campaigning

[martin ewen]

Oh goody permission granted

"You deliberately misquoted me. I said "not so long ago" when I mentioned dictators."

Well Chance the full quote was
"it wasn't so long ago that most of Europe was still firmly in the grip of dictators and monarchs. In fact, some of it still is!"

So I didn't deliberately misquote you, you're mistaken. However your 'carefully worded ideas' failed to make any distinction between dictators or monarchs (and now theres a new "imperialistic" tag also)
I suggest you borrow a dictionary.
Simply using 'or' instead of 'and' between 'dictators' and 'monarchs' would have given you room to move you now lack.
You will find that dictator and imperialistic are irrelevant when using Monaco, which is a constitutional monarcy run by a National council.
(Joined the UN in 93)
In England you can be moved on or worse for 'Obstructing her majesty's carrageways'
By your logic it would follow that England is still in the 'Grip' of an imperilistic monachistic dictator.
(Hint...it isn't)

but by the second post your point begins its laborious process of cristallisation.
"I'd be willing to bet that narry a European voter loses even a minute of sleep over what any other nation feels concerning their vote. So, then, why should an American voter?"

It won't satisfy you but my answer to that question was my only point in my last post.
But your comphehensive difficulties aside. I think personally that this (like the last) american election will be a farce, that the 30 states with electronic voting systems proven to be insecure will have Bush win by a dignified amount and that the draft will follow in the months that follow as the gloves come off and whole cities in Iraq are liquidated and that sometime in the next term of the bush monachy the seeds of the second american civil war will blossom. (which is what much of the homeland security effort is focused on, gathering information about Americans)

Easily something for Europeans to give a fuck about as they'll have to pick sides.
Its a great time to be a clown

[le pire]

Chance,

I don't really have to respond to the inanity of most of your posts, because Martin pretty much said it all.

but when you say:

"I'd be willing to bet that narry a European voter loses even a minute of sleep over what any other nation feels concerning their vote. So, then, why should an American voter?"

Well, this is just plain ignorant. Some of the of the most hotly contested issues in Europe are the EU, the European parliment and the EEC. People cast their votes for PRECISELY what other countries will think of them. Be it Pro Europe or Anti-Europe.

also:

"Show me a blind and stupid American, and I'll show you a pompous ass European who wishes he was one."

is arrogant. I don't know of any Europeans, pompous or otherwise, who want to be Americans. George Bush had this exact same line of thought when he invaded Iraq. He truly believed that the troops would be showered with flowers and the iraqi people would immediately throw off the shackles of their culture to run down to the strip mall to buy nikes and eat big macs.

So your friends tell you to cool it on the American bashing? Well it sounds like you just hate everyone then and just turn and turn in frustration blaming "the man" any "man" for keeping you down.




etienne

[Chance]

Don't shoot the delivery boy fellas!

Don't like my comments about authoriarian rule in Europe? Fine. So then I'll ask: What European country was NOT under authoritarian control in the year 1776?

And: When was the last one unseated?

And: Are there any still in existance?

Etienne. Your last comments would carry much more weight if it weren't for LePen, Haider (et al) and almost 40% of European voters that back them dragging your argument deep into the mud.

I have been living in Europe now for more than 5 years. This past summer was my 6th straight season working Vienna for example. In this time it is safe to say that I have spoken with thousands of Europeans from all walks of life, and many of them are now close friends. And we spend hours and hours discussing all manner of things, even politics. And yes, they are quite surprised that I am so willing to point out the folly of my govt. as passionately as I do.

So much for the Arrogant American title you wish to pin on. Don't confuse arrogance with confidence or determination.

And in those moments when I am first introduced to a European, and they learn that I have been living abroad for so long, there is a 90 to 95% chance they will say "Why?" Why live in Europe, Why not stay in the US? "I wouldn't live here if I could be there..." and so on. It happens almost every time.

So yes, I have gotten the impression over time, that many Europeans wish they were American. And why not? Sometimes I wish I wasn't.

The video taping offer is still on the table, Martin. Put your money where your mouth is, and after your release we'll talk more about what is and isn't democracy, by what ever name you choose to give it.

[le pire]

Chance,

Ahhh, Le Pen, yes that FASCIST bastard. I actually typed a few lines about him in my last post, before I deleted them because I did not want to digress.

So let me talk about that ass hole Le Pen for a moment.

First off, YES, there exists a nationalistic movement in France, as their does in every other European nation. I simply do not see how this "drags my argument into the mud." My argument was that people in Europe DO think about foreign policy when they vote, and the people who support ass holes like Le Pen tend to think this about europe and anyone who is not white, "pure" french : Screw you, France first, Allons les enfants de la patrie le jour de gloire est arrive!!! They very much have foreign policy in mind when they vote for a nationalist.

I should also mention that in France there is a two tierd electoral system. To elect the president, first we have an election with ALL the candidates who are on the ballot (all 7-12 of them) and then the two candidates who get the majority of votes go to a second round of voting where it is only those two on the ballot.

In 2002, the French press was just as apathetic as the American press in 2000 and kept bombarding us that it was going to be Jospin (PS) vs. Chirac (RPR) and that France was evenly split and that nobody cared.

Well, Le Pen mobilized his base of Nationalistic, Racist old people and beat Jospin by .1%. No shit, it was that close.

Following this upset France went into an uproar and realized what was at stake. Le Pen held a rally in Paris and approximately 1,000 people showed up. At the same time there was an Anti-Le Pen rally and over 100,000 people showed up.

Chirac won by a LANDSLIDE. (Personally, I voted Jospin in the first election. I HATE Chirac, because he is a slimey, corrupt BASTARD. I had to vote for him the second time, however)

16% of France supports Nationalistic bastards like Le Pen, not 40%. Maybe 40% of Austriens support Haider, but then again, when you are the country of Hitler's birth, that is to be expected.


"So much for the Arrogant American title you wish to pin on. Don't confuse arrogance with confidence or determination."

Jesus CHRIST you sound more and more like George W. Bush.


It is also funny that you mention 1776. Because the American Revolution was ENTIRELY funded by France and it was the French navy that won the battle of Yorketown.

France & England where involved in a vicarious war that they fought through the colonies. Ironically enough, this bankrupted France and brought about the French Revolution of 1789 and the heads of the monarchs rolled and the Republique was born (after the 'Reign of Terror' of course).

Your explanation of "Europeans who want to be Americans" was incoherent at best and just plain retarded if you have any perspective at all. When people ask "Why are you living here instead of the USA" does NOT mean "You should live in the USA because it is better than here."

You see, people in Europe are VERY attached to where they are born. They love their country, their language, their heritage, even their shitty little village. Most people in Europe stay as close to the region that they were born for their entire lives. When they meet someone who has chosen to leave all this behind, it is quite baffling to them because it is simply outside their mindset. They litterally can't comprehend that someone would choose to live thousands of miles away from their family and birthplace if they were not from a third world country.

People in Europe love their home, love their countries, their culture, etc. But people in Europe also realise (far more than Americans) that their country has a fucked up past. Austria has all the cultural guilt that they deserve for jumping in bed with Hitler. France had her Nazi collaborators, as well as the horrors that France commited in Algeria and the African colonies. England is to be blamed for the USA, but they always can back it up with "well Canada is cool!" But I digress.


etienne

[Peter Voice]

What a Wonderful discussion.
Amazing as it seems, I agree totally with Chance's sentiments in his first two posts. It just seems a pity that his personality has taken over the rest of his contributions.

In Aust., voting is "compulsory". We have what is called a "Two Party Preferencial" system. This means if you vote for a minor party your vote will eventually end up supporting one or the other of the 2 major parties. In other words, even if you hate them, you are forced to vote for one or the other of the two evils.

After the duly elected "Whitlam" government of Australia was deposed by British and American interests, I did not vote in the 1975 federal elections. The gov,t. duly issued me with the standard $50 fine.

I didn't pay my fine and, as these things do, it grew and grew.

After some discussions between my "people" and the Gov't's "people", it was decided that it would be better to leave one eccentric alone than open a very disturbing can of worms by taking me to court. As far as I know, I am the only person in Australia not legally required to vote. I get a lot of flack for this when it comes up, as many people think I'm shirking or abdicating my responsibilities. I find this interesting considering the fact that my political writings are regularly published in the major national daily newspapers and I've personally had legislation changed at federal and state level (even named in parliament). I consider myself as a serious political element.

I bring all this up because we are having a federal election in Australia next weekend.

Yes, chance, we will think very hard about who you might vote for and how the person we vote for might be received by who you vote for. And you are right, too, because it won't really matter to the real powers that be. Do you have to be so rude, though.

Etienne is also right and what he is doing is of untold value. Reform or change has to come from somewhere and getting rid of george is an excellent start.

We are trying everthing we can to get rid of john howard here. Unfortunately it seems the fear-mongering of Murdoch and other media manipulaters is reinforcing right wing views world wide.

When challenged by the electoral office here, I was able to prove that the system here was unrepresentative, impractical and possibly illegal and have maintained that position ever since. The American electoral system (of which I confess only a passing knownedge) leaves me staggered.

I have never supported democracy as I firmly believe the general public is too stupid to successfully run a root raffle in a brothel.

The thing that strikes me is the desperate need to remove people like george bush and john howard from any position of power and I support any-one working toward this end.

Go for it, Etienne

[martin ewen]

The fog of blah

" Dictatorship is dictatorship, regardless of how you dress it up. Monaco, for example, is strictly imperialistic."

im·pe·ri·al·ism __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(m-pîr--lzm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

im·peri·al·ist adj. & n.
im·peri·al·istic adj.
im·peri·al·isti·cal·ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"The video taping offer is still on the table, Martin. Put your money where your mouth is, and after your release we'll talk more about what is and isn't democracy, by what ever name you choose to give it."


Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

constitutional monarchy
n.
A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

http://www.riviera-magazine.com/tourisme/monaco/MonacoConstitution-us.html

Chance , if you can show me definitions of 'dictatorship' 'imperialistic' that reside anywhere other than your alternative universe then this discussion might have more than psychiatric merit.
I don't need money where my mouth is when I can simply use a dictionary.

de·lu·sion __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(d-lzhn)
n.
The act or process of deluding.

The state of being deluded.


A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness:

[Chance]

Peter, I agree with you. It is a great discussion. (And my compliment doesn't even involve a caveat.) Welcome aboard, what ever your personality!

Martin, if you want to keep engaging me, then at least show me the respect of answering all of my questions, not just the ones that lead to easily twisted conclusions.

Monarchy; dictatorship; imperialism; authoritarian regime, et al. While the words themselves might be located on different pages of the dictionary, when taken as a whole they clearly represent the correct context of my overall dialogue. Rather than spend 80% of your letters twisting that context, why not just bite the bullet and answer?

For example:

*What European country was NOT under authoritarian control in the year 1776?

*And: When was the last one unseated?

*And: Are there any still in existance?

You won't answer, because the answer speaks for itself. These are EXACTLY the regimes that America's founders were using as examples of what NOT to be, and you well know it.

And since many of these regimes continued on into even my short life so far, and since there are even 2 or 3 small ones still hanging on by their teeth, I happen to find it just a little ironic that these same countries want to preach to the USA about how to be a democracy.

Does that mean our leaders are faultless? Of course not! My first letter clearly laid blame where it belonged.

Etienne, thanks for the refresher in French politics. Most of it rang a bell, but there's no way I could have described it as clearly as you did.

And ditto on Peter's comments as well. I never meant to imply that you should stop what you had started. I mean, did I? I don't think so. So hang in there, and I hope you find what you're looking for.

What I'm looking for is a viable 3rd party to break up the 2-party monopoly.

[Chance]

just caught a transcript of the debates...

I must say that it did my heart good to read this...

#######################

Kerry: The key difference is that I am not George Bush (Applause). This president has antagonized so many nations around the world, a task that a lesser man would have found impossible (laughter). Consider our situation on September 12, 2001, the morning after 9-11. Our neighbors Canada and Mexico, Latin America, Europe, China, India, the Middle East, everywhere in the world, people stood with America, outraged by the crime that was committed against the greatest, noblest, country in the world. Within six months, our president had squandered this unprecedented goodwill, and converted it into a near-universal fear and loathing.

The second important difference is that when President Bush sees America, he sees only a military superpower. I see a moral and idealistic beacon. Mr. Bush may talk about democracy all he wants, but it is not democracy to wilfully disdain and heap scorn on world opinion. We do not command moral leadership by starting pre-emptive wars. After all, isn't that why we went to war against Saddam Hussain when he invaded Kuwait?

If President Bush is elected, the world will see that instead of punishing him for earning America the hatred of the world, we were rewarding him. His continued leadership alone would make mending fences and building back our trust in the world practically impossible. The third difference is that this administration's word is not trusted any more. When, during the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy sent an envoy to President DeGaulle with photographs of the missiles, DeGaulle waved the photographs away, saying, "I trust the word of the President of the United States". That was then. When Colin Powell sits at the Security Council brandishing evidence which turns out to be false, when the President speaks to the nation about non-existent yellowcake from Niger, which his own CIA knew to be untrue, when Donald Rumsfeld says that he knows exactly where the weapons are, and then it turns out there are none found, what credibility does our country have left? (Applause). Whatever my merits, I would think these facts alone disqualify Mr. Bush from election (Applause).... [after a wait] I would have said re-election if he had won fair and square the first time (Long Applause).

[$cottbox]

Re: just caught a transcript of the debates...

Originally posted by Chance
Kerry: The key difference is that I am not George Bush (Applause). This president has antagonized so many nations around the world, a task that a lesser man would have found impossible (laughter). Consider our situation on September 12, 2001, the morning after 9-11. Our neighbors Canada and Mexico, Latin America, Europe, China, India, the Middle East, everywhere in the world, people stood with America, outraged by the crime that was committed against the greatest, noblest, country in the world. Within six months, our president had squandered this unprecedented goodwill, and converted it into a near-universal fear and loathing.

Well said. That really gave a different perspecive on the way I saw things. You should start writin stuff for the Washington Post. Fur Real.

I thought the election debate was really interesting. It looked like the a cat caught Bush's tongue after a wipelash of words from Kerry. Kerry 1, Bush 0, 2 more to go, cant wait to see how itr raps up.

[newyorkstreetdean]

love your country as you would your child. - Al Franken (roughly)

i would like to point out, or maybe pose a question. Alot of people (occasionally myself as well) have said that this election is a matter of determining the lesser of two evils, correct? I was born in 1981, so my memory holds only roughly 4 elections or so well enough to judge. It seems to me that every US election has been left between the lesser of two evils- At least that is what we have always said. Is this also true of elections before my time?


Perhaps Kerry is evil. I don't think right now I know enough to make that judgement. I do know that Governer Bush is evil. He has a done a great job at proving that to me. Last night I saw a couple of things that I have not seen in quite some time. No. 1, actual discussion of things that matter to those of us that are paying attention. No. 2, and most important, Kerry showed us that a canidate can be humble, and have a bit of acountability for who he is, i.e., he very early on said that people like he and the "presidant" should not be getting tax cut's. He is admiting that he is rich, he is not ashamed of it, and he sees his responsibilitys. Also, he admited to having poor judgement at one point, looking back at it and readjusting his stance.


Even if you believe you would be voting for the lesser of two evils, Bush is pretty fucking evil. Kerry may remain to be seen, lets at least give him the chance to prove he is evil. Some said that Presidant Clinton was the lesser of two evils and I think he did a pretty good job.


As far as a three (or more) party system, it is the only way our government should be run. Arent we supposed to have a system of checks and balances? Last year I did vote for Nader. I live in CO which has elected two democrats (Clinton and Kennedy), therefore my vote for a democrate would of been a waste anyway. I wanted to see the numbers go up for the third party. Almost got it. This year I think even Nader will vote Kerry, as I said earlier, Bush is pretty fucking evil. The youth vote is going to be there this year, you watch and I think we can get rid of Bush, but it is not the year to vote for the possibility of a third party. WE MUST RE-DEFEAT BUSH! I refuse to be drafted for this mans war, but that is another discussion.

Thanx for reading my rambles.

[NYSB_Craig]

After the first debate...

You must admit, after last night it stands: Kerry 1, Bush 0.

[Mr.Taxi Trix]

Chance, we are roughly in agreement, and your valid points in your first posts were eclipsed by the flaming. You did mistake my " putting Kerry in the White House would send the right message to other countries about the American people" with your response of "What right do they have to tell us how to vote". I merely believe that yes, it is a lose/lose situation, but the USA stands to lose even MORE international standing by electing Bush, given his record. A vote in this country has broad-reaching ripples.

Peter, rock on! Do you have a link to your column? I write for a local arts magazine, and consider myself a serious political irrelevance.

Debate moments I have known...


Bush trotting out his sound bite du jour... "Its hard work" in so many different forms you could laugh. Until you cringe, remembering that this is your elected leader. The leader of the "free world".

Was it me, or did he blink just way too often there?

His classic faux pas, telling us, in describing the Iraq fiasco, that "The enemy struck here first" reminded me of a blue-tied, big-headed lad in the schoolyard, the "he hit me first!" coming out between sobs. (Kerry pointing out, right there, that Hussein never struck us, and that the superimposition of Iraq and Hussein onto the 9/11 attacks illustrated flawed perception, caused cheers in our debate witness chinese food enclave.)
And what's with the HUGE shoulder pads? trim those dogs back a foot, will ya?

I'm hoping that when Kerry makes his victory speech, he mentions Etienne.

[martin ewen]

Quick, pander to the status quo

con·text ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntkst)
n.
The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

So ...
Dictatorship..wrong
Imperialism...wrong
Monarchy...correct

Oh but I didn't see the context, the fact that you can use two thirds of your argument out of context and still have a point.

Which seems to be
"*What European country was NOT under authoritarian control in the year 1776?"

Um...2...no 7...no 74

Given the 'context' is the american elections of 2004
whats your POINT?

You have gone 360 in your argument, from why should americans care to this is why americans should care.

another word you use 'authoritarian ' is probably the word you were looking for all along.
The questions you now ask so authoritively are secondary to your first posts that ask why americans should care what the rest of the world thinks because the inverse doesn't apply.
You can cut and paste as much as you want to try and obscure your first arrogant statements but the fact remains that the world by and large is not telepathic and your context is as transparent as your obvious need to be understood in spite of your aggressive and ignorant nature.
Still by cutting and pasteing the words of others you are at last learning what it is to keep an audience onside.
I know you'd prefer I answer all of your questions but , while shocking, you'll have to accept that until you can argue coherantly I really cannot be bothered. Its a measure of your arrogance that you even expect me to.
My work here is done. Make a point, stick to it, invite comment.
Stop thrashing round.
WHATS YOUR POINT?

[le pire]

the debate

That was SUCH a breath of fresh air. Before the debate between Kerry & dumbfuck I was pretty cynical. They had this extraordinairly restrictive list of rules (almost all devised by the Bush camp) and I expected a staged, dull, event that spoke only the to core supporters of each candidate.

I also expected that the reaction to the debate was already written: "Although John Kerry had a clear knowledge of events he came of as impersonal and distant, whereas President Bush was direct and likable."

Even the pundits who are so insanely supportive of Bush conceded that he blew major chunks. I laughed my ass off when Bush stammered back that "he knew it was Osama Bin Laden" and not Saddam who attacked the USA.

The best part about this debate, for me, is that it shuts up one of the other annoyong kind of people who work with me at the Kerry campaign. The guy who "always knows what Kerry needs to do to win this election."

I was very happy with the outcome of the debate and only hope that the momentum for Kerry continues. Bush is now on the campaign trail repeating the same bullshit he has been saying all along, but it doesn't get quite the same reaction it used to. I hope his advisers are now overloading his puny little brain with "what he has to do to win the next debate" and he cracks again. And again. And again.

If ever there was someone who was made in a laboratory to be president of the USA it is John Kerry. He's a multimillionaire, he has combat experience, he went to Yale, he's been a senator for 20 years, he's tall and ugly. I will keep working to make him win and I hope he does good for this country. He's inheriting a hell of a mess.

Then... after it is over...

I would like to see the two parties broken up.

I will talk more about that later.

etienne

[Chance]

Good ole predicable Martin. Don't worry big guy, I never expected you to answer any other way. Delay, obsfuscate; obsfuscate, delay -- and then... naught.

Why bother with serious debate, when you can debate seriously, huh?

Or as we Americans are fond of saying, just baffle them with bullshit.

Pardon me if I don't bother playing along.