Jump to content

Quickly summing up the US election...

Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Yep it was.

But http://jibjab.com/ has it so you don't have to copy.paste into browser. But there is a 30 second commercial.

Seems to have gone through the internet community pretty fast. Seen it on a couple. lately.

I'm pretty sure I seen this cartoon on CNN or something. They were talking about it.

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
Posted

Yep it was on CNN, as something friends could share with other friends they couldn't talk about politics with.  It is a bipartisan bash, and actually does sum things up nicely...

My favorite part "You can't say Nuclear, that really scares me".  :)

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

The closest translation I can come up for nucular weapons is armaments which may contain nuts (latin stem nuc-). The idiom peanuts (denoting worthlessness) does translate in this case.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, Bush was in fact claiming that Saddam's weapons systems amounted to peanuts, which is why it was safe to invade.

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

In foreign politics, main thing which I am involved as a Slovak in, their politics would be same. Fight against Al-Kaida, maybe Iran, North Korea, softening contacts with China and perhaps little arguments with HRE and Russia. As Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon etc were targets of same hate, so will be Kerry if he would win.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

American politics is like arguing whether the glass is half full or half empty. Neither 'side' can be bothered to fill the glass, of course, and all the while it's evapourating away...

HasimirFenring

HasimirFenring

Posted
Posted

Not entirely true.  One side does bother to fill the glass, but only when its ver existence is threatened (World War II, Great Depression, Civil War).  Unfortunately, as you said, the water gradually evaporates in between, reforms are repealed, and people forget the lessons...

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, I have to agree with Fenring here. Roosevelt did some pretty radical stuff. Tried everything that would work and then some. Though, to be honest, the real solution came with World War II...

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I have to agree with Fenring here. Roosevelt did some pretty radical stuff. Tried everything that would work and then some. Though, to be honest, the real solution came with World War II...

Yeah...World War II really spurred industry.  Roosevelt's New Deal worked well, considering papers were running headlines about "Will America survive to next year" and such.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Actually, by world standards, none of Roosevelt's policies were particularly "radical". His reforms never went anywhere near those implemented in Britain by Atlee's 1945 Labour government, for example. However, Roosevelt did manage to keep the USA afloat during the worst period in its history, and eventually emerged on top. Furthermore, his progressive reforms improved the lives of tens of millions of Americans for many generations. Those things, together with the fact that he helped win WW2, make him the greatest American president in history.

Still, Roosevelt may have been the man who prevented the collapse of capitalism, so perhaps I should curse him rather than praise him. If the likes of Herbert Hoover or other such incompetent fools would have been in charge, then the Depression would have gotten bad enough to trigger a revolution. Roosevelt made concessions to the working class and improved the people's lives a bit, but in doing so he may have averted a revolution that would have changed the system completely and improved people's lives a great deal more.

On the other hand, maybe not. I guess we'll never know.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Right, but if we discussed American history using world standards, no one ever did anything radical. We've got to use some frame of reference to discuss Roosevelt, who, by American standards, is the most radical president we've seen.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Actually, you did do a radical thing once: The Civil War. ;)

But you're right, of course - and that was a point I was trying to make...

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
Posted

Wrong sort of revolution though Edric.  Forget which, but in history class year before last the teacher made a point out of telling us two governors openly said they had become fascists, and would survive even if the federal government collapsed.  The Socialists may have been able to rally for a revolution, but it would've devolved into another civil war with fascists.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Ouch. I didn't know about that...

However, the Socialists and the Communists DID get unprecedented levels of support (and unprecedented numbers of votes) in the early 30's. The Socialists emerged as the 3rd largest party and the Communists were the 4th.

As for the Civil War (the real one, I mean), of course it was radical - by virtue of being a civil war in the first place. Revolutions and civil wars are by their very nature "radical" acts.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yep. That's Huey Long. The Kingfish. Governor and Dictator of Louisiana during the '30s, I believe. Though, I think some still view him as sort of a state hero...

ordos45

ordos45

Posted
Posted

However, the Socialists and the Communists DID get unprecedented levels of support (and unprecedented numbers of votes) in the early 30's. The Socialists emerged as the 3rd largest party and the Communists were the 4th.

Yep.  That was back when we had a bad enough condition people were really starting to hate the capitalist system.

The Soviet Union placed an Ad in a newspaper once too and had only 5000 positions or something and had way more than that show up at their embassy.

Yep. That's Huey Long. The Kingfish. Governor and Dictator of Louisiana during the '30s, I believe. Though, I think some still view him as sort of a state hero...

Thanks!  Couldn't think of the name.  Wasn't Long assassinated?  That could explain being a hero of sorts still...

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"On September 9, 1935 he was shot once by Carl Weiss in the Capitol building at Baton Rouge. Weiss was immediately shot dead by Long's bodyguards. (Persistent rumors allege that Weiss actually had no gun and only struck Long with his hand, and Long was accidentally shot by his own guards when they opened fire on Weiss.) Weiss was the son-in-law of Judge Benjamin Pavy, a long-time political opponent of Long. Long died the following day from internal bleeding following an incompetent attempt to close the wounds by Dr. Arthur Vidrine.

Some say that Huey should have recovered from the wounds, and that his doctors killed him. Huey's brother, Earl Long, was elected governor of Louisiana on three occasions. Huey Long's son Russell B. Long also became a Senator."

There's lots to be said about what really happened. What makes it all the harder to determine was that Long's governorship was never an official dictatorship, even though Long himself often expressed dictatorial tendancies.

Courtesy of http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Huey%20Long

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.