• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GAF Post-Election Country Jamboree Bitchfest Catch-All Thread O' Doom

Status
Not open for further replies.

xsarien

daedsiluap
efralope said:
do you know what the margin was compared to 2000?

CNN doesn't have the 2000 totals (anymore).

NYC 2004:

Bronx:
Kerry - 260,438
Bush - 52,752

Brooklyn:
Kerry - 468,403
Bush - 156,612

Manhattan:
Kerry - 468,841
Bush - 95,362

Queens:
Kerry - 393,482
Bush - 155,363

Staten Island:
Bush - 84,270
Kerry - 62,603


TOTAL:
Kerry - 1,653,767
Bush - 544,359
 

Phoenix

Member
nathkenn said:
whatever, this is just an example of more widespread fuck ups and tampering that is going on

So you're saying that these things collectively made a difference and the margin of error in the electoral process (which will never be 0% error) needs to be lowered?
 
nathkenn said:
whatever, this is just an example of more widespread fuck ups and tampering that is going on

As much as I wanted Kerry to win, you can't just go around with that kind of mindset. Bush won this election fair and square. Would I like to have seen paper receipts printed out for those who used the eVoting machines? Sure.

But you only need to look at the Senate and House races to see where this country stands today, and it sure as heck ain't blue.
 

AniHawk

Member
MIMIC said:
If only other countries/continents got to participate

kerrywins01.jpg

You forgot Poland.

I bet it's been said already, but it's still good!
 

nathkenn

Borg Artiste
the senate and house races were also on those ballots, and i'd say this country stands pretty much split down the middle
 
Good editorial below.

November 4, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Well, as Grandma used to say, at least I still have my
health. ...

I often begin writing columns by interviewing myself. I did
that yesterday, asking myself this: Why didn't I feel
totally depressed after George H. W. Bush defeated Michael
Dukakis, or even when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore? Why
did I wake up feeling deeply troubled yesterday?

Answer: whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush
were over what was the right policy. There was much he
ultimately did that I ended up admiring. And when George W.
Bush was elected four years ago on a platform of
compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle,
I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But
what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this
election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for
George Bush by people who don't just favor different
policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of
America. We don't just disagree on what America should be
doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual
preferences and the marriage unions they want to make? Is
it a country that allows a woman to have control over her
body? Is it a country where the line between church and
state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be
inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn't trump
science? And, most important, is it a country whose
president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us -
instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the
real problems facing the nation were really discussed. But
at another level, without warning, it actually became about
everything. Partly that happened because so many Supreme
Court seats are at stake, and partly because Mr. Bush's
base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and
extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we
were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president.
I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the
Constitutional Convention broke out.

The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly
incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy,
Mr. Bush held onto the same basic core of states that he
won four years ago - as if nothing had happened. It seemed
as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed
as if they were voting for what team they were on.

This was not an election. This was station identification.
I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had
the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead,
"Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the
Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting
Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I
am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they
have used that religious energy to promote divisions and
intolerance at home and abroad. I respect that moral
energy, but wish that Democrats could find a way to tap it
for different ends.

"The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the
moral and spiritual sources of American politics," noted
the Harvard University political theorist Michael J.
Sandel. "They will not recover as a party until they again
have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual
yearnings - but turn them to progressive purposes in
domestic policy and foreign affairs."

I've always had a simple motto when it comes to politics:
Never put yourself in a position where your party wins only
if your country fails. This column will absolutely not be
rooting for George Bush to fail so Democrats can make a
comeback. If the Democrats make a comeback, it must not be
by default, because the country has lapsed into a total
mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can
win with a positive message that connects with America's
heartland.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Mr. Bush has a
mandate for his far right policies. Yes, he does have a
mandate, but he also has a date - a date with history. If
Mr. Bush can salvage the war in Iraq, forge a solution for
dealing with our entitlements crisis - which can be done
only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal
policy - upgrade America's competitiveness, prevent Iran
from going nuclear and produce a solution for our energy
crunch, history will say that he used his mandate to lead
to great effect. If he pushes for still more tax cuts and
fails to solve our real problems, his date with history
will be a very unpleasant one - no matter what mandate he
has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ex=1100550594&ei=1&en=fe5c6702d9630eaf
 

Alcibiades

Member

Ripclawe

Banned
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBVFYYG51E.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Two days after the Democrats took at drubbing at the polls across the country, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to leaders of the state's majority party as "losers." At a Thursday news conference, the Republican governor who branded Democrats "girlie men" during a budget fight last year was asked whether he would listen to tax-increase proposals from Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata or other Democratic leaders.

"Why would I listen to losers?" Schwarzenegger asked. "Let's be honest."

As soon as he made that remark, however, he tried to suggest he was referring not to Democrats themselves, but to their tax increase proposals.

Schwarzenegger qaid that Democrats had "lost every single ballot in the Bay Area" and that "the big spenders wanted to go with increased taxes, many different taxes and fees and all kinds of things and lost all of that."
 

Dilbert

Member
efralope said:
read it earlier in the day and thought it was a bore, really he has nothing to add to what was said during the campaign trail or current comments by the likes of Pelosi..

I usually thought this guys columns were pretty good and he has good insights, but really this is such standard thought among the left it's getting boring...
So in other words, you didn't read the article and just decided to drop it in the bucket labeled, "opinions from people who aren't on my side?"
 

Triumph

Banned
What's really disconcerting to me, is that a little bit less than half of the country's registered voters WILL NOT be represented in Washington for at least the next two years. You can take all that talk about reaching out to the people that voted against you and shove it up your Connecticut ass, buddy. You're not fooling people that have been paying attention.

Bush interprets his 51% support of all registered voters(and not all of America, methinks) as a MANDATE. That's not a mandate. But the math genius interprets it as one, of course. So, half the country gets the shaft and we go further to the right for at least two years.

Ah, fuck it. I've given up on national politics. I'm working to change things at local levels. Fuck the Republicans and the Democrats, I hope they legislate enough rope to hang themselves with over the next four years. Bah.
 

firex

Member
here's what's really important: will charles barkley win the election for governor of alabama? and when's that office up for re-election, anyway?
 

Acrylamid

Member
nathkenn said:
woopsy, ah but who cares we'll just go ahead and decide the president without voting from now on
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_el_pr/voting_problems
Local officials said UniLect Corp., the maker of the county's electronic voting system, told them that each storage unit could handle 10,500 votes, but the limit was actually 3,005 votes.
??
That's ridiculous. Even if a vote is heavily encrypted, I can't see how it can be bigger than 1 KB, which means the storage unit has a capacity of less than 3 MB. WTF !? Is there some mistake in my thinking or are the votes saved on a 3.5" floppy disk?
 

Ripclawe

Banned
http://www.bet.com/News/blackbloc.h...ferrer={03CE5360-2620-42CB-AD7E-77E4249C5FB7}

A strong turnout by African Americans on Election Day wasn’t enough to defeat President Bush. Despite cases of voter intimidation, he beat John Kerry fair and square. And Bush did it with greater support from Black voters than he won four years ago.

Bush made a modest inroad into the Black community, but that’s more than enough to let Republicans crow. Surveys of voters after they left the polls indicated that 11 percent of African Americans voted for him, up at least two points from 2000. In some places, like Ohio, Bush took 16 percent of the Black vote, an increase of seven points.

Gay Marriage Miscue?

Black people also can be socially conservative folks, and Bush’s opposition to gay marriage struck a positive chord with African Americans. A majority of them agree with him on that point, even if they don’t support his call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Even the civil union alternative has little support in Black communities.

It’s a subject that Washington radio talk show host Joe Madison says resonates with callers to his program on WOL/XM “The Power.” “They just simply believe it’s a man and a woman that should be married,” he said. “They aren’t strong on that liberal viewpoint (regarding gay marriage). They don’t like it.”

Bush didn’t make gay marriage a central issue of his campaign and he didn’t need to. Conservatives managed to get measures banning same sex marriage on the ballots in 11 states. Voters approved all those measures. The exit polls don’t say how Black people in those states voted on those questions, but there is no doubt that the ballot issues helped fan the flame of same sex-marriage and that could only help Bush’s cause.
 

Azrael

Member
Social liberals would be wise to compromise on the gay marriage issue. Instead of demanding "marriage," which not only confers certain rights but has a great deal of symbolic value, they should support marriage legally remaining a heterosexual institution but also support the creation of an alternate institution that grants similar rights to unmarried people. Like any unmarried person would be able to enter a contract with another person, for no specified reason, that would grant that person certain rights like hospital visitations, etc. Gays would be given 90% of what they want, and the "sanctity of marriage" would be preserved. If liberals aren't willing to compromise even a little on value issues, the Democrats are going to be a minority party for a long time.
 
Azrael said:
Social liberals would be wise to compromise on the gay marriage issue. Instead of demanding "marriage," which not only confers certain rights but has a great deal of symbolic value, they should support marriage legally remaining a heterosexual institution but also support the creation of an alternate institution that grants similar rights to unmarried people. Like any unmarried person would be able to enter a contract with another person, for no specified reason, that would grant that person certain rights like hospital visitations, etc. Gays would be given 90% of what they want, and the "sanctity of marriage" would be preserved. If liberals aren't willing to compromise even a little on value issues, the Democrats are going to be a minority party for a long time.

Actually, not that many people are calling for gay marriages right now. Yes, there are the hardcore ones, but most of us were pragmatic enough to try to go slowly. Although I'm proud for Newsom for acting on our principles, I did not agree with his move last year solely for poltical purposes. I don't know how, but somehow people have this weird misconception that tons of liberals are clamoring for gay marriages right now. Many of us think longer term than that.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Now its confirmed that Newsom will be made a major scapegoat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05newsom.html

One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path, which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before issuing licenses.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast, constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states - including Ohio, an important battleground - in large part, Mr. Frank said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco.

Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears of same-sex weddings.

Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there would have been some collateral damage'' in the election, but "a lot less.''

"The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings,'' he said, adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears."

"He created a sense there was chaos,'' Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom, "rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that this doesn't mean anything to anyone else."
 

Jim Bowie

Member
On a side note, did anybody see "Let's Be Frank", the documentary on Barney Frank? I almost got to see it a couple months back, but missed it.
 
Newsom is quite popular in San Francisco. I've met several of Gonzalez supporters who have been converted into Newsom supporters. Not only does he stand for us, he is well hung (according to his wife).
 

fennec fox

ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
Ripclawe said:
Now its confirmed that Newsom will be made a major scapegoat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05newsom.html
That sounds like a fair critique of Newsom to me, although he has the support of myself and (I believe) most of the city he governs behind him. Simply legalizing it when he and all the couples involved knew it'd be struck down in a few days? Of course that was meant to get a reaction from the opposite side.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Azrael said:
Social liberals would be wise to compromise on the gay marriage issue. Instead of demanding "marriage," which not only confers certain rights but has a great deal of symbolic value, they should support marriage legally remaining a heterosexual institution but also support the creation of an alternate institution that grants similar rights to unmarried people. Like any unmarried person would be able to enter a contract with another person, for no specified reason, that would grant that person certain rights like hospital visitations, etc. Gays would be given 90% of what they want, and the "sanctity of marriage" would be preserved. If liberals aren't willing to compromise even a little on value issues, the Democrats are going to be a minority party for a long time.

I think it's unfair to assume that liberals are unwilling to accept this -- as a step -- but it's important for conservatives to realize that it won't make the issue go away. And conservatives are, at this point, the least willing to compromise, with 8 (I believe) states now having ratified constitutional amendments saying that any form of contract that emulates marriage is not legal or supportable by the government.
 
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/el...nov05,1,2359662.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Evangelicals want big payback for election turnout

WASHINGTON - Gratified, emboldened and feeling in large part responsible for the re-election of George W. Bush, Christian conservative leaders like Robert Knight had a message for the president this week regarding those who want him to unite the nation by taking a more moderate tack.

"Mr. President: Ignore them, honor your base and let's roll up our sleeves and get some things accomplished, such as filling the Supreme Court with judges who know when life begins," Knight, the director of the Culture and Family Institute, wrote to Bush in a commentary.

After Tuesday's election, in which evangelical Christians turned out in large numbers for Bush and a plurality of voters said "moral values" was the issue that mattered most to them, religious conservatives believe they have a greater opportunity to press their agenda, expand their coalition and mend what they see as the fraying social fabric of the nation.

"We're elated beyond measure," said Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family, an influential conservative Christian group.

In light of Bush's re-election, as well as strengthened Republican majorities in Congress and the defeat of Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, religious conservatives are dusting off their wish lists with optimism and great expectations for the next four years.

At the top of their lists: a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion; taking another stab at amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage; conservative appointments to federal courts across the country and passage of a number of abortion-limiting bills.

Christian conservatives believe that Bush now has a clear mandate for conservative leadership, "a covenant with the people who support him," said Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America.

And they believe Republicans in Congress will be more inclined to honor that mandate.

"Going into the midterm elections [of 2006], Republicans would do well to deliver on the confident hopes of millions of American conservatives who were the difference on Election Day," said Rep. Mike Pence, a conservative Indiana Republican. "There's an old saying ... 'You gotta dance with what brung ya.' What brung George Bush to a second term was American conservatism."
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
I originally had a pretty verbose reply to all of that, but I'll cull it down to the basics:

The Christian right makes me ill.
 

ge-man

Member
xsarien said:
I originally had a pretty verbose reply to all of that, but I'll cull it down to the basics:

The Christian right makes me ill.

I know what you mean. I think it's a joke to say that this election was decided by morals--what morals are we talking about? What I see is a distortion of the spirtual truth of Christianity. It looks like this realization is not going to come before people start loosing their rights.
 
I guess our National Parks souvenier stores will still be carrying that book about how Noah's Flood formed the Grand Canyon 6,000 years ago.
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Chapter Three: Kerry Gets Cranky

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6414892/site/newsweek/


Campaigning can energize a natural politician, like Bill Clinton, who feeds off crowds and sucks up adulation. For the more solitary, shy Kerry, campaigning—the day-in, day-out grind of meeting and greet-ing and staying "on"—was always a labor, sometimes an ordeal. Kerry's best friend from Yale, David Thorne, his former brother-in-law who had stayed close even after Kerry's divorce from Julia Thorne in 1988, worried about the toll on the candidate. The campaign was "depleting" Kerry, Thorne believed. His old friend was stoic and dogged, and Kerry rallied under pressure, but there was never enough time to truly recover.

Kerry could be cranky. He was not a petty tyrant, like some bosses. He could be generous to his staff, who stayed loyal to him. But "he will whine constantly," said one top aide, quoting Kerry's bouts of petulance: " 'I'm not getting enough exercise, I'm overscheduled, I didn't get the speech on time'—on and on, ad nauseam." Kerry's campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, didn't put up with much. "She cuts it off," said this aide. "She'll say, 'It wasn't anybody's fault,' or 'Whose fault was that?' " Kerry's personal aide, Marvin Nicholson, had to grin and bear it. Kerry had met Nicholson, 33, at a windsurfing shop in Cambridge, Mass., where Nicholson was working; he later caddied for Kerry at the Nantucket Golf Club. Now the 6-foot-8 University of Western Ontario grad was, in effect, his valet, serving his personal needs. The two men were close friends, but Nicholson was still the servant.

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtual-ly insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. "Sir, I don't have it," he said, after rummaging in the bags. "Marvin, f---!" Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. "I'm not using Wade's brush," the long-faced senator pouted. "Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. "Marvin, charger," he said without turning around. "Sorry, I don't have it," said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. "I'm running this campaign myself," he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. "I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It's pretty amazing." In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.
 
ge-man said:
I know what you mean. I think it's a joke to say that this election was decided by morals--what morals are we talking about? What I see is a distortion of the spirtual truth of Christianity. It looks like this realization is not going to come before people start loosing their rights.

You know, being college-educated and from New York, I have given a lot of thought in recent months to the whole intellectual elitist stereotype being tossed around this election, especially on this forum, and it's one I thought for a long time I wanted to avoid. But after a while I realized: bullshit. To be for tolerance and equal rights isn't elitist. Christians and conservatives who want to pick and choose who's worth what rights and codify their beliefs in law are elitist, because they are essentially suggesting there is only one way to live one's life. These gay marriage bans weren't referendums on marriage, they were referendums on homosexuality itself. I can't imagine what it must have been like for a sixteen year old questioning his or her sexuality to wake up in Ohio or any other of the eleven states on Wednesday morning.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
brooklyngooner said:
These gay marriage bans weren't referendums on marriage, they were referendums on homosexuality itself. I can't imagine what it must have been like for a sixteen year old questioning his or her sexuality to wake up in Ohio or any other of the eleven states on Wednesday morning.

It will probably: push them further underground, make them more miserable, make them more confused, etc.... nothing good that's for sure.
 
DarienA said:
It will probably: push them further underground, make them more miserable, make them more confused, etc.... nothing good that's for sure.

Some will even get married, have children, two cars, a job, a mortgage, pets, and spend the rest of their lives in shame and guilt.
 

Dilbert

Member
brooklyngooner said:
Some will even get married, have children, two cars, a job, a mortgage, pets, and spend the rest of their lives in shame and guilt.
But hey, at least then they'll be cured, right?

</SARCASM>
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&u=/nm/20041105/bs_nm/markets_forex_euro_dc_2&printer=1


Dollar Falls to Record Low Against Euro


NEW YORK (Reuters) - The euro hit a record high against the dollar above $1.2927 on Friday as the beleaguered U.S. currency weakened across the board in technically driven trading.


The dollar's bounce from strong U.S. employment data earlier in the session proved fleeting, as dealers, concerned about record U.S. trade and budget deficits, saw an opportunity to sell it lower again.

This involved buying euros en masse, taking out options barriers around $1.2900, and then at the previous all-time high of $1.2927.

The euro climbed above the high of $1.2927 hit on Feb. 18, touching a record peak around $1.2935, according to Reuters data.

Global policy-makers have recently appeared fairly tolerant of the dollar's decline, and their laissez-faire attitude has encouraged investors to continue selling the U.S. currency. Some Federal Reserve (news - web sites) officials recently signaled that the dollar would have to fall if the U.S. trade gap remains wide.

Four more yeasrs bitches
 

Ripclawe

Banned
Strong Euro is not a good thing



Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- European leaders clashed over how to respond to the euro's rise to a record as German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder disputed French President Jacques Chirac's argument that the surging currency is undermining the economy.

The euro's level is ``not yet dramatic,'' German exporters are performing ``brilliantly'' and ``we don't need to take any political measures,'' Schroeder said at a meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels. Chirac said ``I am a little bit worried by the dollar's downward trend.''

The euro's gains burden European exporters while curbing the inflationary effect of rises in dollar-denominated prices of commodities such as oil. The European Central Bank yesterday kept its key interest rate at a six-decade low of 2 percent to support recovery from the weakest economic growth in a decade.

The 56 percent jump in oil prices this year is damping global growth and threatening to derail Europe's recovery before investment and consumer spending pick up. Manufacturing growth slowed in October and unemployment held at 8.9 percent for the 19th month in September, the highest in more than four years


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=amQQpFiDbuqc&refer=europe
 

Fatghost

Gas Guzzler
maharg said:
Mike said he doesn't think Alberta would vote Bush but I, as an Albertan, am not so sure. I've heard a lot of support for Bush put in terms of Kerry being protectionist. With the whole Mad Cow thing, the threat of someone even LESS likely to open the borders to Alberta beef, not to mention the possibility of timber and oil tarrifs, Albertans may feel Bush is the better candidate for Canada.

I think that's a load of shit, personally, but whatever.


I'm an Ontarian and I'd have voted for Bush. Sure, Bush is going to be bad for the US, but he's better for Canada. :D
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
Following the election on the 2nd, the UK has prepared the following statement to be read and adhered to by the entire US population.

Your Betters said:
To the citizens of the United States of America,
In the light of your failure to elect a suitable President of the USA and
thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will
resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister
(The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until
now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a
minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and
the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year
to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a
British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate
effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then
look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at
just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be
reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter
'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to
spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love
affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize"
will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh
is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh
as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you
should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary".
Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as
"like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of
communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the
Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then
you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary
then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on
your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of
the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It
really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney,
upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to
learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart"
will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about
regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in
England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it
Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire,
Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the
good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English
characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf"
will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who
can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen",
but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get
confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of
football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.
The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders
may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no
longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.
Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult
game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby
(which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for
a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like
nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by
2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an
event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of
America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your
borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be
allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without
fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if
they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is
a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians
have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "5hit".
You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be
allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable
peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle
potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry
a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2th will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own
good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All
road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving
on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with
immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts
and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries
are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85%
of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not
aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato
chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in
animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be
served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with
customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all
tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be
doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer
at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be
referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance
will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American
Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine", with the
exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product
will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine". This will allow true
Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech
Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From December 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you
will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the
former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and
the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon
- get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or
therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that
you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by
adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone
or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.
Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to
ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).
Thank you for your cooperation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom