h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Being an American in this election year is very confusing for me. There are endless reasons why Bush should not be re-elected, but the alternative is not hopeful either. It seems to me that the ideals our two prominent political parties once represented have all been skewed and made into a huge grey-area-non-specific-tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear kind of babble. I feel like my vote will simply be choosing the lesser evil...

just a thought...
SOE

Then choose the lesser evil... it's certainly better than not voting at all!

Exactly! I feel that if youdon't take advantage of your right to voe, you don't have the right to complain about the government.

Just a helpful(?) quote from the guide:


The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford, "it is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards."
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard might get in."


Douglas Adams, he was a man ahead of his time.......



G

i still think, monarchy and imperialism have given us the most advance as humans.
as far as amerika.
GET RID OF BUSH
he is the wrong lizard.
lets just say you ppl dont have as many friends in england as you used to.
and if your army kills any more british by 'accident' then i think they will have a little accident of thier own

I can totally understand “SOE's” quandary. First I thought Kerry is merely a boring but harmless democrat. Did you see him on Larry King together with his wife ? Actually I can hardly remember anything of what he said, simply because of zoning out while he was talking. But still this doesn’t make him a worse candidate than Bush, does it? But all the stuff about “Skull and Bones” really makes him suspicious… And now I’m not even sure anymore, if he’s the better candidate at all. The sad truth is, I’m afraid, that it will not make any difference whether Kerry or Bush is going to win. They’re both “lizards” of the same kind, and the only way to show one’s protest is by either casting an invalid ballot, or by voting for some candidate who has no reasonable chance to win.

katkodl

just a few facts here :

1.There were 39 combat mortalities in Iraq in January
There were 35 murders in Detroit in January.

2.FDR(democrat) led the Americans into WW2
Germany did not attack the U.S., Japan did.
from '41 to '45, 450,000 american lives were lost
an average of 112,500 per year.

3.Truman(democrat) led the Americans into a war with Korea.
Korea did not attack the U.S.
from '50 to '53, 55,000 american lives were lost.
an average of 18,334 per year.

4.JFK(democrat) took over the Vietnam conflict from the fr*nch in 1962.
Vietnam did not attack the U.S.

5.LBJ(democrat) turned 'Vietnam' into a quagmire.
from '65 to '75 58,000 american lives were lost.
an average of 5,800 per year.

6.W.J.Clinton(democrat)went to war in Bosnia without UN or fr*nch consent
Bosnia did not attack the U.S.
The Sudan offered him the head of O Bin L on a platter three times
and WJC did nothing.
Osama has attacked the U.S. on multiple occasions.

7.In the nearly three years since September 11th, The U.S.A. has:
liberated two countries
crushed the Taliban, crippled Al Qaida
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, North Korea where none were before without firing a shot
captured a despot who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

8.The democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno(democrat) to take the Branch Davidian compound (51 days)

9.The coalition in Iraq has been looking for evidence of WMDs in Iraq
for less time than it took Hilary Clinton(democrat) to find the Rose
law firm billing records (they were on her desk)

10.It took the 3rd Infantry division and the Marines less time to neutralise the Medina Guard than it took Ted Kennedy(democrat) to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

just my

alec.(resident alien, sorry i can't vote)

Alec Not entirely sure what that is meant to prove

Facts?

>>1.There were 39 combat mortalities in Iraq in January
There were 35 murders in Detroit in January.<<

All I can conclude from the second figure is the ongoing insanity of US gun laws. As for the first figure, it seems to duck the issue: how many Iraqi civilians were killed in the same period? Don't bother looking for an answer to that: the coalition has made a point of not bothering to count

>>2.FDR(democrat) led the Americans into WW2
Germany did not attack the U.S., Japan did.
from '41 to '45, 450,000 american lives were lost
an average of 112,500 per year.<<

The US went to war without being attacked (by the Germans, anyway). Something that will, I hope, always be taken for a genuinely honourable act. However, it was also true of Britain and France, both of whom declared war in advance of being attacked.

For the next few points, though, I have to say it's the brandishing of casualty figures that strikes me as hugely distasteful. 450,000 in WWII - a huge sacrifice. But 20,000,000 Russians, a similar number of Chinese, the countless millions who died in the Holocaust, the similar number (around 400,000) who died as a direct result of just the two a-bombs the US dropped on Japan. Same goes for the rest - 55,000 in Korea as against the millions of Korean lives lost (1 in 3 of the adult population in North Korea, though that is hearsay - again, no one really bothered to count); 58,000 in Vietnam as against 2,000,000 Vietnamese. And so on and so on. Sorry, but when I see lists like these, it's the insularity that really bothers me - American lives counting not just double or tenfold but infinitely more than any other nation's dead. Because that's *exactly* the misjudgement in Iraq.

And all of them initiated by Democrats? Well, if we skip over Nixon and Kissinger carpet-bombing Cambodia (again, such tasteful foreign policy, so much more pleasant when no one has to go back and count the bodies) or Reagan disregarding all international laws then in existence to reduce large swathes of Central America to hell on earth, I suppose you can make that stand up. But 'facts' is looking a bit troublesome at that stage.

>>6.W.J.Clinton(democrat)went to war in Bosnia without UN or fr*nch consent
Bosnia did not attack the U.S.<<

Sorry, but that one is *really* offensive. *Please* read something about the Bosnian War. Neither the US nor any other western government did nearly as much in Bosnia as they should have done.

>>7.In the nearly three years since September 11th, The U.S.A. has:
liberated two countries<<

Highly debatable

>>crushed the Taliban<<

Sadly not - just enough for the TV crews. Check if you don't believe me.

>>crippled Al Qaida<<

Rather than, as might be argued, strengthening their hand immensely by stirring up quite such an unprecedented level of anti-US sentiment in the middle east

>>put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran<<

No - Bush sulked: EU gets the credit for this one and the US is currently trying to undo the good work in Iran

>>North Korea<<

Oh please!

>>where none were before without firing a shot<<

Makes you wonder why Bush wouldn't let them finish in Iraq, no?

>>captured a despot who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people<<

Fair enough - no one's going to argue with that, to say nothing of all the other people's people he killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Just a shame no one stopped him at the time he was carrying out all that killing ... Who was President then? Who was selling Hussein his arms at the time? Who had his arms round Saddam, congratulating him as a bulwark of the Cold War?

>>The democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno(democrat) to take the Branch Davidian compound (51 days)<<

'Take'? But giving some thought to what happens after you 'take' is the point, is what the French were pushing for in early 2003, is what no one in the Bush administration gave a stuff about

>>9.The coalition in Iraq has been looking for evidence of WMDs in Iraq for less time than it took Hilary Clinton(democrat) to find the Rose law firm billing records (they were on her desk)<<

But she did find them, yes? Spot the flaw?

>>10.It took the 3rd Infantry division and the Marines less time to neutralise the Medina Guard than it took Ted Kennedy(democrat) to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.<<

Sorry, that one's lost me. The one concerns a war. The other concerns US domestic politics and the actions of a single individual. In some parts of the world, these actually aren't given equal weight, surprising though that may seem.

As you say, just my

Don't want to get too involved here, but Germany DID declare war on the US during WW2. Seems like a reasonable reason to go to war on Germany, who were allied to the Japanese, who DID attack the US.

Personally, the reason why (US) Americans p*ss me off (and yeah, I know it's just some of them), is that nominally they are very religious, but most of the religious ones wouldn't know compassion if it farted in their face. Evidence for this was collected on a trip to Nebraska, talking to the locals, a few years back.

Oops, wrong thread for 2nd paragraph...