"booooo!!"x50.000 for Bush&Blair. Was it the same in US?

[scottyT]

ps, i love zoo mischief .

 

[redsox04]

See, the difference is that the Democrats haven't allowed themselves to be taken over by a far-right conspiracy to manipulate 'evidence' to their benefit, tear up the Constitution, kow-tow to religious nuts, and ride roughshod over international law.

Its naive to think the Republican party is the only part to be hijacked by special interests. Sure, I don't feel comfortable with the Christian Coalition speaking for me, but far-left organizations (like the ACLU) have manipulated the Democrats to at least an equal degree.

Regarding "manipulating evidence to their benefit", recall that even France and Germany in 2002 were not disputing the presence of WMDs in Iraq. The dispute was whether or not military force was the best means to address the issue. We know now that Saddam was playing "chicken" with the world, never flinching. But this was an intelligence failure on a GLOBAL scale, not some manipulation by Republicans.

Regarding "tearing up the Constitution", the Patriot Act was passed overwhemingly by bipartison support (I think there was only ONE dissenter in Congress). Hardly a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

You say Republicans "kow-tow to religious nuts", can't completely disagree, but Democrats are not immunce from their own "kow-towing" by extreme left social orgranizations. (The ACLU not supporting a parent's right to know if their 15 year old daughter is having an abortion --- come on, now.)

And "running rough shod over international law", Resolution 1441 and umpteen resolutions were passed by an international Security Council. Recall that Clinton, a Democrat, did not bother to do that in the Baltics. I fail to see how all of these issues are strictly "Republican" issues.

 

[financeguy]

Its naive to think the Republican party is the only part to be hijacked by special interests. Sure, I don't feel comfortable with the Christian Coalition speaking for me, but far-left organizations (like the ACLU) have manipulated the Democrats to at least an equal degree.

Regarding "manipulating evidence to their benefit", recall that even France and Germany in 2002 were not disputing the presence of WMDs in Iraq. The dispute was whether or not military force was the best means to address the issue. We know now that Saddam was playing "chicken" with the world, never flinching. But this was an intelligence failure on a GLOBAL scale, not some manipulation by Republicans.

Regarding "tearing up the Constitution", the Patriot Act was passed overwhemingly by bipartison support (I think there was only ONE dissenter in Congress). Hardly a Republican vs. Democrat issue.

You say Republicans "kow-tow to religious nuts", can't completely disagree, but Democrats are not immunce from their own "kow-towing" by extreme left social orgranizations. (The ACLU not supporting a parent's right to know if their 15 year old daughter is having an abortion --- come on, now.)

And "running rough shod over international law", Resolution 1441 and umpteen resolutions were passed by an international Security Council. Recall that Clinton, a Democrat, did not bother to do that in the Baltics. I fail to see how all of these issues are strictly "Republican" issues.

Most of your points are valid, some I would agree with, some not, but the Mods prefer if we keep discussions like this to the "FYM" sub-forum, and I don't blame them. I don't want to prolong the discussion if you don't mind, you seem like a reasonable person, it's just when threads get de-railed (and I am partly to blame for it) like this they often get closed.

cheers!

 

[redsox04]

Hey financeguy, I'd love to discuss politics over a pint when I'm in Dublin later this month.

 

[financeguy]

Hmmm..might be on 4 that, you are going to Croke Park I take it?

 

[norsehorse23]

listen, i saw that promo 4 times on the first leg... i think it was meant to be sarcastic and ironic... not a political statement. i just laughed when the clinton/bush thing came up, along with the michael jackson and martha stewart(?) images. it's all just in good fun... but i gotta admit, i didn't hear anyone boo when bush's picture came up. i know that some europeans might not like bush all that much, but you have to understand that it's that bush can't do jackshit without congress' approval, including dropping the debt. while some influential congressmen and senators have come out in support of the idea, it doesn't mean that it is a priority for most of them. we also have alot more people than most european nations do, and therefore we have more diversity and more internal problems to deal with. i read an article in the paper today that basically says dropping the debt is great, but there are alot more problems in africa and other developing parts of the world in addition to their financial problems. how about all the corrupt and crazy leaders of these countries that order mass killings, laugh at the sanctions, and horde all the UN relief supplies for themselves and their cronies? i am all in favor of dropping or relieving the debt of the countries that have the aids pandemic, but in some cases this gives these crazy leaders all the more power to crush any opposition there may be. funny how some european countries are having all these racial problems after being so 'open' and 'accepting' of these cultures to live in their own borders. give bush a break, he has alot more to deal with than you know.

 

[bathiu]

You really don't get it. You don't know any Republicans, you have a myopic vision of the world, and you don't even want to find some common ground to make this place any better.

Is it fair to criticize them? Sure. But you're just hating without trying to understand the other side in any meaningful way. And, sadly, loving it. Sounds a lot like those pesky Republicans who don't understand Islam.

If your whole basis for this definition was the war, so be it.

Do you even know what you're saying, or is it just some memorized reply to all "criticism" you see?

This definition is nothing more than a "copy&paste" from a dictionary (if you mean the "tolerance" part).
It has nothing to do with war, republicans, democrats... just a "copy&paste".

Hate? Where's hate in that post? If posting a scientific definition of a word is "hating without trying to understand the other side in any meaningful way"... then ...

On the other hand that's exactly how I see you (republicans), making a word out of one letter, making a sentence out of one word, turning everything into "if you're not with me, you're against me"... so If you wanted to change my opinion, than you've failed... in fact with posts like that you (and most - please notice "most", not "all" - people, as I understand, from you side) are posting, you only confirm that I'm right.

 

[lancerla]

Do you even know what you're saying, or is it just some memorized reply to all "criticism" you see?

This definition is nothing more than a "copy&paste" from a dictionary (if you mean the "tolerance" part).
It has nothing to do with war, republicans, democrats... just a "copy&paste".

You bolded the part of the definition you wanted to focus on. It read: While people deemed undesirable may be disapproved of, "tolerance" would require that the party or group in question be left undisturbed, physically or otherwise, and that criticism directed toward them be free of inflammatory or inciteful efforts.

Since the only disturbance the U.S. has caused recently is the war, so I think it's pretty clear what you meant. If you had just copy and pasted without bolding, I wouldn't have had the same reaction.

Hate? Where's hate in that post? If posting a scientific definition of a word is "hating without trying to understand the other side in any meaningful way"... then ...

On the other hand that's exactly how I see you (republicans), making a word out of one letter, making a sentence out of one word, turning everything into "if you're not with me, you're against me"... so If you wanted to change my opinion, than you've failed... in fact with posts like that you (and most - please notice "most", not "all" - people, as I understand, from you side) are posting, you only confirm that I'm right.

Sorry, you don't hate Bush and you don't hate Republicans and neither do any of the people booing him. I was speaking to you and to all of the other people flaming.

Ready for a big surprise? I didn't vote for Bush. But I don't think he's the anti-christ either.

And I'm not out to make people think the way I do, but I wish everyone would look at the other side more. For everyone American who thinks Fox News is chapter and verse, you have just as many people who think that Michael Moore is a news source.

If people don't want a broader understanding of things, they don't have to search it out, but I think it's sad to put yourself in a bubble. And, Bathiu, I think you're in a bubble. But it's your choice.

One thing that's for sure. People can be assholes no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. And no, Bathiu, that's a general comment. Not one directed at you.

 

[bathiu]

I was speaking to you and to all of the other people flaming.

Yes , I didn't expect from you to notice that it's "the other side" that is flaming and using much stronger words...

If people don't want a broader understanding of things, they don't have to search it out, but I think it's sad to put yourself in a bubble. And, Bathiu, I think you're in a bubble. But it's your choice.

Really? I'm in a bubble? Wow, that's cool. Good to see that you know who I am and where I am after only 3 posts, posts that, I should add, were very freely interpreted by you. You're literaly puting words in my mouth and then you're building an opinion about me based on this, I'm impressed.
You're still proving that I'm right, you know.

One thing that's for sure. People can be assholes no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. And no, Bathiu, that's a general comment. Not one directed at you.

Yes, I can see that. And no, lancerla, that's a general comment. Not one directed at you.

 

[zwervers2]

"stumbling voice" Can't we all just get along

 

[norsehorse23]

wow, this is pretty heated... i think the question of the thread was did they do the same thing in the US... they didn't boo bush or any other politician. but at the same time, i think we are seeing how different the US and europe are in their political and social beliefs... shame how the two parts of the world that can make the most difference in the fight against poverty and aids can't take a joke at a u2 concert without starting to bicker about politics... somewhere osama bin laden and all the other terrorists are laughing at us.

 

[zwervers2]

wow, this is pretty heated... i think the question of the thread was did they do the same thing in the US... they didn't boo bush or any other politician. but at the same time, i think we are seeing how different the US and europe are in their political and social beliefs... shame how the two parts of the world that can make the most difference in the fight against poverty and aids can't take a joke at a u2 concert without starting to bicker about politics... somewhere osama bin laden and all the other terrorists are laughing at us.

Exellent post

 

[popshopper]

What a ridiculously petty thing to judge a man by...find faults with his policies all you want (Lord knows they're there), but not with his discomfort in front of cameras. The fact that he's the President despite this says a lot about who he is.

Not really, he's a leader. If he can't effectively communicate then what use is he. At the end of the day, policy is governed by advisors and policy wonks as they are the experts on any given field. Do you think Mr Bush gives much time to research the negative effects of say American funding of paramilitary groups in Columbia. No, he probably doesn't but there's a large number of people working for him who do, and its their job to provide him with information in sufficient detail to make informed decisions.

His job is to evaluate the information given to him, and decide a course of action based on that information. From reading Bush at War amongst other things, I am of opinion that Mr Bush is ill-suited to that type of position. Supposedly, the president does little reading (My Pet Goat aside) and meetings generally consist of 10 to 15 minutes of people talking to him with the president asking little or no questions in cross examination.

Also the improper use of language is generally an indicator of a lack of education or intelligence. Given the educational environments the president was taught in (regardless of how poorly he performed there) I doubt it was a lack of basic education so it must be a combination of lack of interest and lack of basic intellect.

In fact having heard the man attempted to speak about his proposals for Social Security reform, I not only came away knowing less than I did before about the subject, and had the distinct impression that he did not have a clue what he was talking about. For a leader that is an appalling hinderance. I'm British and have no real opinion on the subject as it does not directly affect me, but I felt that his proposals were extremely muddled and confused. On paper they may be great but once he attempts to convey them in person it all falls apart.

The first rule of leadership is effective communication. Everything else is secondary.

 

[norsehorse23]

you're right popshopper, he is not the greatest communicator, and probably does not research our funding of paramilitary groups. i think the fact that he isn't bill clinton is why europeans don't like him that much. clinton was handsome and one of the best speakers/manipulators that i have ever seen, he sweet talked our whole country after lying under oath (regardless of the circumstances), and most people bought it. definitely one of the most entertaining presidents we have ever had. did i think he was a terrible president? no, but i couldn't trust him. but again, this is a U2 forum, not a political one.

 

[redsox04]

Today's Yahoo web news service has an interesting article on African debt relief:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050613/ts_csm/odebtdeal_1

Many people will continue to boo Bush/Blair, and will have cynical responses regarding not fulfilling promises. But you can't deny that something positive, on a global scale, is happening under their watch.

 

[DanB]

Also the improper use of language is generally an indicator of a lack of education or intelligence.

In fact having heard the man attempted to speak about his proposals for Social Security reform, I ...

That should be having heard the man ATTEMPT to speak...

So do you lack education or intelligence?

 

[U2DMfan]

Zoo TV was about "News as Entertainment."
Media bombardment.
Look at the cover of Zooropa, and tell me U2 were making a political statement or an artistic statment about NEWS MEDIA bombardment.

It just happened today, all 7 major news network channels were covering the Michael Jackson verdict and then the reaction, and then analyzing the verdict, and then analyzing the reaction, and then showing footage of Michael Jackson's vehicle driving down the freeway. That's what Zoo TV is about, and I think that's what the intro alludes to.

But never let a good opportunity of political bashing go by.
Those of you chastizing Bono or U2 are apparently obvlivious to what it even means. That;s why all sides are represented in the images, it's not about who the images are of, it's the images themselves and the repetition and redundancy.

News media as entertainment.

 

[lancerla]

Really? I'm in a bubble? Wow, that's cool. Good to see that you know who I am and where I am after only 3 posts, posts that, I should add, were very freely interpreted by you. You're literaly puting words in my mouth and then you're building an opinion about me based on this, I'm impressed.
You're still proving that I'm right, you know.

Here's one of your quotes: "BTW, great posts everyone, especialy those from american republicans (that have no idea why they're listening to U2 because it's everything they are against for) gave me some laugh... "

That's how I know you're in a bubble.

You think I'm judging you without knowing you? You're judging half the U.S. based on one man.

 

[bathiu]

Here's one of your quotes: "BTW, great posts everyone, especialy those from american republicans (that have no idea why they're listening to U2 because it's everything they are against for) gave me some laugh... "

Open your mind, get out of your bubble, re-read this thread and maybe you'll see why I posted that...

If that's "judging" in your world... then I'm starting to undertand the reasons behind the war...

 

[bathiu]

You think I'm judging you without knowing you? You're judging half the U.S. based on one man.

ohh? how cool, I didn't know that,... oh wait you're still putting words in my mouth, that's why I didn't notice it...

 

[lancerla]

ohh? how cool, I didn't know that,... oh wait you're still putting words in my mouth, that's why I didn't notice it...

I have a headache. It's official. Agree to disagree.

Hope you one day find a right-wing American who opens your mind a little, and I hope I find a left-wing European that does the same for me.

 

[stagman]

They should'nt do it....... U2 are treading thin ice. This is not good.