A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
So we should all vote for Bush?
Published on October 26, 2004 By Champas Socialist In Democrat
I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.

Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 31, 2004
why do you accept all the praise but not the criticism?


I accept no praise from other countries. Obviously you haven't *read* what I post. For the most part I could care less whether or not a particular country likes or hates us!
on Oct 31, 2004
I must say, as a citizen of the USA I am really, really disgusted by fellow citizen's attempts at censoring and insisting that other's shouldn't have the same right to freedom of speech we enjoy.


What drmiler said was that he didn't "...like someone ... making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion". That is freedom of speech. You say something I don't like, I say I don't like it. I say something you don't like, you say you don't like it. That's not censorship of any form.

I've heard accusations of censorship many times from the left in response to a negative reaction to their words. Someone disagreeing with you or complaining about what you said or booing you off the stage or not buying your records or movies is not censorship. Calling it so is only a poor attempt to paint those that disagree with you in a negative light.

There are always going to be some people that disagree with anything you say. Rather than trying to demonize them, you could learn to accept free speech and deal with it.
on Oct 31, 2004
>>You know I really don't like someone who isn't even from this country making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion

You know I really don't like someone who preaches free speech out one face and says stuff like this out their other face.

Is the problem you have simply that I used humour to criticise Bush instead of straight criticism? Again, I ask you what did you expect from this blog? My summary of this blog mentions Gideon's assessment of me as having a "wry sense of humour". Now I wouldn't use the word "wry" to describe myself, because I don't think I'm that funny, but I am attempting humour nonetheless and I advertise this fact. I like to engage in the arguments, and others who disagree with me have assessed me as backing my points up with facts, but that doesn't mean I won't also take the piss, because I think doing so is necessary.

It is irrelevant that I am not an American. Bush's actions have had very dramatic implications for Australians and for many other people too. In the words of Morrissey "America I love you but I wish you'd just stay where you are". Until Bush stops instigating wars that he expects my country to get involved in, until Bush stops considering himself the Sheriff of the world, until Bush stops ignoring the UN, this is what you will have to expect. I am frustrated with the policies the USA's Government has adopted because it affects the rest of the world in dramatic ways. Some people take their frustration out by making racist generalisations, others take them out by attacking you. I choose taking the piss. As the American comedian Mel Brooks says, how can your enemy attack you when they are falling over laughing?

>You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours

I didn't say you personally. I don't think you personally have the sense of humour to manage it. But Americans on both sides of politics make fun of foreign leaders all the time. So they should. I hate to break your illusions but politicians aren't Gods.
>I accept no praise from other countries.

So are you opposed to Howard's son's involvement? I didn't see you denouncing Howard's comments about Bush. Austraia is involved in the War on Terror and as such we have a right to criticise it and the man who instigated it. Have you never criticised Hitler? Saddam? Yeltsin? Gorbachev? In which case you are in the extreme minority and I think it deplorable that you do not criticise these people.

Pictoratus, I have heard the same from the Right. Our PM claims one of the best things he has done is remove the veil of politically correct censorship that existed under Hawke. Calling someone a racist is stating your disagreement and why (not very intellectually I'll grant you), not censorship. However, drmiler said this of me:

>I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.

I don't have the right? drmiler may not have the access to delete my article but he certainly implies I should be censored.
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #33 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:24:22 AM
You show me once where I have made or poked fun at you or yours

I didn't say you personally. I don't think you personally have the sense of humour to manage it. But Americans on both sides of politics make fun of foreign leaders all the time. So they should. I hate to break your illusions but politicians aren't Gods. >I accept no praise from other countries. So are you opposed to Howard's son's involvement? I didn't see you denouncing Howard's comments about Bush. Austraia is involved in the War on Terror and as such we have a right to criticise it and the man who instigated it. Have you never criticised Hitler? Saddam? Yeltsin? Gorbachev? In which case you are in the extreme minority and I think it deplorable that you do not criticise these people.


It's not that I don't have a sense of humor. I do however screwy it may be. It's that my values will not allow me to do something like that!


It is irrelevant that I am not an American. Bush's actions have had very dramatic implications for Australians and for many other people too. In the words of Morrissey "America I love you but I wish you'd just stay where you are". Until Bush stops instigating wars that he expects my country to get involved in, until Bush stops considering himself the Sheriff of the world, until Bush stops ignoring the UN, this is what you will have to expect


Nobody twisted your countries arm to "make" them join us in the war!
on Oct 31, 2004
I didn't say they twisted our arm, although comments like "you're either with us or against us" are hardly moderate attempts at persuasion. I think this is however irrelevant. As I said, America does not affect only America. My country is part of the Coalition of the Killing and I am critical of all members of the Coalition. Sorry, but it affects me. As a member of the human race I am critical of anyone who I perceive as committing offences against the human race. To restrict this to Australia argubaly would make me racist.

>It's not that I don't have a sense of humor.

I disagree. Prove it.
on Oct 31, 2004
but he certainly implies I should be censored.


Again, that is not censorship.

While I don't believe that demonizing your oponent is exclusively left wing, the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election. On the whole, the left is the PC crowd; crying wolf quite often when their beliefs are questioned. It's both intellectually weak and dishonest, no matter who takes this easy way out, rather than stand firm in the face of criticism.
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #35 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 12:49:41 AM
I didn't say they twisted our arm, although comments like "you're either with us or against us" are hardly moderate attempts at persuasion. I think this is however irrelevant. As I said, America does not affect only America. My country is part of the Coalition of the Killing and I am critical of all members of the Coalition. Sorry, but it affects me. As a member of the human race I am critical of anyone who I perceive as committing offences against the human race. To restrict this to Australia argubaly would make me racist.

>It's not that I don't have a sense of humor.

I disagree. Prove it.


I don't have to. I'm an american. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Prove that I don't. (innocent until proven guilty is the phrase I'm looking for I do believe.) Ask myrrander , or texas wahine, or Grim X, etc...
You have fallen back on a untenable position. You can't prove that I don't have a sense of humor so you expect me to prove I do. I didn't make the accusation. You did.
on Oct 31, 2004
Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship. He may not have the account access to do it, but he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.

>the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election

It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it.


drmiler, I think you just proved my point for me.
on Oct 31, 2004
Just a couple of things cuz I don't think Champ should have to battle alone. So very briefly:

I like Kerry. The man is not without his problems, but I like him.

Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both. Let's go back to his baseball days...Sammy Sosa for George Bell?!? He either didnt know what he was doing, or there was colossal "misleading intelligence." Let's look at Iraq. I have no problem going to Iraq to depose a leader such as Saddam Hussein was. However, according to Mr. Bush (see how hard I try to be civil), we went because they had WMDs. Remind me again where we found those...it appears to have slipped my mind. Iraq is clearly better off without Hussein, but would it kill Bush to say we went because of the oil. I certainly wouldn't respect him for it, but hey at least it would be honest.

On a closing note, the election is in two days, so could everyone just kindly shut up please. We'll all find out what happens, and then we can start arguing about why the world is better off and/or why it will go to hell.

That is all.
on Oct 31, 2004
he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.


I don't consider it anywhere close to censorship. Assuming what you say were to happen, what he said is still not censorship. It is an idea, a proposal, a suggestion. It is not an overt action that has denied you anything. No one has taken anyone's right away to criticize a public official.


It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it


My point was that rather than stick to the topic, in this case the suitability of the standing president, I have seen the left quite often resort to the censorship argument when faced with a negative reaction to their views. Reading the blogs here at JU, the claims of censorship have come largely, if not solely, from the left.

We have seen numerous instances of this, especially from people in the entertainment industry, who claimed that they were being censored after receiving a negative reaction to their publicly spoken views. They are equating repercussions to censorship.

Sure, there are zealots on both sides, but the Democrats are rapidly becoming the leading party in labeling and categorizing people with whom they disagree, even among their leaders.

on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #39 By: Philomedy - 10/31/2004 1:47:41 AM
Just a couple of things cuz I don't think Champ should have to battle alone. So very briefly:

I like Kerry. The man is not without his problems, but I like him.

Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both


And this is worse than being a traitor?
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #38 By: Champas Socialist - 10/31/2004 1:05:11 AM
Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship. He may not have the account access to do it, but he is arguing that I should not have the right to say these things. If I leave comments like that to go through to the keeper pretty soon you end up with a Government that encroaches upon freedom of speech.<BR>
>the left has overwhelmingly used that tactic in the US especially during this election

It looks pretty 50/50 to me. The Right says we're a bunch of terrorist supporters and that our policies will let another 9/11 happen, the Left says you're a bunch of Terrorists and that your policies will cause another 9/11 to happen. You just don't tend to notice when it's your own side doing it.


I don't see how MY saying ANYTHING will deprive you of anythingby any government. You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!
on Oct 31, 2004
Bush is a screwup, or a liar, or both.


Case in point. Rather than argue why Bush's political philosophy or methods are not the best course, it is much easier to attempt to discredit him by labeling him as deficient.

I'm not even going to get into the lack of decency that accepts publicy calling someone stupid, which also appears to be so prominent these days.
on Oct 31, 2004
drmiler said:
You don't vote, you don't get to complain. He doesn't vote, ergo he doesn't get to complain.

You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!


Flip.

Flop.
on Oct 31, 2004

Reply #44 By: Joey Joe Joe (Anonymous) - 10/31/2004 7:34:59 PM
drmiler said:
You don't vote, you don't get to complain. He doesn't vote, ergo he doesn't get to complain.

You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!


Flip.

Flop.


Hey *my* name ain't *Kerry*!
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5