chicot Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 USNews Reports 104644[/snapback] As soon as I saw it, I thought that their idea of a letter-writing campaign was remarkably stupid and ill-conceived. It was always likely to have the opposite effect to the desired one.
Paco Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 As soon as I saw it, I thought that their idea of a letter-writing campaign was remarkably stupid and ill-conceived. It was always likely to have the opposite effect to the desired one. 104702[/snapback] The British Michael Moore. Making a stink. Having it backfire.
KD in CA Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 I love watching those arrogant, euro-pricks running for cover. --"We thought we might spark a debate" Yeah, right. Sure you did. The best line was from some guy in Ohio who said something to the effect of "I thought we settled who got to vote for America's leaders back in 1776."
Britbillsfan Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 The Grauniad has a readership of very 'nice' people. Very tolerant of others, generally, liberal (which I do not consider a dirty word, BTW) and would like everyone to get along. Unfortunately they can also often be total pratts when it comes to dealing with the real world. What on earth did they expect? Sheesh. I doubt that they made any kind of difference one way or other in the end (other than pissing a few people off), an exercise in dumb futility.
KD in CA Posted November 6, 2004 Posted November 6, 2004 The Grauniad has a readership of very 'nice' people. Very tolerant of others, generally, liberal (which I do not consider a dirty word, BTW) and would like everyone to get along. I assume this was sarcastic. The Guardian is one of the least tolerant publications I have seen. The era of automatically equating "liberal" with "tolerant" has past, and with good reason. The liberals who put themselves in the forefront of this election proved that they couldn't have been less tolerant of opposing points of view.
Britbillsfan Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 I assume this was sarcastic. The Guardian is one of the least tolerant publications I have seen. The era of automatically equating "liberal" with "tolerant" has past, and with good reason. The liberals who put themselves in the forefront of this election proved that they couldn't have been less tolerant of opposing points of view. 105082[/snapback] Hmmm. From afar I would say it has been pretty much a wash as far as 'intolerance' towards opposing political views are concerned. Bush and the neo-con outlook is loathed generally outside the US, but not the GOP. Rudolph Guilliani, Powell, McCain are all figures that people would be happy with, it is Bush, specifically, that people (including the Grauniad) have a problem with. But being pragmatists they will just B word about it and get on with their lives more or less as normal. The part of the original post you quoted was about the readership in any case, not the paper. And they are genuinely very nice people.
Chilly Posted November 7, 2004 Posted November 7, 2004 Bush and the neo-con outlook is loathed generally outside the US, but not the GOP. Rudolph Guilliani, Powell, McCain are all figures that people would be happy with, it is Bush, specifically, that people (including the Grauniad) have a problem with. But being pragmatists they will just B word about it and get on with their lives more or less as normal. 105475[/snapback] I agree with that a lot. I know that hile I voted for Kerry, if someone that wasn't a neo-con but a republican such as McCain I would have voted for him in a heart beat.
Recommended Posts