FWIW, Fox News made hay with this all night. With typical Fox subtlety and professionalism, the news anchor suggested we send them some “Freedom Fries”. Har-har.

I’m confused. Should I hate the Brits for their tabloids or love them for the Blair poodle?

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at November 5, 2004 09:52 AM

Two words:

Prince Charles.

Posted by: gus3 at November 5, 2004 01:12 PM

I’m going to subscribe to this paper just so I can cancel my subscription.

Posted by: George at November 5, 2004 01:54 PM

Oooo but what I really want to know is who Becks is fooling around with now.

Posted by: agrosquid at November 5, 2004 03:09 PM

Guess they’ll get used to it, like blood pudding, eel pie and not brushing their teeth.

They are a resilient people.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 5, 2004 06:24 PM

Before the orgy of Pom-Bashing gets too out-of-hand, I’d just like to say that I have dual nationality. UK and Australian.

Then of course, there’s this.

Australia has John Pilger and the Sydney Morning Herald. The US has Michael Moore, Robert Fisk, and CBS. And the UK has the George Galloway and the Daily Mirror.

Now let the comments resume…

Posted by: aebrain at November 5, 2004 06:40 PM

And there’s nowt wrong wit a bit’o’black pudding, ee bah goom. Especially compared to Pork Brains in Milk Gravy.

Posted by: aebrain at November 5, 2004 06:45 PM

Well I Guess We Made It Quite Clear To England….
Just Like We Did @ Boston Tea Party

WE ARE AN INDEPENDANT NATION

OUR POLITICAL ELECTIONS

BELONG TO THE UNITED STATES

ALONE
NO ONE DICTATES HOW AMERICANS VOTE

Posted by: ARROW at November 5, 2004 09:35 PM

Arrow, stop being an idiot. The UK can make whatever comments they want and right now even their tabloids garner more international respect than Bush does. So shut your rib-eatin’ piehole and get back to the farm.

Posted by: redSun at November 6, 2004 10:18 AM

redSun :
I wish to draw your attention to the following:

we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

The phrases

stop being an idiot.

and

So shut your rib-eatin’ piehole and get back to the farm

are neither civil nor respectful.

However, given the result on Tuesday, you’re not being banned, merely warned. Your comments are far more sane and coherent than many anti-Bushites I’ve seen elsewhere. Allowances have to be made, just as we would have for depressed GOPers had the result gone the other way.

One piece of advice - free, and probably only worth what you’re paying for it - if you want the DNC to win in 2008, remarks like “get back to the farm”, while emotionally satisfying, are likely to be counter-productive. Just saying.
Commiserations on your Guy’s loss BTW. Unseemly Gloating Time ceased at 2300 GMT Thursday.

Posted by: aebrain at November 6, 2004 10:37 AM

aebrain - You know, for a ‘classless’ society, you certainly do start to see a rift around the elections. For the last 4 years, we’ve been lectured on the supposed mental deficiencies of our President (or, as they like to say, our Resident).

For a really stupid moron, I’d say Bush has gotten pretty far - most can’t get out of the oil pit at the QuikLube (this is not intended as a slam against garage mechanics for every job has its dignity and respect). That said, apparenly no one in their right mind voted for Bush, and now it’s quite apparent to the 55 million losers that the only thing they can lord over the 58 million winners is their intellectual (albeit morally bankrupt) superiority.

Such tiny balm for such a large wound - and I’d doubt it will heal any time soon, for the victims love to wallow in self-pity and revel in their extra smarts. Billions spent by Soros, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, P Diddy, MTV, The Guardian, the 527s, Miramax, Michael Moore - if we ever needed proof in this lifetime that money doesn’t corrupt the election process, we now have it.

So let’s ditch this ridiculous McCain-Feingold sham and go back to giving as much as we want to whoever we want, guaranteed in our rights of free association and freedom of speech. They moan constantly about the $3 billion spent on this campaign, but neglect to mention that we Americans spend $7 billion/yr on potato chips and $9 billion/yr on pet food. It’s a drop in the bucket and TAKE A GOOD LOOK - it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s still a war of ideas and the good ones eventually surface.

This is why the Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic - NOT a democracy. Otherwise, the tail would wag the dog. Certainly America comes close to being a classless society so we’ll probably be hearing from the classless ones for a while to come.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 6, 2004 11:41 AM

Especially compared to Pork Brains in Milk Gravy.

Alan, Alan, no no no no.

We don’t speak of the pork brains in milk gravy. Ever. Just look the other way. That’s right, keep moving. Pay no attention to the offal in the tin…

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at November 6, 2004 12:08 PM

I just want to know why liberals are labeled as amoral?

Posted by: KB at November 6, 2004 01:47 PM

KB

I don’t know who labeled “liberals” as “amoral”, but I do know that many liberals eschew the word “morality” as some sort of icky-poo religious thing. Many leftist-liberals don’t (or won’t) realize is that their worship of secularism or law is just as religious as any Pentacostal.

Here’s an interesting read The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally

To understand the worldwide ideological battle — especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself — one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law — both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, “Is it legal?” is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.
———
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality. Why, then, must the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein be subject to international law as determined by Communist China, neo-KGB Russia, amoral France and the thugs who rule Syria?

The answer is to be found in the Left’s substitution of legal for moral.

Posted by: Darleen at November 6, 2004 02:00 PM

Darleen, has there been any studies as to where the left aquired this dreadful socialist disease?

My theory: If you want to be Chirac, or one of those fruitcakes that lead some of those undermining countries, just allow your people to do what ever they want to do. If they want to run naked through the soccer game or fu-k goats in the market place, have no problem with it. Tell them not to worry about you, you’ll take care of the government. All they need to do is live a life of ‘anything goes’ and pay a lot of taxes. Which is all fine and dandy til there’s not enough folks living a decent, hard working life to pay all those taxes.

Was anything learned from Rome?

Posted by: No Party at November 6, 2004 05:31 PM

Liberals and Lawyers

Posted by: No Party at November 6, 2004 05:32 PM

BTW, The Dailey Mirror is broke. 4 more years of bad luck for them.

Posted by: No Party at November 6, 2004 05:34 PM