The more i see of this election, the more i agree that both candidates suck. I will proably vote for Kerry because i really dislike Bush, but he isn't much better.

All this bickering, arguing, and mudslinging gets old quick.....and we have 8-months more of lisetning to the 2 men try to discred it each other

Im not gonna do it only on the basis of whether or not bush wins, it will be more focused on the way the US treats other nations. If we start going even more imperialistic than we already are, other people are gonna really hate us. I don't want to be hated for something I didn't do, or agree with. But since this nation is "operated, represented, and run by the people," everyone thinks every american is guilty of the nation's leaders crimes (whether or not they are legitamet)

You should really read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn....i'm about a third of the way through it, and wow.....what a eye opening book (tells a different side of American History).

Doug here seems to be one of the few that know the first goddamn thing about politics in any other country. The rest of you should just shut the fuck up and go back to pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist. I can't believe people of such astounding ignorance are so quick shamelessly open their big mouths.

By the way: Democracy works in Spain. Try it some time, USA. It's about time Aznar, "ese enano imbecil", lapdog to Bush, was taken out of power. Now it's our turn to take out the ring leader.


//Edit: Forgot the image

I agree with Brien Shrimp.

People with opinions other than those of my own are simply blowhards and wastes of space. Surely if they were as enlightened and cosmopolitan as I am, they would be inclined to concur with everything that I say. Instead, they wallow contentedly in their own unmitigated ignorance, the fools!

Why don't you idiots just see things my way!?
Also, Bush = terrorist.

A People's History of the United States is incredible. Absolutely wonderful book. I personally think that it should the textbook used for teaching all American History courses in college, and at least partially used in high school courses. You don't know American history until you've read that book, plain and simple.

That game's too easy to play, and you're doing it wrong.

This is not about opinion. Like you said, it's about "unmitigated ignorance." For the first time in a long time, some other country besides Iraq is in the headlines and people see "socialism" and scramble to the seek forums, "Oh no! Teh terrorists turned Spain commie! They are so cowardly!"

These people really dont know the first thing about how politics work in Spain (or anywhere else for that matter). I guess I could make an effort to educate them, but I only have the time to smuggly them them they're idiots. It has nothing to do with their opinions because they dont even have the information necessary to put one together. So put away that sarcasm, it's obviously too unwieldly for your use.

Maybe tic-tac-toe is more your style?

You're a feisty one.

I don't know where you see people equating socialism with communism. I suppose anyone who disagrees with the tenets of socialism is a McCarthyist to you, but that does not invalid their opinion. In any case, despite the title of this thread, we're not really talking about socialism here. We're talking about how the train bombings affected the election, which your post had nothing to do with. Instead, you decided to spout off some unsubstantiated ad homs about how people are ignorant of how "politics work" in other countries. and then make some stupid unrelated quip about how Bush is a global power-monger and democracy has failed America. Your smug, condescending attitude in no way contributes to the discussion.

And the tic-tac-toe thing was cute.

Well Austrailia is now having protests in Sydney and some there are saying that they hope the political actions that occured in Spain happen there (ie they hope to elect a president that won't support the war effort). To me this just seems to be calling for a terrorist attack.

And Brien, shut up. bobclone2 has got you pegged. You would be just as bad as those so called know-nothings since you believe you know everything about how politics work. And I liked the tic-tac-toe thing too.

I'm curious as to where you found the information indicating that Spain's Popular Party would have won "by a landslide" had the attacks not occured. Granted, the bombings did have an influence on the elections. However, the following articles seem to contradict your statement regarding the political situation in Spain prior to the attacks.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1038946,00.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1079177145537&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1162597,00.html

yeah, I've heard from nobody that they would have one by a landslide. Everything I've heard said it would have been a close race no matter what and that nobody knows really how much the bombings influenced the vote.

I'm almost finished with it now......kick-ass book.

Did the rest of you know that for a period of time in 1877 most of the workers in St. Louis, from all trades, went on strike and the city was controlled by mobs demanding socialism?

well then chalk up a win for the terrorists and it is indeed a sad day.

and no, i did not know that

Woah! Somehow this thread seems to have reason in it... on both sides. That doesn't happen very often on seek.

Glad to see some folks reading Zinn, he's a good guy. People's History and Can't be Neutral are both good, I'd suggest the Zinn Reader. Bunch of essays, good stuff. Also, to Stumbles, it would take far too long to discuss my sig. Suffice to say that nearly all listed did not kill anyone DIRECTLY (i.e. physically shoot someone), but their administrations all did (are doing) some nasty shit involving that. But that talk is for another time.

I'd get back to the topic; I'm a little bit confused, though. Is it not actually an issue of Spain having a more liberal government that is concerning most, or is it this strange 'giving in to the terrorists' thing?

I'm a pretty radical economic and moral liberal - a socialist and a quite direct equal rights all the way - so my stance on their governmental change is pretty obvious.

The one thing I'm not so certain of is how the train bombing and the election are definitively tied together. Also, how EXACTLY does their election of a different party surrender to terrorism? If Bush is not re-elected for a second term, did we surrender to terrorism?

Is it this poll that said one side is going to win, but another did, right after the attack? It seems to me this poll was reported as being both a landslide as well as very close. This doesn't feel too reliable. It's also not like a poll was ever wrong.

Is it not possible that the people of Spain didn't want to be involved in this coalition, so they voted their leader out of office? There were a great deal of protests in Spain (et. al. of Europe) dealing with the Iraqi conflict. They didn't seem like they were surrendering to terrorists, they didn't want to be involved in a war which they believed wasn't even against a true terrorist threat.

Who exactly are they surrendering to? The ETA? No way in hell. Surely not Bin n' Pals.

I just think it's another election. Their country swayed to the liberal side for now, it'll go back and forth forever like it always does. Not so be overly simplistic, of course...

-- Doug