Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is a very interesting bid by a non-native born person to become President of the United States of America. I wonder if his lawyers will be able to get his name on the ballots at this late stage. If they can, he might get more votes than Nader.

 

When I see these foreign politcial personages talking, people like bin Laden, Putin, and so on, I'm struck by how plain and unaffected their speech is, and how reasonable are the things they say. They don't seem to be pandering to anyone, and they don't drape themselves in fake bonhomie.

 

If I could vote for Putin rather than Blair in an election, I'd do so without hesitation. And I suspect that bin Laden has rather less innocent blood on his hands than Blair, and as his speech has a laconism that contrasts favourable with Blair's constant hyperbole and exaggeration (immensely proud, fantastically brave etc.) I would prefer to give him a chance to run Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bit do you think I might be kidding about?

 

As for best, realistic alternatives to Bliar, anybody from the Green Party. None of the other parties have anything close to realistic policies. Of course the Green Party won't get elected, but I like to give my vote to parties I like, rather than to the second worst party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it? I had no idea.

 

I never supported Labour or Blair. I've always thought they were full of shit. Greens every time. I've been writing to my 'local' Labour MP about the Iraq war and global warming, and when I actually get a reply, it's pure drivel.

 

The bin Laden message is being subjected to a lot of editorializing since it appeared. If only they would be so rigourous with the messages of Western politicians...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that was pretty much known right from the beginning, right? Certainly before the Moore flick. I still haven't seen that yet, would like to.

 

 Quote:
And I suspect that bin Laden has rather less innocent blood on his hands than Blair
You must surely not mean that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you do a rough calculation of the numbers of unarmed civilians killed in all of Blair's wars and bin Laden's wars, you'll find that Blair has a much higher kill ratio. For some unaccountable reason, people don't notice that Blair is clocking up hits constantly and needs to be stopped far more urgently than bin Laden.

 

To put bin Laden's recent kills in perspective, I read this morning that "Flu kills about 36,000 people in the United States ... each year by conservative estimates". Why aren't the candidates in the US election raving on about the 'War on Flu' that poses such a grave and present threat?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041101/ap_on_he_me/flu_pandemic_8

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew about the goat story, watched the video of it with timeline a long long time ago. I haven't seen Moore's film. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knew about it before the film.

 

As usual I'm suspicious of the timing of the video surfacing. The usual question: "who benefits" from this video appearing a few days before the US election?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...