egafd.com

Good luck Bimmercat. Think of us as you vote for Bush on Nov 2.

If Bush wins, the aftermath will be interesting to say the least. From here, it's not "apples for apples" - but you're clearly determined.

Hope you have some idea just what a Bush victory will mean to the World - I guess actually you neither know, nor care.

Mate this maybe a shallow way of looking at wealth distribution but look at the sports in your country.

They have all being doing this for ages and it is totally against the amercian way but you have all taken it in for years.

The NBA, NHL and particularly the NFL all have revenue sharing and salary caps (plus the draft) to make for a level playing field and this is embraced by sports mad america as parity and a great way to run sports as it is supposed to give everybody a realistic chance. Even baseball has a luxury tax which may only apply to the Yankees but is a way of distributing wealth.

American sports fans love it as no one team is technically supposed to dominate and the big media outlets endorse it as they pay fortunes for the TV rights.

You only have to watch TV talk shows (or listen to the radio equivilent) to hear fans and so called experts regularly complain about the Yankees dominance and unfair adavantage in baseball due to their income and that most fans would love a salary cap there too.

The truth is this has been going on in sports in the states for donkeys years and the sporting public believe that it's a fair system.

However as soon as wealth distribution is mentioned in other areas of society, that person is seen as a liberal and against the american way.

As I said it may well be a shallow comparison but you can't have things both ways.

John Pilger article here.
I don't suppose it bothers bastard Blair and his minions for one sleepless second.

Mart

thanx but it's the same article that i linked to.

the only thing that keeps awake those politicians whose conscience has long been snuffed out by their ambition, is the prospect of losing their job. something worth bearing in mind before deciding it's not worth the hassle of schlepping down to the poll booth come the next election.

Exercising your democratic right by voting is about the one true say we have in this country. The apathetic "don't vote for politicians, it just encourages them" idea proved to be a winner when the National Front/BNP won a council seat in London by default about a decade ago when the right-wing nutters were the only ones to get their support out.

Who you vote for is your choice. Even spoiling the ballot paper. It means you cared enough about the process to go to the voting station. The danger is that not enough people show interest in an election, and then you end up with fascists and nutty nationalists calling the shots.

I agree that we should all vote. Some countries I think you have to vote. Australia for one I (think) and maybe Deuce will put me straight if I'm wrong but I think you have to vote otherwise you get a fine.

We can all cast an opinion or have politcally motivated discussions all we like but the one chance every 5 years (in britain) that we have to actually do something about it is by voting, no matter how small we think our our contribution is, it's still the only real chance we get.

I'm not clear what you are saying here Bimmercat. Was it bad that the US got involved in both World Wars or are you implying that those wars were a direct or indirect result of there being Democrat Presidents?

Mart