PDA

View Full Version : This goes a little far...........


JustRalph
10-23-2004, 07:37 PM
Please read this article and pay attention to the last paragraph

these are the same people who were writing to Ohio voters in an attempt to influence their votes against Bush.
At the bottom of this post is a link to some responses from those letters..........pretty funny. Actually I agree with the guy who suggested the Navy Seals. The first letter begins with "Dear Limey Assholes"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html

Dumb show

Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian

Heady times. The US election draws ever nearer, and while the rest of the world bangs its head against the floorboards screaming "Please God, not Bush!", the candidates clash head to head in a series of live televised debates. It's a bit like American Idol, but with terrifying global ramifications. You've got to laugh.
Or have you? Have you seen the debates? I urge you to do so. The exemplary BBC News website (www.bbc.co.uk/news) hosts unexpurgated streaming footage of all the recent debates, plus clips from previous encounters, through Reagan and Carter, all the way back to Nixon versus JFK.

Watching Bush v Kerry, two things immediately strike you. First, the opening explanation of the rules makes the whole thing feel like a Radio 4 parlour game. And second, George W Bush is... well, he's... Jesus, where do you start?

The internet's a-buzz with speculation that Bush has been wearing a wire, receiving help from some off-stage lackey. Screen grabs appearing to show a mysterious bulge in the centre of his back are being traded like Top Trumps. Prior to seeing the debate footage, I regarded this with healthy scepticism: the whole "wire" scandal was just wishful thinking on behalf of some amateur Michael Moores, I figured. And then I watched the footage.

Quite frankly, the man's either wired or mad. If it's the former, he should be flung out of office: tarred, feathered and kicked in the nuts. And if it's the latter, his behaviour goes beyond strange, and heads toward terrifying. He looks like he's listening to something we can't hear. He blinks, he mumbles, he lets a sentence trail off, starts a new one, then reverts back to whatever he was saying in the first place. Each time he recalls a statistic (either from memory or the voice in his head), he flashes us a dumb little smile, like a toddler proudly showing off its first bowel movement. Forgive me for employing the language of the playground, but the man's a tool.

So I sit there and I watch this and I start scratching my head, because I'm trying to work out why Bush is afforded any kind of credence or respect whatsoever in his native country. His performance is so transparently bizarre, so feeble and stumbling, it's a miracle he wasn't laughed off the stage. And then I start hunting around the internet, looking to see what the US media made of the whole "wire" debate. And they just let it die. They mentioned it in passing, called it a wacko conspiracy theory and moved on.

Yet whether it turns out to be true or not, right now it's certainly plausible - even if you discount the bulge photos and simply watch the president's ridiculous smirking face. Perhaps he isn't wired. Perhaps he's just gone gaga. If you don't ask the questions, you'll never know the truth.

The silence is all the more troubling since in the past the US news media has had no problem at all covering other wacko conspiracy theories, ones with far less evidence to support them. (For infuriating confirmation of this, watch the second part of the must-see documentary series The Power Of Nightmares (Wed, 9pm, BBC2) and witness the absurd hounding of Bill Clinton over the Whitewater and Vince Foster non-scandals.)

Throughout the debate, John Kerry, for his part, looks and sounds a bit like a haunted tree. But at least he's not a lying, s******ing, drink-driving, selfish, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, backward, drooling, twitching, blinking, mouse-faced little cheat. And besides, in a fight between a tree and a bush, I know who I'd favour.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

Responses
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1329858,00.html

cryptic1
10-23-2004, 08:37 PM
Ralph, if you think the media in the U.S. is too liberal, the
British media is completely off the left wing of the dial. BBC 1 and
2 are full of left wing socialists who pillory the U.S. generally and
George Bush in particular on a daily basis. The outlandish
thoughts expressed in the last paragraph of the article are
really not out of the ordinary in leftwing intellectual circles in
Britain or France for that matter.
Ultimately its all irrelevant anyway. The U.S. should only
be concerned about its own interests and protecting its own
sovereignty as I've repeately told heckle and jeckle, the dooms-
day twins on this board.

cryptic1

kenwoodallpromos
10-24-2004, 01:24 AM
The prince's actions speak loudly for me.

ElKabong
10-24-2004, 03:48 AM
Hey isn't this writer a member of the same press & media corp that followed Princess Diana all over the world, and when she was in a car crash they flicked photos of her while she died instead of helping her??

Yeah, I guess he is.

I hereby sentence that writer to a lifetime banishment to a country where the sun rarely shines, only bad food is available, where the taxation is excessive, and where an entire nation is in dire need of competent dentists & orthodontists. :)

betchatoo
10-24-2004, 09:54 AM
On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you


If this is an attempt at satire or humor he failed miserably, if he's serious he should be put in a room where the only writing he does is with soft crayons.

wes
10-24-2004, 10:29 AM
cryptic1


What are you hiding? With your name I thought I would ask. Perhaps you drive a hearse with the same name on the license plates.



wes

ElKabong
10-26-2004, 03:02 AM
It appears the UK paper has (a) issued an apology, and (b) Engaged in unethical conduct recently before.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1103&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041025%2F1402919596.htm&sc=1103

Paper Apologizes for Assassination Remark



LONDON (AP) - A British newspaper apologized Monday for a weekend article in which a writer appeared to call for the assassination of President Bush.

In a regular column in The Guardian newspaper's Saturday TV listings magazine, Charlie Brooker described Bush in scathing terms, and concluded: ``John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?''

Booth assassinated President Lincoln, Oswald killed President Kennedy and Hinckley wounded President Reagan.

The Guardian's apology described Brooker's comments as ``flippant and tasteless'' but said they were ``intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand.''


It was the second time this month the newspaper was embroiled in a trans-Atlantic political controversy. Previously, it invited readers to write letters to unaffiliated voters in Clark County, Ohio, a swing state, about the importance of the Nov. 2 election. Clark County contains the city of Springfield.


The newspaper's Web site said letter-writers were free to support either Bush or Sen. John Kerry but noted that a Guardian poll showed 47 percent of Britons backed Kerry and 16 percent supported Bush.


After being overwhelmed by responses, most of them hostile, the newspaper ended the campaign after their Web site was broken into by hackers.