Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

[Will]

Randall, what's this about Michael Moore insulting Australia's leadership? I haven't heard anything about it, and a quick look at the Australian Version of Google news didn't bring up any headlines.

And just a note about his criticizing Bush: In your eyes, Bush might have 'fairly' won the election, but for a lot of people in the US, it is still not that simple. Bush did *not* get a majority of the votes in the country, and the only reason he did get the higher number of Electoral College votes is because in a closely contested election where Bush's supporters (Katherine Harris, the former Secretary of State of Florida, was responsible for counting votes, and she was the chairwoman of Bush's election team in Florida) were counting the votes, the courts finally stepped in to get some closure over the whole ordeal. So he might have been elected according to the law, but for a lot of people, he was far from being elected fairly.

Just had to throw that in for clarification. The real point of this post is to find out what this insulting stuff is all about. Since I haven't heard anything about it here.

[Randallw]

I have quitened down a bit so I'll return to being civil. first though, as you said technically Bush won. I said I disagreed with the democratic process a bit, but I am lawful, I believe laws are to keep order. According to the law, Bush won. Its a pity the system wasn't changed before hand if you disagree with the result, but society has to accept how things work if thats how its organised. If you suddenly find the results aren't what you wanted then if a majority agrees change the law afterwards. I thought the idea of a Democracy was majority rule. You might say "ah, but the republicans aren't going to change something that got them into power". Well if the republicans are the majority then according to democracy they choose.
You say Bush didn't get a majority?. Well them I'm sorry but it doesn't sound as if your democracy is organised correctly. At least in accordance to my idea of it.

to the matter at hand

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/co...55E401,00.html

basically he said our Prime Minister has half a brain, and he hopes that he is voted out. If he is going to intrude in our politics depsite having no right then I in turn hope whichever person he votes for in America never gets voted in.

significant statement
"And I hope the same thing happens to him (Mr Howard) as happened to the leader of Spain when he decided to be part of the coalition of the willing."

so he wants our Prime Minister to lose the election due to more than a hundred people being killed in a terrorist attack. The more I learn of this man the more I see he has no credibility.
"he's mad" my mother says.

[primitive]

Randall,
The AQ attack itself (in Spain) was not the reason the Spanish PM lost the election. He was thrown out of office because he tried to use it as a tool in his private war against the ETA/Basque. Most Spanish and Basque alike are way tired of the old conflict and want to patch the old wounds. A warmongering PM who tries to upgrade a conflict between a few hundred diehard terrorists (ETA) into a full scale war between ethnic Groups (Castilians vs Basque) was not what the Spanish people wanted.
Hmmm, strange how this reminds me of another politician who managed to upgrade a conflict with a few Moslem maniacs to a conflict involving Nations.

[Mephisto]

Randall, a democracy is not a democracy if you don't give the minority rights. The rule of the majority without any checks and balances over the minority is not democracy but dictatorship of the majority.

[Randallw]

I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Also what I meant was surely the point of voting is that the person or party who gets the most votes (ie the majority of voters) is the one elected. All citizens of a country deserve equal rights, but surely, at least in a 2-party system, one viewpoint receives the majority of support. I'll avoid using the US system which I don't know much of, but in Australia we have 2 major parties, the Coalition (which technically is 2 parties but they merge) and labour. If we held an election either one or the other gets the most votes, and thus a majority membership in parliament. Then for the term of government it is the "winning" parties agenda that runs the country, and even then the opposition may have power in the upper house opposing government. This may be effected by independents, the greens or the democrats who, if their small number of elected memebrs vote with the opposition may outweigh the government, stopping the Governments policies.
I said I disagreed with Democracy. My major irritation with it is that instead of getting to the business of running the country in the most beneficial way for the advancement of the state and the people, politicans spend alot of time trying to cosy up to people because they depend on getting people, who don't so much study politics as like which "nice politician goes around shaking hands and kissing babies", to vote for them. Also they spend almost all the time competing with the opposition, and the opposition almost has to oppose anything the government does not just because they have a differing political or economic viewpoint (except when they can't risk alienating the electorate by opposing moral decisions eg. if another country is attacked and our government sends aid the opposition can't be heartless and oppose it) , but because if they agree with everything the government does whats the point of having different parties. Normal opposition is part of the system but it seems these days politicians are getting nastier towards each other, not just having opposing viewpoints but actually insulting other politicians (Like saying they have only half a brain), and I mean the greens in particular (if your Australian, yes I am talking about bob brown). At least we aren't any of the countries which the news shows politicians throwing chairs at each other in parliament. My irritation with democracy is intellectual, I am not going to go out and start a rebellion to topple the government and impose a proper Republic (as opposed to the misleading democratic Version), that is impossible as well as against my belief in obeying the system. I will work with the system and vote for the party I support. The only viable way to make my intellectual thoughts work is if 100% of the population had exactly the same education and, the impossible part, everyone agrees with the same idea. Because of differing economic and living environments, it is impossible for everyone to agree. The US for example (the first modern democracy) has been convinced for 200 years, by which I mean citizens are taught from cradle to grave, that democracy is the one true free political system. Only in a perfect world can we have a perfect system. For this imperfect world we will have to accept an imperfect system, it sure beats some others I know of.

[ July 08, 2004, 12:25: Message edited by: Randallw ]

[primitive]

Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

[Randallw]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randallw:
I see so the spanish weren't so much angry that they had been made a target but that the PM tried to say "Oh no, see it wasn't terrorists because of Iraq it was ETA"

Sarcasm doesn’t become you Randall

Being targeted by terrorists or other outside aggression tends to make people band together and strengthen their resolve, not weaken it.

---

I'm sorry I wasn't trying to be sarcastic at all. I said, i see (because I see what he means) then, Q: it wasn't what I thought but instead that the PM apparently tried to accuse ETA instead of AQ. I apologise for not realising that the way I organised my reply might be misconstrued. Should I have placed an emote to show I wasn't being sarcastic?. sorry

edit: just saw the mistake. I should have said "the spanish people were angry not because" not "weren't so much angry"

[ July 08, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: Randallw ]