<p>Tammy Duckworth is a liberal democrat running in Illinois. She is half asian (born to a thai mother and a military father)</p>
<p>The republicans completely used race in this, one can cleary see that they've darkened her eyes with photoshope to make them look slanty, stereotypically asian, and "foriegn." </p>
<p>notice Tammy's eyes in the first shot and in the second.</p>
<p>"Even with the granier version there's one thing that sticks out if one were to try and recreate what was done--the eyes are darker than any normal process would create. </p>
<p>They OJed it up to make her look more foreign is the best interpretation I can come up with. Instead of simply a little blurry and dark they have become the black eyeballs of a demonic possession or just a foreigner."</p>
<p>I also hate how that narrator is like, "Peter Roskam is on OUR side" and emphasize Peter Roskam's white republican values w/ the "family" They completley did whatever was possible to make Duckworth look like an outsider and foreigner, and emphasized the whiteness of the other candidate with that family "he's on OUR side" Duckworth is american and an iraq vet, lost BOTH her legs in Iraq.</p>
<p>politics gets ugly once again. Don't believe everything you see. I'm not saying one candidate is better, but I hate when they use race, in this case deliberatly darkening Tammy's eyes and merging them with her eyeglasses to give her "evil-looking slanty eyes".</p>
<p>did anyone watch bill maher last night? Politics in the U.S has become so stupid and caters to uneducated americans who actually base their vote on these sleezy commercials. Also, i agree with firewalker, politicians dont give a damn about their voters or their country. they're just players in "the game."</p>
<p>no not all poiticians do that, many run noble campaigns, the game is made up of the players, no players no game, nice how people don't think anyone is resposnsible for anything</p>
<p>so, sure you can hate the players,,,, the game itself isn't dirty it how its played</p>
<p>Y'know what? I actually kind of like how parliaments work. There's something to be said about a government that actually PASSES broad legislation.</p>
<p>First, the vast majority of developed nations are further to the left than America so you could've said, "Yeah, almost all countries without hip hop music are damn near "socialist." and it would've rung true.</p>
<p>Second, parliamentary democracies are not immune to political corruption, but they keep politicians MUCH more honest. The Liberal Party in Canada was recently ousted in the last Canadian election because the previous leader was involved in a scandal that cost the taxpayers a couple hundred million dollars. Think about how many scandals the Bush administration involved in in the past year and how patient everyone has been with them. I'm not even trying to be anti-Bush here, use Clinton's corruption scandals if you want. I'm just saying stuff like that simply would not play in any other industrialized country. Take a look on British or Canadian political debates and how much more substance they contain, look at how all the opposition parties in those countries are allowed to question the decisions of their leaders directly EVERY SINGLE DAY. Have you been following the news on Tony Blair recently? The man is stepping down from leadership when he finishes out his term in office. Why do you think that is? He is a weak leader, England's top general recently came out and called Iraq a disaster and people within his own party question him already. All that has happened in America and Bush is still in power. What does that say?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, parliamentary democracies are not immune to political corruption, but they keep politicians MUCH more honest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not parliament-style structure that does that, per se, but the tendency for parliaments to be Westminster or majoritarian that does it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Think about how many scandals the Bush administration involved in in the past year and how patient everyone has been with them. I'm not even trying to be anti-Bush here, use Clinton's corruption scandals if you want. I'm just saying stuff like that simply would not play in any other industrialized country.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except for Japan. And maybe New Zealand prior to MMP. But to an extent, you're right. The problem with the American system is that it's hard to pin blame on the donkey.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Have you been following the news on Tony Blair recently? The man is stepping down from leadership when he finishes out his term in office. Why do you think that is?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Honestly? Incumbent fatigue. He's had a 9 year run as PM and a 12 year run as the head of Labour. I don't think that's signs of a weak leader at all. On the contrary, he's been one of the STRONGEST leaders in British history. In terms of ability to command MPs and parliament, I'd put him up there with Thatcher.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Take a look on British or Canadian political debates and how much more substance they contain, look at how all the opposition parties in those countries are allowed to question the decisions of their leaders directly EVERY SINGLE DAY.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, this is also largely because they have nothing to lose in majoritarian parliamentary systems. Why bother playing nice when you have NO power. Like</a> they said in New Zealand...</p>
<p>because when you mentioned those two words I remembered that my psych prof constantly said "correlation does not imply causation" regarding research studies and told us to remember that. </p>
<p>lol...so you saying that spurred my memory. I found it amusing. :)</p>
