Britney Spears is an Idiot: SHOCKER!

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong about that one Julio, she'd have shot up in my estimation exponentially - it would have been a genuinely brave and surprising thing to say whereas no-one's suprised or cares if some tit like Thom Yorke or Damon Albarn does it.

er, have you actually read the threads on some of the 'left' wing bands round here keith?

jess: no I don't. But she has always been a pop star first.

she maybe wrong but an idiot?

That said, however, I still think "idiot" is applicable due to her adherence to supporting "EVERY decision" by the President. That doesn't show any deep understanding or concern about specific issues, but rather a voluntary decision to let someone else sweat the hard stuff and not get involved...or even informed...at all.

Oh, and Gang of Four album covers to thread.

More pix of Bush throwing dogs!

its taken you three years to figure that out? you must be stupid ;)

OTM.

I like candy bars
and He-man
and motor cars
Skeletor and the Milky Way
and a rat-tat hot-rod Chevrolet

"STAND AND DELIVER!"

I think the point is that she wasn't really thinking anything. She's letting that genius George W Bush do her thinking for her.

That said, surely you hope she's right in her adherence, though at $87 million and no international support, it's looking pretty f'n precarious.

vs.

"I think Americans have the right to expect that our elected officials can handle situations and are more equipped to do the right things. Second-guessing is entirely an American thing, I understand. But we're also a republic, not an egalitarian society, and Britney at least understands that."

?????

ro otm

"Honestly, I think we should just trust our President in every decision that he makes, and we should just support that."

I don't see why this statement is idiotic. Bush was democratically elected, Florida chads or no Florida chads. That implies that for the period of his tenure in office the electorate have no alternative other than to trust him; otherwise they would not have elected him. If they do not trust him they have the opportunity to elect somebody else in next year's election. That's how democracy works. What problem does anyone have with this, exactly? What do any of you suggest should be done instead?

And I would incidentally point out that the virulent opinions expressed here about women, pop music and ordinary people in general are very much in keeping with extremist Republican thinking.

"it is more intelligent to distrust the machineries of democracy as they currently function"

(sorry, i wrote my question in the most contorted order possible, i haven't had enough coffee yet)

That's bullshit. Any elected official needs to get feedback from the public. We don't just elect them and forget about it until the next election.

the mechanism of feedback is the threat of not being re-elected
the sanction (should they break the rules) is not being re-elected

it's up to them whether they slavishly chase public opinion or ignore it

marcello is quite correct in stating that absolute trust in the elected official is no more ridiculous than absolute trust in the system: the alternative — this is probably actually happening on a widespread scale in the US and actually has done on and off since it was founded — is a practice of "i only have to obey the laws set in place by the officials *i* have voted for"

once this practice reaches a certain critical mass, the result will be civil war => britney's statement *in itself* is no more absurd than the statement "i prefer the system as it stands to civil war"