Informed electoral commentary

"[H]e’s a complete and total idiot, who… only got to be where he was on the good graces of his father…a pathetic example of American political nepotism" – now, can you guess which US 2000 presidential election candidate an LGFer is referring to?

The terror hawks really do live on another planet, don’t they?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

10 thoughts on “Informed electoral commentary

  1. "Terror Hawks"? Nice euphemism…
    To be fair it’s one of the idiotic commenters. We all know how careless and stupid comments can afford to be…

  2. The comments on the creation of the US are priceless but for mind boggling wierdness see below. Are these people from this planet or some fucked up alternative history?

    92 rickmoss 4/27/2005 06:55PM PDT

    “This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place,”

    OK, hang-on…. I’m confused.

    I knew these guys were world-class whack jobs. But, am I correct in understanding that the most recent contender for the position of POTUS actually thinks the creation of the US is a BAD THING?

    What nuanced alternative to the creation of the US would have been preferable? A United States of Great Britain? Would they have stood up to the Nazi and Japan?

  3. I think "Rickmoss" is predominantly stupid, rather than insane. The bit in quotes from Gore is saying that America was created because of religious intolerance in Europe; however, he’s reading Gore’s quote as saying that America was created because of the founding fathers’ religious intolerance.

    Other evidence in favour of his stupidity: he appears to have forgotten about the events of November 2004; and he appears to have forgotten which country spent three years fighting the Nazis before his countrymen could even be bothered to join in.

  4. John B: "…he appears to have forgotten which country spent three years fighting the Nazis before his countrymen could even be bothered to join in."

    You wouldn’t be claiming that the US should have launched a pre-emptive attack on a country that had not yet attacked the US just because that country was ruled by an aggressive and murderous dictator, would you?

  5. Hmm. I’d claim there’s a difference between fighting a war to remove a foreign invader from a sovereign state that isn’t your own (equally, I’ve never claimed Gulf War ’90-91 was wrong) and fighting one to remove a mad dastard from his own country.

Comments are closed.