Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

darobin (1316)

darobin
  (email not shown publicly)
http://berjon.com/

Journal of darobin (1316)

Friday August 20, 2004
07:11 AM

Switch

[ #20487 ]

The same guy that did Apple's famous «Switch» ads featuring users switching from moronic PCs to Macs is doing the same thing, featuring Republicans switching from a murderous moron to Kerry. Check it out.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • And that attitude is why I will not vote for Kerry.
    • I do quarrel with logic that says, "Stupid people are associated with X, therefore X is stupid." Stupid people are associated with everything.
      --Larry Wall
      • I'm not zaotoichi and I only speak for myself, but I don't think it's stupid.

        I think it's poisonous.

        I don't really want to associate with the kind of people whose entire raison d'etre seems to be "we aren't _______". That goes for Python fanatics, BSD license zealots, PostgreSQL freaks, and, at least in this election cycle, the "anyone but Bush" folks.

        That's not to say that I despise Python, BSD, Postgres, and everyone who prefers someone other than the sitting president. It's just that all four gro

        • "Anyone but Bush" has been fading recently. Nowadays the Bush campaign are the ones more likely to be using the "we aren't ____" argument. The Bush website lately has far more pictures of Kerry on the front page than of Bush, while Bush photos are rare on the Kerry front page.
          • Yes, and it is a good strategy. They've been at it for months. Basically, there are three kinds of voter: those who are for candidate A, those who are for candidate B, and those who are undecided. The first two don't matter. As to the latter group, they already know Bush, and there's frankly little Bush can say good about himself to convince them he is the best candidate. He needs to convince them that Kerry is worse, and he's doing a pretty good job of it.
        • Naomi Klein made a good point [commondreams.org] for the "anybody but Bush" people: basically saying that with any other man in the presidential seat (even with the same ideology), the opposition will less focus on funny bushisms and easy bashing, but on the real problems.
        • That was pretty much my point. I entirely agree that it's poisonous -- it's a shameful way to run a political process and it makes me weep for the future. But saying that "I won't vote for A because I don't like these people associated with A." when there are people like this on all sides of a process that's nececessary to participate in (differentiating it from those crazy open source people) is just sticking your head in the sand.
        • There's a major difference though between techno-zealots and "anything but Bush". Whether you use Python or Perl, BSD or Linux, Pg or MySQL, honestly, at the end of the day, won't make much of a diff to people's lives. Worst case scenario is that a good piece of tech doesn't get enough momentum and dies out. Ok that's sad, and it may be frustrating, but life goes on.

          "Anything but Bush" is just like "anything but Kim Chong-il" or "anything but the Talibans". At some point it just stops mattering wha

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

          • "Anything but Bush" is just like "anything but Kim Chong-il" or "anything but the Talibans".

            Except for the representative electoral process, the fixed term lengths, the massive federal bureaucracy that usually ignores elections, and the stable transfer of power, yes, they're exactly alike.

  • I won't touch the "moron" label (sure, those Bushisms are embarassing sometimes, but it's hard for me to swallow a Yale and Harvard MBA graduate as a "moron" ;)), but I would label Kerry with the same murderous tag. Shooting a fleeing Vietnamese in the back as well as the unknown (or known [streamload.com] {from Kerry's own lips}) atrocities that Kerry participated in, over in Vietnam deserve the same judgement.

    Of course, it depends on who you listen to, the Swift Vets gang [swiftvets.com] or the Democrats (and the mainstream media that
    • Yes of course :)

      WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

      As for Kerry's competence, it simply doesn't matter: no matter how incompetent you just can't be worse than Bush. It's never been seen in any major country before, and, with any hope, won't be seen again in our lifetimes. The Democrats could run a monkey for presidency, I'd still s

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

      • Incompetent is probably not the right word ... an incompetent President would have done nothing after 9/11 and allowed for more terrorism of that magnitude to take place.

        ...starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11. Even John Kerry believes we did the right thing, by going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq (though he wanted a different approach). Maybe if he sho [factcheck.org]

        • Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Or rather, it would have been the right thing to do right. It has been left mostly to its own devices, and large tracts of the taliban movement and al-Qaeda are still operating there because of that. Iraq had no link whatsoever to terrorism. Now it's become the most convenient way to attack american interests, and therefore a terrorist hotbed.

          Small things can be indicative. For instance, there may be reasons why after 9/11 98% of Europeans said they were extre

          --

          -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

          • If you think Bush eradicated more terrorism than he created, go argue your points to a Madrilene.

            Sorry darobin, there is not a jot of evidence that Bush's actions contributed to 3/11. You actually believe what they say? Talk about "moron." Bin Laden said he attacked on 9/11 because of U.S. support of Israel, which is something he never mentioned years before when he was attacking the U.S. They change their reasons to whatever they think will garner them the most support. Don't buy into the foolishnes
        • Wow. That's completely ignoring the fact that this whole thing wasn't started by Bush, but by the terrorists from 9/11

          Just out of curiosity, what has that got to do with the war in Iraq? You know, seeing as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
      • WRT the murderous there's a difference not only in degree but also in nature between some war atrocities and send people to butchery by starting an entire war based on lies purely for personal profit.

        The problem is that the latter never happened. First, even if you believe the WMD was a lie, that doesn't mean the entire war was based on lies. We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions which threatened force, including that Iraq aided
        • We know many justifications for the war were absolutely true, including Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions...

          But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it? We were told that Iraq was a imminent threat to the US. We were told that they had WMD and were just itching to use them.

          Further, there is not a jot of credible evidence that Bush profitted (or will profit) from the war at all, let alone that it was a motivation.

          Bush or Bush
          • But to be honest, the war wasn't "sold" to the American public based on noncompliance with UN resolutions was it?

            It absolutely was. The administration made reference to "material breach" of Resolution 1441 early and often.

            I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but you have to admit those nice no-bid Haliburton contracts make you think don't they?

            Eh, not really, when you consider all of the factors: the shift in recent years to hiring one contractor to do all the work, the fact that
    • That was an O'Neill quote, which is different than fact. One should hesitate to take something O'Neill says during an election cycle while he's trying to promote a political book as fact.

      Steve Gardner is the one of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who have come out against him. And Steve Gardner might not be the most reliable [mediamatters.org] source.

      -- Douglas Hunter
      • Steve Gardner is the one of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who have come out against him. And Steve Gardner might not be the most reliable source.

        should have read ...

        Steve Gardner is the one person of twelve people who served on a swift boat that Kerry commanded who has come out against hime.

        Hmm, I should proofread {grin}
  • The same guy that did Apple's famous «Switch» ads featuring users switching from moronic PCs to Macs is doing the same thing, featuring Republicans switching from a murderous moron to Kerry.

    What you fail to draw attention to is that "same guy" is Errol Morris, the highly-regarded [imdb.com] documentary filmmaker that won an Oscar last year for The Fog of War [imdb.com], about Robert McNamara and his role as, among other things, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War.

    Among Morris's other notable accomplishmen

    --


    --
    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL.

  • ...murderous moron...

    I'd say there's a slight distinction between "murderous" and "warmongering" (with maybe a "maniacal" thrown in). Though the moron part I agree with completely. IMHO, of course :-)

    • Oh, I don't claim to have exhausted the possible vocabulary here ;) But I intentionally picked murderous over warmongering. The latter is someone that's actively pro-war which can, on some occasions, be a good thing (eg when deciding to go fight for freedom in WWII). In this case we're talking about someone that has no regrets giving death for personal profit -- I opt murderous, perhaps with a "raving" or a "drooling" thrown in somewhere in the sentence :)

      --

      -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]