2. The rest of the world counldn't stand him? let me guess your proof : Liberal boards and the the Nobel Prize committee. Look at Bush's humanitarian efforts in Africa and efforts to improve the AIDS situation there. Look at the countries that did ally themselves with us (hint there were 30 of them). Get your head out of democratic rhetoric
You said no one believed Bush stole the 2004 election, NO ONE. I provide a list of over 2 million hits stating otherwise and that's flimsy evidence? There were several people stating that little nugget of sore loserdom, just because you deny it doesn't mean it didn't happenThat's rather flimsy evidence.
No, the Supreme Court decision rendered the recounts moot. Gore could have gone forward, but the only way he could have won was rewriting of election law. Some reporters continued the recount and discovered that Bush still won, others reported had the Republicans got their way on the recounts and it was done statewide, Gore would have won, but to my knowledge that has not been verified.I recall despite Gore's concession, it still wasn't completely resolved for a while. In any case, people can hardly be blamed for confusion over the results.
No they could be blamed for believing the democratic rhetoric that Bush stole the election, he was selected not elected. Had the the Florida Supreme Court not injected itself into the process at no ones behest, there would have not been a Supreme Court Decision at that time. It would have probably gone to Congress (which it has before) and been settled there.
Already corrected by Comicsfan101, so a special shout out to him for helping clear things up, thanksWhat about that congresswoman from . . . Arizona, was it?
Not saying everybody here is an irrational loon, but too many are. So what's the point when you have to filter through all the noise and irritants?
And I'm not marginalizing just comic boards, cause almost every message board has its share of the hypersensitive and overly emotional.
Reasonable thoughts being overwhelmed by the focus on specific 'buzz' words lacking proper context to the statement is dominant of late.
Just look at the past few months.
The right was in love with the "you didn't build that" meme from an Obama speech. Not taking the entirety of comment of his comments to form a proper analytical critique, which was possible without the ridiculously overly simplistic rhetoric that came about, eliminated the possibility of a sensible discussion of the extent of government influence and importance in a business's success or failure.
While the left was enthralled with 'god loves rape' imbecility that was employed to besmirch the right. Conflating the impressive stupidity of Todd Akin's notion of 'legitimate rape' with Richard Mourdock's comments on abortion in the instance of rape was entirely unfair to Romney and to an extent Mourdock as well. Reductive commentary resulted in the pathetic war on women mantra, which was a completely shallow manipulation of the gender politic issues. Because someone like Mourdock formed his commentary with the words 'rape' and 'abortion,' it automatically led to the negation of any sensible response. (I don't agree with his opinion, but I can empathize with the process wherein he connects his spiritual and ethical beliefs to the assertion that a ban on abortion in the cases of rape is possible. His belief that bad things don't necessarily need for another bad thing to occur because of the complexity of 'god's plan.' Those of faith take things, actions and events have a deeper meaning. Saying god wants the rape to happen is an inane reduction of what his entire comment was. It's not sensitive to the state of the mind of a rape victim, but focused solely on the life of the fetus. I can see someone interpreting that as misogyny, but I'd classify it as an almost heartless disconnect to the emotional state of the woman).
In times past, it was possible to come to disagreement over ideas without stratifying everyone within a Manichean perspective.
Lately, I don't see that happening. Too many are unwilling or unable to understand an oppositional opinion.
Just look at too many of the comments in the Ethan Van Sciver thread.
So my pessimism explains the brevity.
Like I posted in the EVS vs RL thread, I'm really not interested in the political meanderings of comic book creators. If you feel that strongly about it, write/draw your views in a book. Otherwise, get back to work on making my funny books.
And bush still doesn't care about black people.