i just got home aND I AM DRUNK AND i am watching w's speech and i am sad and worried

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

ok?

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:10 (twenty years ago)

i want to see them tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:12 (twenty years ago)

i want oto see them ridiculed and mocked and debunked and flattened by reaason

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:13 (twenty years ago)

they lie and lie and lie and nixon's looking good right now

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:14 (twenty years ago)

america where is your spine where is your mind where is your heart these thieves these thieves are pinning you down for the end of all you love

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:15 (twenty years ago)

yes i'm caNADIan and melodramatic and drubk but no this is not right

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:16 (twenty years ago)

vote you sons of bitches and bring 3 ne-er-do-wells to vote with you

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:17 (twenty years ago)

On the today show this morning they had an interview with an Al-Jazera person, since they were covering the conference/speech/whatever. Interestingly, the Democrats didn't allow AL -Jazera at their party speech thing, but Bush and co did. Should I read anything into that?

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:21 (twenty years ago)

fucking brilliant how the GOP played that bit. If the Dems allow A-J at their convention, the GOP can play the traitor card, "look who they allowed in!" If they don't, the GOP can bring A-J to theirs and say "look who the hypocrites wouldn't allow at their convention".

― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:23 (twenty years ago)

actually the more i watch this the less scaered and worried i am this fuck can't speak he sounds like a grade 4 kid running for milk monitor

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:24 (twenty years ago)

feint within a feint within a feint . . . .

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:25 (twenty years ago)

they're waering cowbiy hats

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:25 (twenty years ago)

damn lawyering lawers!

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:26 (twenty years ago)

his face really shows no inkling of compreshension of the words he says

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:27 (twenty years ago)

I went to bed listening to some guy at the Convention give a speech about how great Bush was, that culminated in a "He said he'd x" "AND HE DID!" call and response session. It was completely ridiculous and awful! Is this normal for US party conventions?

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 3 September 2004 06:36 (twenty years ago)

Interestingly, the Democrats didn't allow AL -Jazera at their party speech thing, but Bush and co did.

incorrect

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 3 September 2004 07:06 (twenty years ago)

I wouldn't get too worried or despondent about it just yet.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Friday, 3 September 2004 07:26 (twenty years ago)

I believe the Dems just asked Al Jazeera to remove their banner but they were definitely in attendance.

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Friday, 3 September 2004 07:53 (twenty years ago)

It could be worse you could be British. You have a lying, warmongering arsehole as a leader, but there's at least a chance he will lose and the alternative is (at least marginally) better. We also have a lying warmongering arsehole as a leader, there's no chance he will lose, and even if he did the alternative would be worse.

― frankiemachine, Friday, 3 September 2004 08:19 (twenty years ago)

britain's leader will only be as good/bad as the US leader though? (since common wisdom has it that he only does whatever US tells him)

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 3 September 2004 08:22 (twenty years ago)

Reasonable point, although thankfully not yet applicable to domestic policy. In the lead up to the Iraq war the only way Howard tried to find fault with Blair was by (ludicrously in the circumstances) trying to claim that the Tories would have somehow managed to support Bush more slavishly than Blair did. This did Howard no good with the Bush camp who declared him persona non grata after he suggested Blair should resignfor misleading the public and parliament about the reasons for going to war. This creates the intriguing possibility that, if elected, a right-wing Tory leader might now be somewhat more critical of an extreme right-wing Republican administration than Blair, although the fanatical Atlantacists who dominate the conservative press in the UK probably wouldn't let him go very far in that direction even if he wanted to.

If the Tories had elected Ken Clark their leader I think they would now be in a winning position vis a vis the next election. Not only because the electorate think he is a less slippery character than the odious Howard, but because he was against the war. The Tories can't cash in on the public's hostility to the war because as a party they supported it much more fanatically than Labour did.

― frankiemachine, Friday, 3 September 2004 13:10 (twenty years ago)

frankiemachine, how are the lib/dems palying out in this? I had the impression that they were taking on the anti-war voters and looking more like the officila opposition. Meanwhile the Tories spin out further and further to the right while heamorageing votes to extreme right parties like UKIP. And Labour moves decidedly to the centre to take a pro-biz/low taxes/gentle welfare state approach.

― Anthony (Plato Guy), Friday, 3 September 2004 17:53 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...

Sorry I didn't see this at the time Anthony. You analysis is correct up to a point. The LibDems have been consistently anti-war and are doing relatively well as a result but it would take a huge cultural shift for them to replace the Tories as the main opposition party and I just don't see it happening. The Tories have a larger hard core support and a huge chunk of the British press is not only Tory but much more aggressively partisan than the more liberal/left-wing press. The LibDems struggle with the "wasted vote" argument and also the sense that, whatever you think of their politics, several decades as a minority party have left them without the talent or experience to form a credible government.

― frankiemachine, Saturday, 18 September 2004 14:12 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.