The Guardian At It Again - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 10:58 AM

This makes me angry, real angry.

First we have the letter writing campaign to "Undecided" voters - which I will withhold opinion on.

Then, after the heated responses that the Guardian recieved, they "raised the white flag" LINK

Now, the Guardian tries a new tactic regarding our President:

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?

I'm sorry, this is just wrong, on many levels.

I don't care if you love Bush, hate Bush or whatever, this goes beyond appropriate. How did this article get approved for submission?

Can anyone defend an article like this or do you feel that it is inappropriate like I do?

Note: I do believe that an article writen like this, here in the states, would be illegal. Am I correct?

EDIT: The link went down so I added the text of the article down below.

cthulu23 · 10-23-2004, 11:15 AM

The article would be perfectly legal in the US because it never makes any threats against the President, it only makes an oblique reference to assassins of yesteryear.

The article itself is a humor piece by a columnist and I'm not sure if it actually made the print edition of the Guardian. Maybe this is the British version of Ann Coulter (meaning outrageous "humor",not politics obviously) ?

flstf · 10-23-2004, 11:19 AM

Now there is one very sore loser. They think that Bush will win and so are advocating his assassination. I guess they are so mad that Kerry is going to lose that they would rather have Cheney as president.

I guess I can defend their right to wish the death of our president but I agree it is certainly inappropriate. And also rather childish and kind of evil.

Strange Famous · 10-23-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

The article would be perfectly legal in the US because it never makes any threats against the President, it only makes an oblique reference to assassins of yesteryear.

The article itself is a humor piece by a columnist and I'm not sure if it actually made the print edition of the Guardian. Maybe this is the British version of Ann Coulter (meaning outrageous "humor",not politics obviously) ?

Im not sure that the Ann Coulter comparison fits, she isnt funny at all.

And, I think a lot of American people dont appreciate the degree of hostility there is against Bush outside of the US. I cant speak with intimate experience of any other nation, but in the UK, Bush is generally reviled and mocked, he is genuinely hated. I cant tell you if it is a negative media portrayal or something else... but regardless of the facts or real story - most people I know consider that Bush won the last election by fraudelent means, most people believe he cannot read, and that he is a crook and a warmonger.

I am not trying to flame anyone, or say thats how I feel... but that is the percpection here in the UK of Bush, he is hated. I dont know how close it is running in the US, but in the rest of the world a Bush victory will be met with utter disbelief.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 11:43 AM

I didn't see any publications asking for the assasination of Blair, Thatcher, etc.

Imagine the outrage on that side of the pond if one of our newspapers said something like this.

I may or may not like British leaders (past or present), but I would never wish their assasination.

Example: Look what Chamberlain did. Imagine if he had been offed before he appeased? Imagine if a stronger leader took his place? Our history would be vastly different. However, I don't see anything comparable to wishing for his death (yes, I realize this is in the past).

cthulu23 · 10-23-2004, 11:53 AM

The outrage over there would probably equal what is being mustered up over here in response to the article. I'm sure that the blogs are already picking up on this. Where did you find the story (I'm assuming that you weren't independently browsing the Guardian)?

It was a tasteless line but it probably doesn't qualify as "international incident" material.

maximusveritas · 10-23-2004, 11:56 AM

I think its inappropriate, even if it was written outside the United States. Its on a level with Ann Coulter's ridiculous line: "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

I did a search on the author and it looks like he's just a TV critic for the paper's website. While not an excuse, it probably explains how that sentence got through, since he's not under strict editorial control. I don't know what he's doing writing about American politics, but my guess is that he won't be anymore.

Lebell · 10-23-2004, 11:56 AM

Regardless of who you are or what party you belong to, that's disgusting.

filtherton · 10-23-2004, 12:01 PM

This is the type of thing that is only a big deal because people make it so. That is to say, if you ignore it, it will go away with no one worse for the wear.

Strange Famous · 10-23-2004, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I didn't see any publications asking for the assasination of Blair, Thatcher, etc.

Imagine the outrage on that side of the pond if one of our newspapers said something like this.

I may or may not like British leaders (past or present), but I would never wish their assasination.

Example: Look what Chamberlain did. Imagine if he had been offed before he appeased? Imagine if a stronger leader took his place? Our history would be vastly different. However, I don't see anything comparable to wishing for his death (yes, I realize this is in the past).

Chamberlain was dying...

And it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany, without any attack on British interests - a war that Hitler did not want. Chamberlain understood how terrible war would be with Germany, so sought to avoid it as long as it was possible. when he felt the avoidance was not possible, he declared war on Germany.

So, in the specific example you use, iM not sure that your logic adds up.

And if that article was written by an American about Blair, I can promise you I wouldnt be offended.

Strange Famous · 10-23-2004, 12:26 PM

I mean, also, one must think of historical context. The CIA - for example - tried to assinate Castro and supported the assination of Allende, which is clearly a lot more serious than some journalist making what some consider an off colour joke about George Bush.

The comparison between this article and Coulter still doesnt fit. Whether or not you think it is in bad taste, the Guardian writer is attempting to be funny, it is nota serious call for Bush to be killed. Coulter genuinely wanted Islamic leaders to be murdered, which is in line with previous American foriegn policy.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 12:38 PM

cthulu23 - It was red-lettered on Drudge

filtherton - Based on past actions of the Guardian (more then the letter writing thing), coupled with this comment, it is hard to ignore. Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint).

Strange - It was a bad analogy. My point being the aggregate outrage on your side if one of our papers printed something like this. Maybe this one is better: Say a reporter adds <insert British Politish or Royal> should be chased down by the media like Diana was. Imagine how "most" people would respond in your area.

Also, the CIA thing is kind of out of context. I see your point, but I don't see it as comparable. Especially since our two countries are very close allies and depend heavily on each other.

In regards to Coulter (who I don't like, but wouldn't kick out of bed if she farted), she pretty much got canned for that comment and lost the respect of many of her "fans". There was a lot of outrage based on that stupid comment. I want to see the same outrage (from both sides of the pond and political spectrum) over this jerk's comment.

filtherton · 10-23-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

filtherton - Based on past actions of the Guardian (more then the letter writing thing), coupled with this comment, it is hard to ignore. Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint).

My point is that you are helping to spread the message of this article by taking the time to complain about in a public forum.

Ustwo · 10-23-2004, 12:50 PM

I hope this gets press everywhere, I want it on every major station, every newspaper, and every radio station.

#1 It will help Bush. Americans don't care for outsiders lamenting that no one is around to assassinate our president.

#2 It illistrates the level of hate and idiocy the vocal left has reached.

Aladdin Sane · 10-23-2004, 12:57 PM

Here's my recently sent letter to the editor:
Your antiquated little rag recently published this gem from one Charlie Booger, Bugger, or Brooker, who was lamenting the possibility of George Bush’s reelection:

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html)

Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed?

seep · 10-23-2004, 01:07 PM

The link is not working for me now.

However, that single quote really does pale next to Ann Coulter.

1) I don't offend easy.
2) I also don't like Bush.

Number 1 is the main reason I don't give a rat's ass about this (though I have to admit the lack of respect for our previous assassinated presidents is more annoying to me than the lack of respect for Bush). You people should lighten up in the face of satire.

Strange Famous · 10-23-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

Here's my recently sent letter to the editor:
Your antiquated little rag recently published this gem from one Charlie Booger, Bugger, or Brooker, who was lamenting the possibility of George Bush’s reelection:

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html)

Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed?

well, that'll teach 'em!

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 01:10 PM

For some strange reason, The Guardian's website isn't coming up - gee, I wonder why???

Anyway, I kept the text of the article, here it is:

Quote:

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, sniggering, 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?

Strange Famous · 10-23-2004, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

cthulu23 - It was red-lettered on Drudge

filtherton - Based on past actions of the Guardian (more then the letter writing thing), coupled with this comment, it is hard to ignore. Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint).

I see no reason why an English newspaper should respect the office of President of the United States. While I dont think the majority of English people want Bush to be killed, he is expressing the strong dislike that the majority of Europeans feel about Bush. Really, at worst, it was just an off colour jokes that didnt work.

As for the Diana thing, I dare say some people would be upset about such a comment, and if it was done at the time of her death a lot of people would... but I wouldnt care that much.

This does make me remember the case of Louise Woodward though - she was an English nanny who worked in America and was found guilty of manslaughter of the baby in her care (she claimed she was innocent - but she would, wouldnt she? I dont know much of the real facts of the case to tell if she was likely really guilty or not) - but the popular press in the UK reacted terribly to it.... the tabloids were calling for a boycot of American products, the Mirror was basically hinting at support for tactical nuclear strikes against Washington, letters were published (real or not I dont know) from American ex pats renouncing their American citizenship in disgust of the verdict....

The whole English media spread the idea that this girl was the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice, while people had no real idea about the facts of the case,k this became the accepted truth and there was a huge hostility to America in popular opinion for a brief time... obviously there was some reaction to the case in America too, because the judge gave her a nothing sentence (ie she only had to serve the time she had already done up to the court case, and she was released)... but I remember huge online petitions, media frenzy... all in support of someone who had been found guilty, in what as far as I can tell must have been a fair trial, of killing a baby.

All of which goes to show I suppose, that patriosm can be a funny thing,

seep · 10-23-2004, 01:20 PM

That cracked me up. John Kerry really does look and sound a bit like a haunted tree, now that I think about it.

Ustwo · 10-23-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seep

You people should lighten up in the face of satire.

When a newspaper posts and article wanting the president dead, it is no longer satire.

Its something I would expect from a radical Islamist, not the United Kingdom.

Its on the same level.

cthulu23 · 10-23-2004, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

#2 It illistrates the level of hate and idiocy the vocal left has reached.

By that logic, I can start attributing the statements of any international right-winger to the American right. I'll take your wistful assassination statement and raise you 10 "jews run the world."

edit:

Here's a little aside that you dropped in reference to an Ann Coulter statement in this thread:

Quote:

it is amazing how this one woman, who REALLY needs to eat a few cheeseburgers, can focus national debate, even on the floor of the Senate, a place where you would think they had something better to worry about

How much attention are we supposed to focus on a foreign columnist again? Don't we have better things to worry about?

Fun fact -Here's the ACTUAL John Kerry quote that seems to be taken out-of-context quite a bit around here:

Quote:

If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

seep · 10-23-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When a newspaper posts and article wanting the president dead, it is no longer satire.

Its something I would expect from a radical Islamist, not the United Kingdom.

Its on the same level.

lol

No, "we should invade America, kill their leaders, and convert them to Islam" would be something to expect from a radical Islamist. The article above was a morbid joke that I would expect from from somebody who thinks the Bush administration is dangerous to the international community. It's not anywhere near on the same level.

roachboy · 10-23-2004, 01:51 PM

what is funniest about this is seeing the conservatives here become terribly sanctimonious about this guardian article, demanding "respect for the office of the president" after the eight years of continuous conservative slander of clinton...accusing him of anything and everything...i guess respect for the office of the president is only something they call for when a republican is in office.

funny stuff.

irateplatypus · 10-23-2004, 01:54 PM

the most telling effect of this article and those of its ilk is the remarkable extent of double standards. while recalling past posts filled with indignation at this quote or that in the past... i can't help but grin at some of the comments on this thread.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 01:57 PM

Er....roach

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint).

I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I thought I was pretty clear on this.

This is a serious flaw on both sides. Lack of respect is a big problem in this country, on many different levels.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 02:00 PM

irateplatypus -

Could you be more specific? Have I exhibited double-standards here in any of my posts? I thought I was fairly consistent. Then again, you may not be referring to me. You were being vague (on purpose I assume) so I am not sure what you are referring to (I have an idea, though)

roachboy · 10-23-2004, 02:15 PM

i wasnt reaacting to your post in particular, kma....the thread as it evolved acquired a significant haurmph harumph i am outraged flavor
and i find that funny.

.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 02:21 PM

o.k., I see your point.

The whole moral equivalency game is annoying, I will agree with that.

I just think, if one is capable of pulling current political fervor out, most people should be upset about this comment. The article could have held on its on without the last sentence, why add something stupid like that?

Aborted · 10-23-2004, 05:58 PM

Personally, I thought the article was a wonderful piece of satire and nothing more. It just accentuates and has a giggle at all the little jokes that people make about Bush and Kerry and is actually quite an entertaining read. I think it's importance as a political statement is being drastically overplayed, and that a lot of people need to get over themselves just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit.

Ustwo · 10-23-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

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, sniggering, 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?

Oh yea that’s wonderful satire. I bet Jonathan Swift wishes his satire was of such heights.

Satire requires some wit. This was just left wing mewling.

theusername · 10-23-2004, 08:56 PM

No one ever asked for or wished for Clinton's assasination. It just isn't appropriate. I'm not voting for Bush, but I respect him as our President. If re-elected I will support him as an american. The lack of respect from the world, and both sides, democrat and republican is sickening. I use to want to get involved in Politics with honest intentions but i realize that would be a mistake, so I guess I'll let the dirty get their hands dirtier and continue to bring our country in a downward direction.

whocarz · 10-23-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theusername

No one ever asked for or wished for Clinton's assasination.

Oh, I seem to remember a couple assassination attempts, most notably when some crazy tried to crash a Cessna into the White House.

KMA-628 · 10-23-2004, 09:38 PM

whocarz -

I think he is referring to a published article asking/wishing for Clinton's assasination. In other words, similar to the one referenced in this thread.

You are always going to have crazies plotting to overthrow the government, thinking about killing the president, taking potshots at the White House (remember that one?), etc. This is the first time, that I can think of, where a mainstream journalist from another country prints nonsense like this.

Ustwo · 10-23-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

whocarz -

I think he is referring to a published article asking/wishing for Clinton's assasination. In other words, similar to the one referenced in this thread.

You are always going to have crazies plotting to overthrow the government, thinking about killing the president, taking potshots at the White House (remember that one?), etc. This is the first time, that I can think of, where a mainstream journalist from another country prints nonsense like this.

I don't recall such an article but I doubt we had republicans calling it 'wonderful satire' at the time it was written.

cthulu23 · 10-23-2004, 10:16 PM

Some here may not understand it, but not everyone feels that making a mocking, tasteless reference to the death of an American (or any other country's) leader is all that shocking or outrageous regardless of what ideological camp it emanates from. Humor and satire have gotten pretty raw lately.

Edit: the above statement does not appy to groups with a known propensity for any sort of political violence.

Aborted · 10-24-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh yea that’s wonderful satire. I bet Jonathan Swift wishes his satire was of such heights.

Satire requires some wit. This was just left wing mewling.

Then all I can do is apologise for my opinion, and wonder to what end you think sarcasm will carry you. How anyone can take this harmless little article quite so seriously, frankly, confuses me.

seretogis · 10-24-2004, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Regardless of who you are or what party you belong to, that's disgusting.

I absolutely agree.

tisonlyi · 10-24-2004, 06:16 AM

I find it amazing, the most vocal supporters of regime change in foreign climes...... are the self same people complaining about foreigners calling for regime change in their country.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Base irony, but... hay ho.

Oh, and further up, someone was whittering about no calls for Reagan/Thatcher/Clinton/etc/etc/etc... to be assassinated. I say: You're not looking hard enough. Every limit pushing comedian since time immemorial has called for their/world political leaders to be assassinated.

Reagan/Bush/Thatcher? I refer the honorable readers to the works of a certain Texan by the name of William Hicks.

Aborted: Fundamentalism. Xenophobia. Zero sense of humour. Insane playground gang vs gang mentality. There are the reasons people are taking this seriously. The close minded cannot abide criticism, after all, they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Ustwo · 10-24-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

I find it amazing, the most vocal supporters of regime change in foreign climes...... are the self same people complaining about foreigners calling for regime change in their country.

If this came from a totalitarian nation like the ones the US targets then I would understand.

It came from the UK.

Big fucking difference buddy.

10-23-2004, 10:58 AM	#1 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	The Guardian At It Again This makes me angry, real angry. First we have the letter writing campaign to "Undecided" voters - which I will withhold opinion on. Then, after the heated responses that the Guardian recieved, they "raised the white flag" LINK Now, the Guardian tries a new tactic regarding our President: 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? I'm sorry, this is just wrong, on many levels. I don't care if you love Bush, hate Bush or whatever, this goes beyond appropriate. How did this article get approved for submission? Can anyone defend an article like this or do you feel that it is inappropriate like I do? Note: I do believe that an article writen like this, here in the states, would be illegal. Am I correct? EDIT: The link went down so I added the text of the article down below. Last edited by KMA-628; 10-23-2004 at 01:34 PM..

10-23-2004, 11:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The outrage over there would probably equal what is being mustered up over here in response to the article. I'm sure that the blogs are already picking up on this. Where did you find the story (I'm assuming that you weren't independently browsing the Guardian)? It was a tasteless line but it probably doesn't qualify as "international incident" material. Last edited by cthulu23; 10-23-2004 at 12:02 PM..

10-23-2004, 11:56 AM	#8 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Regardless of who you are or what party you belong to, that's disgusting. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-23-2004, 12:26 PM	#11 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I mean, also, one must think of historical context. The CIA - for example - tried to assinate Castro and supported the assination of Allende, which is clearly a lot more serious than some journalist making what some consider an off colour joke about George Bush. The comparison between this article and Coulter still doesnt fit. Whether or not you think it is in bad taste, the Guardian writer is attempting to be funny, it is nota serious call for Bush to be killed. Coulter genuinely wanted Islamic leaders to be murdered, which is in line with previous American foriegn policy. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

10-23-2004, 12:50 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I hope this gets press everywhere, I want it on every major station, every newspaper, and every radio station. #1 It will help Bush. Americans don't care for outsiders lamenting that no one is around to assassinate our president. #2 It illistrates the level of hate and idiocy the vocal left has reached. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-23-2004, 11:15 AM	#2 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The article would be perfectly legal in the US because it never makes any threats against the President, it only makes an oblique reference to assassins of yesteryear. The article itself is a humor piece by a columnist and I'm not sure if it actually made the print edition of the Guardian. Maybe this is the British version of Ann Coulter (meaning outrageous "humor",not politics obviously) ?

10-23-2004, 11:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Now there is one very sore loser. They think that Bush will win and so are advocating his assassination. I guess they are so mad that Kerry is going to lose that they would rather have Cheney as president. I guess I can defend their right to wish the death of our president but I agree it is certainly inappropriate. And also rather childish and kind of evil.

10-23-2004, 11:43 AM	#5 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I didn't see any publications asking for the assasination of Blair, Thatcher, etc. Imagine the outrage on that side of the pond if one of our newspapers said something like this. I may or may not like British leaders (past or present), but I would never wish their assasination. Example: Look what Chamberlain did. Imagine if he had been offed before he appeased? Imagine if a stronger leader took his place? Our history would be vastly different. However, I don't see anything comparable to wishing for his death (yes, I realize this is in the past).

10-23-2004, 11:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I think its inappropriate, even if it was written outside the United States. Its on a level with Ann Coulter's ridiculous line: "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." I did a search on the author and it looks like he's just a TV critic for the paper's website. While not an excuse, it probably explains how that sentence got through, since he's not under strict editorial control. I don't know what he's doing writing about American politics, but my guess is that he won't be anymore.

10-23-2004, 12:01 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	This is the type of thing that is only a big deal because people make it so. That is to say, if you ignore it, it will go away with no one worse for the wear.

10-23-2004, 12:38 PM	#12 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	cthulu23 - It was red-lettered on Drudge filtherton - Based on past actions of the Guardian (more then the letter writing thing), coupled with this comment, it is hard to ignore. Disagree with Bush. Dislike Bush. Do whatever. However, he is still the President of the United States. That position, regardless of the guy who holds it, demands respect. I didn't like Clinton, but I still respected him as my President (I even served under him without complaint). Strange - It was a bad analogy. My point being the aggregate outrage on your side if one of our papers printed something like this. Maybe this one is better: Say a reporter adds <insert British Politish or Royal> should be chased down by the media like Diana was. Imagine how "most" people would respond in your area. Also, the CIA thing is kind of out of context. I see your point, but I don't see it as comparable. Especially since our two countries are very close allies and depend heavily on each other. In regards to Coulter (who I don't like, but wouldn't kick out of bed if she farted), she pretty much got canned for that comment and lost the respect of many of her "fans". There was a lot of outrage based on that stupid comment. I want to see the same outrage (from both sides of the pond and political spectrum) over this jerk's comment.

10-23-2004, 12:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Here's my recently sent letter to the editor: Your antiquated little rag recently published this gem from one Charlie Booger, Bugger, or Brooker, who was lamenting the possibility of George Bush’s reelection: “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?” (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html) Little Charlie’s mother must’ve been a Glasgow heroin whore suffering from syphilis when he was born, because she has no doubt passed her madness on to him. Insolent cretin. Where is Thomas Hamilton when he’s really needed? __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

10-23-2004, 01:07 PM	#16 (permalink)
seep Tilted	The link is not working for me now. However, that single quote really does pale next to Ann Coulter. 1) I don't offend easy. 2) I also don't like Bush. Number 1 is the main reason I don't give a rat's ass about this (though I have to admit the lack of respect for our previous assassinated presidents is more annoying to me than the lack of respect for Bush). You people should lighten up in the face of satire.

10-23-2004, 01:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
seep Tilted	That cracked me up. John Kerry really does look and sound a bit like a haunted tree, now that I think about it.

10-23-2004, 01:51 PM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what is funniest about this is seeing the conservatives here become terribly sanctimonious about this guardian article, demanding "respect for the office of the president" after the eight years of continuous conservative slander of clinton...accusing him of anything and everything...i guess respect for the office of the president is only something they call for when a republican is in office. funny stuff. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-23-2004, 01:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the most telling effect of this article and those of its ilk is the remarkable extent of double standards. while recalling past posts filled with indignation at this quote or that in the past... i can't help but grin at some of the comments on this thread. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-23-2004, 02:00 PM	#27 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	irateplatypus - Could you be more specific? Have I exhibited double-standards here in any of my posts? I thought I was fairly consistent. Then again, you may not be referring to me. You were being vague (on purpose I assume) so I am not sure what you are referring to (I have an idea, though)

10-23-2004, 02:15 PM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wasnt reaacting to your post in particular, kma....the thread as it evolved acquired a significant haurmph harumph i am outraged flavor and i find that funny. . __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-23-2004, 02:21 PM	#29 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	o.k., I see your point. The whole moral equivalency game is annoying, I will agree with that. I just think, if one is capable of pulling current political fervor out, most people should be upset about this comment. The article could have held on its on without the last sentence, why add something stupid like that?

10-23-2004, 05:58 PM	#30 (permalink)
Aborted Tilted Location: London	Personally, I thought the article was a wonderful piece of satire and nothing more. It just accentuates and has a giggle at all the little jokes that people make about Bush and Kerry and is actually quite an entertaining read. I think it's importance as a political statement is being drastically overplayed, and that a lot of people need to get over themselves just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit.

10-23-2004, 08:56 PM	#32 (permalink)
theusername Insane	No one ever asked for or wished for Clinton's assasination. It just isn't appropriate. I'm not voting for Bush, but I respect him as our President. If re-elected I will support him as an american. The lack of respect from the world, and both sides, democrat and republican is sickening. I use to want to get involved in Politics with honest intentions but i realize that would be a mistake, so I guess I'll let the dirty get their hands dirtier and continue to bring our country in a downward direction. __________________ ?

10-23-2004, 09:38 PM	#34 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	whocarz - I think he is referring to a published article asking/wishing for Clinton's assasination. In other words, similar to the one referenced in this thread. You are always going to have crazies plotting to overthrow the government, thinking about killing the president, taking potshots at the White House (remember that one?), etc. This is the first time, that I can think of, where a mainstream journalist from another country prints nonsense like this.

10-23-2004, 10:16 PM	#36 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Some here may not understand it, but not everyone feels that making a mocking, tasteless reference to the death of an American (or any other country's) leader is all that shocking or outrageous regardless of what ideological camp it emanates from. Humor and satire have gotten pretty raw lately. Edit: the above statement does not appy to groups with a known propensity for any sort of political violence.

10-24-2004, 06:16 AM	#39 (permalink)
tisonlyi Nothing	I find it amazing, the most vocal supporters of regime change in foreign climes...... are the self same people complaining about foreigners calling for regime change in their country. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Base irony, but... hay ho. Oh, and further up, someone was whittering about no calls for Reagan/Thatcher/Clinton/etc/etc/etc... to be assassinated. I say: You're not looking hard enough. Every limit pushing comedian since time immemorial has called for their/world political leaders to be assassinated. Reagan/Bush/Thatcher? I refer the honorable readers to the works of a certain Texan by the name of William Hicks. Aborted: Fundamentalism. Xenophobia. Zero sense of humour. Insane playground gang vs gang mentality. There are the reasons people are taking this seriously. The close minded cannot abide criticism, after all, they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. __________________ "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--