system means that your are going to have 2 parties that are very very close to each other politically

Advocating the assassination of the POTUS is NOT "a tongue in cheek joke." I deny that it was even intended as such. The posts on this forum, the meddling of The Guardian, and the EUropean press headlines regarding the election results, all show a EUro-trash mindset that indicates the author of that piece really meant what he said. Don't try the oldest trick in the book: "Oh, I was just joking." Yeah, right.

How is Bush attempting to "impose his zealous christian beliefs on to the world?" Please give specific examples. For extra credit, answer this question: Why do you hate Christians, and what have they ever done to hurt you?

I do not hate christians, what I dont like are people who use their beliefs and try to impose it on others, domestically on abortion and stem cell research and internationally he constantly makes comments about god when talking of the Middle East, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN BUSH'S GOD! I have no problem with religious people, in fact I respect people who make that comitment to their beliefs.
Though its worth noting that most conflicts in the world are caused by religion in one way or another. I dont hold any beliefs because I prefer to follow what can be proved, not what is written in some book.
It was a badly thought out joke, the Guardian is of simliar standing to say The New York Times or Washington Post, it is not a tabloid nor is it trash. Im not saying it was a good thing to have wrote, but he was not advocating assanination, and the paper apologised the following day.

I do not hate christians, what I dont like are people who use their beliefs and try to impose it on others, domestically on abortion and stem cell research and internationally he constantly makes comments about god when talking of the Middle East, THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN BUSH'S GOD! I have no problem with religious people, in fact I respect people who make that comitment to their beliefs.
Though its worth noting that most conflicts in the world are caused by religion in one way or another. I dont hold any beliefs because I prefer to follow what can be proved, not what is written in some book.
It was a badly thought out joke, the Guardian is of simliar standing to say The New York Times or Washington Post, it is not a tabloid nor is it trash. Im not saying it was a good thing to have wrote, but he was not advocating assanination, and the paper apologised the following day.
So what about Muslims? Aren't they attempting to "impose their beliefs" on others? They talk about their god, which is not ours. And they come right out and say they want to "convert" the entire world to the cult of death that is Islam.

BTW, I don't think Bush is doing that. Domestically, the issues you cited are decided by voters, legislators, and the courts. Bush couldn't "impose his beliefs" even if he wanted to. So, is it really Bush's supporters and their religious beliefs that offend you?

I was referring to the author of that specific piece, not The Guardian as a whole. Like I said before, everything I saw during and after the election indicates he really meant what he said about assassinating Bush. He should be fired immediately. Was he fired?

1. Im from the UK

2. I said *some* Americans

3. Your entire political system is basically centre, Kerry is not a socialist by European standards which is the point I was making, that in your system he looks radical when in global terms he is most definetly not.

4. I did speak on topic as my first point was on the Guardain newspaper.
And that is one of Europes many flaws, they believe they set the standards.