ooooh, so that's where Berk comes from!
I mean, rhyming slang is fun and all, but i still prefer to go straight for the throat.
Was just watching (i've only very recently gotten up) 'Loose Women' on tv - a kinda chatty thing where a bunch of women sat around a table talk about stuff and have the odd guest - and one of them was saying that they envy the american political voting process because it creates that clearly divided line for people to take sides on, whereas in britain there is no passion for politics and that they're all the same, even if they say they aren't.
Clinton was a democrat but he seemed just as war-mongering as a republican would be. From what i read he just wasn't so vocal about it.
Obviously, this US election is uber-dividing because a vote for mcain would be a vote for more of the same and i don't think many people could argue that more of the same would be a very good thing.
But ordinarily....
My thoughts are a little hazy about this. The question is, i guess, would there be any difference between a republican and a democrat run country, or would it just be the way it was span for the media? Afterall, surely it's the powermongers behind the scenes that apply the pressure.
Hempster, you old rogue, help me out here. Give me a clear view of the US political system. In the uk the choice is between two twats, and you (i mean, I) choose the lesser of two twats, which i guess right now would be Gordon Brown.
Actually, fuck it. I'm not even sure of what I'm trying to say. It all just seems so artificial, this idea of a divide, in this current era. At least in the states there are reasons to get passionate about it but with Blair out of the picture (and having escaped being made to stand trial for war crimes) i really can't see the fucking point.
Anyone care to join me in these muddy cognitive waters?