Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Dear America
I am sorry for my Prime Minister, he is a bit of a dickhead. He has a medical condition whereby he thinks that because we are part of the "Coalition of the Willing" that the American people care what he has to say, he also believes that the American people know who he is.
Please forgive him, it is an election year. He has recently done several backflips on David Hicks and Climate Change, I think he may have hurt himself.
Love,
Australia.
p.s. We'd stop electing him if we had an opposition, but they have been busy digging their own graves.
Please forgive him, it is an election year. He has recently done several backflips on David Hicks and Climate Change, I think he may have hurt himself.
Love,
Australia.
p.s. We'd stop electing him if we had an opposition, but they have been busy digging their own graves.
Comments
Ah, its just his turn on the swing. You know how it goes - Labor is in for a few years, and they help social policy along, but totally fuck the economy, and then we get rid of them and bring in the liberals, who bring the economy back up to speed, but are too busy with the account books to notice much about social policy. Rinse and repeat till we have the good sense to elect someone else.
Two Interesting notes - The Labor Party Isn't spelt with a U, but In every other (Australian) usage, it is spelt with a U.
Secondly, The Labor party is a Socialist party, Much in the same manner as there used to be a "Soviet Socialist Republic" - Yes, that's right sportfans - every once in a while, Australia reverts to communist leadership.
Also, I might note - Indeed do disregard Howard's comments about Obama - your Conservative Party is (Generally) in Support of the war, and As is ours. Conservatives are conservatives, pretty much.
(I swear, though, the next customer who gives me another ill informed, Whining rant about howard's IR laws gets a punch in the throat, Being a good Barman Be Damned.)
But seriously, isn't your country far, far more fascist than our warmongering land of barbarism ever will be? Don't you have...BANDWIDTH CAPS? A limit to my downloading on so-called "broadband"? I'll take senseless violence and a FUD politics any day.
Also, someone tell me why people aren't rioting in the streets after GWB has started going down the Iraq road with Iran? They're "definitely" selling arms to Iraqi insurgents? Doesn't anyone feel a creepy sense of deja vu? And no one is howling in disbelief, like he has any crediblity left at all?
Maybe it's just too cold.
If the image doesn't show up, here's a link.
Jason: I guess you're right. I guess I hate America.
"The dude is such an idiot, he burned down my house."
"How did he do it?"
"He used a special kind of accelerent that is made from rice and concocted a McGyver style device that would only trigger if a certain Michael Bolton CD was played on my computer."
"So, you mean he's a genius?"
"No, he's an idiot 'cause he burned down my house!"
repeat...
Also, I've noticed that people consistently carry on about how political figures make such bad decisions based on the publicly available information, without thinking that being the leader of a nation, they might just have information available to them that is not available to members of the general public.
I believe JFK used a trick against Nixon in debates where he claimed we did not have better missiles than the Russians but, Nixon knew the truth but could not say it because it was a national security issue.
Arguing that GWB's decisions may be based on unavailable information is logically equivalent to simply saying, like Britney Spears, "I think we should just trust the President in every decision he makes."
Maybe the preachers and priests have information unavailable to us as well. Maybe we should just believe whatever any authority tells us because they might have information not available to us.
GWB is the president of the USA, believing that he would not have more information on IRAQ than you or I is the fallacy.
Reagan had a great view on things such as this, "trust but verify."
I trust that GWB acted on information the general public did not have and I trust that history will eventually verify whether that was the case or not. I do not expect to have it verified until AFTER this is all settled.
Because GWB is president he has access to sources of Intel that the general public does not. To assume that he does not is foolish.
Whatever double secret info GWB might have had, he also had the info that told him that his State of the Union allegations regarding yellow cake were lies, that there was no Al Qaeda connection, that there were no WMDs, and so on.
Using your test, all criticism stops. Any criticism could be answered with, "He had better information." Don't like GWB's tax policy? Well, he has better information than you do. Don't like his immigration policy? Well, he has better information than you do. And so on.
Though burden of proof lies on the scruffy guy to show you his gun (could just be his finger or a squirt gun) the evidence points to him being in a frame of mind that will likely lead to bodily harm (if not death) to you and you will have to make a judgement call.
GWB is the president. He has access to super secret Intel. The vast majority of Congress and the previous administration believed the Intel. The yellow cake information was acquired by a known government employee going to a country and saying (publicly), have you been selling yellow cake to Iraq? How do you think they would answer that question?
You are a lawyer, you know this old joke too:
Judge to defendant: "Are you aware of the penalty if you are found guilty of perjury?"
Defendant to judge: "Yes, and it's a lot better than being found guilty of murder!"
All criticism does not stop. Iraq was not invaded because of a tie between Al Qaeda and Iraq (please cite your source if you want to make the argument) Iraq was invaded because of a failure by Sadam to abide by the UN resolutions (in spirit and deed).
this, this, this, and this.
And you bet criticism stops under your rules. Just like I said: Any time you want to say GWB might have been wriong about ANYTHING, all I would have to do is say, "Well he had access to better information."
Perhaps we should grow cyberantlers and start butting heads?