NationStates Jolt Archive

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html)

I don't like Bush, but that's a bit beyond the pale....

He needs a pie in the face. Not a bullet. *nod*

Typical leftist trash paper pushing a typical leftist trash idea.

I don't like Bush, but that's a bit beyond the pale....

Maybe because they are a news source, but c'mon...such sentiments are hardly new, in foreign or domestic circles. My only surprise is that it was published.

They'll probably get a visit from the Secret Service.

WHich brings up an interesting question: WHy are they called the Secret Service? Shouldn't they be secret?

Or maybe they perform secret services. ;)

Typical leftist trash paper pushing a typical leftist trash idea.

Assassination a leftist idea...I bet John Wilkes Booth would disagree. One would hope that your political viewpoint matures a bit by the time you reach 8ighteen and it actually matters. ;)

Leftists are anti-gun. What are they gonna do, make his pretzels clumpier?

Think about it. Bush declared a war on terrorism. A war on a tactic. Therefore, anyone who has ever used an of terrorism is technically an enemy combatant. Therefore, if they kill the President, it's an act of war rather than an assassination, and so could technically be free from prosecution.

Not that I'm advocating it, it's just an interesting loophole, perhaps.

Bush needs a pink slip more than anything. Even better, it would be sweet to see Kerry walk up to him and say, "You're fired!"

Assassination a leftist idea...I bet John Wilkes Booth would disagree. One would hope that your political viewpoint matures a bit by the time you reach 8ighteen and it actually matters. ;)


Deserves a touche, very nice :)


----


More to the point:

Three cheers for the guardian. If the US can advocate the assassination of leaders that it feels 'threaten the world,' the guardian can do the same.

It's called "freedom of the press" and "freedom of expression."

I agree. I'm not fond of Bush, either, but advocating his assassination is WAY OUT OF LINE.

I havn't read it. I will now. but Im guessing its calling attention to the fact that every twenty years or so a president gets assasinated. And wondering why the most controversial president in memory seems to have escaped his fate.

Assassination a leftist idea...I bet John Wilkes Booth would disagree. One would hope that your political viewpoint matures a bit by the time you reach 8ighteen and it actually matters. ;)
Both the leftists and the south, of which JW Booth was a propnent, belive(d) in holding down the black man. Very similar.

17 is the name of a song I like. Anbar is the name of a child molesting arab. Guess both names leave something to be desired.

What are they gonna to do, make his pretzels clumpier?

That's not such a bad idea. It's creative. Though ultimately, a large-caliber sniper rifle would probably a more efficient way of doing things.


The real problem with assassinating GW: Dick Cheney would become President. And that scares the bejesus out of me.

I havn't read it. I will now. but Im guessing its calling attention to the fact that every twenty years or so a president gets assasinated. And wondering why the most controversial president in memory seems to have escaped his fate.


Because assassinations in the US are historically the dominion of right wingers.

Typical leftist trash paper pushing a typical leftist trash idea.

I guess thts why Gun nuts want Assault rifles in case they ever need to overthrow the government then.

Watch it 7eventeen. You're crossing the line.

Both the leftists and the south, of which JW Booth was a propnent, belive(d) in holding down the black man. Very similar.

17 is the name of a song I like. Anbar is the name of a child molesting arab. Guess both names leave something to be desired.
Flamebait!!!! Yeah, leftists sure do believe in keeping the black man down. That's why we only get, oh, a vast majority of the minority vote. Are you going to bother cooking up a crackpot reason to support your moronic statement, or will you just start making more ad hominem attacks on people who shred your arguments?

Flamebait!!!! Yeah, leftists sure do believe in keeping the black man down. That's why we only get, oh, a vast majority of the minority vote. Are you going to bother cooking up a crackpot reason to support your moronic statement, or will you just start making more ad hominem attacks on people who shred your arguments?


He knows that liberals want to opress the black man because it is the conservatives who are nice enough not to 'burden' them with elected office.

He knows that liberals want to opress the black man because it is the conservatives who are nice enough not to 'burden' them with elected office.
Ah. I forgot about our insidious plan to force all people to be involved in government. Curses!

Flamebait!!!! Yeah, leftists sure do believe in keeping the black man down. That's why we only get, oh, a vast majority of the minority vote. Are you going to bother cooking up a crackpot reason to support your moronic statement, or will you just start making more ad hominem attacks on people who shred your arguments?
Welfare!

Welfare!
That, um, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

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

I havn't read it. I will now. but Im guessing its calling attention to the fact that every twenty years or so a president gets assasinated. And wondering why the most controversial president in memory seems to have escaped his fate.

I assume you'll be reading this after you read the editorial. It had nothing to do with the "00 year curse".

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

It's linked in the OP. ;)
(Thanks, I know you're trying to help.)

Welfare!

Thats actually kinda racist to say. Plenty of black people do quite well. Wellfare works. And just as many white poeple languish on it.

Thats actually kinda racist to say. Plenty of black people do quite well. Wellfare works. And just as many white poeple languish on it.
Oh. So he was trying to say welfare was a system for oppressing black people. :p And :headbang: at the same time.

Anyone want to take bets on how long he'll survive?

I advocate the assassination, but mentho got it on the dot. Picking cheney?

We're gonna need a carbomb or something for the both of em...

Interesting to see that some on the Left, much as in the beginning of the Bush presidency, are still advocating his murder.

No, the Bolsheviks did not invent assassination. The Nazis did not invent genocide either. But both of these quasi-socialist, Leftist totalitarian factions managed to employ industrial methodologies to the practice of these crafts, such as the Bolshevik's practically mass-produced political assassins. And, like genocide, drug-trafficking, terrorism, low-intensity guerrilla warfare and kidnapping, the Left's various acronym gangs have reached new depths of excellence in these arts, and have thus become inexonerably linked with said vicious behavior.

I did indeed know of such things by the age of eighteen. I do not consider it a sign of immaturity to believe in such verifiable linkages in middle age, when it presumably "matters". Nor do I appreciate being called a moron for expressing empirically supported, obvious truths.

As for myself, I commend our President for having the courage to stand up to these amoral sophists, even at the risk of his own life. He will easily win my vote in November.

First off its a British news site note the .uk? The general populace of britain DO NOT LIKE GW. They do not like being drawn into the war in iraq.

Second off its in the Columnist section, which means its an opinion piece, which means you should give it as much credence as "news" as ann coultier's ranting about how liberals hate everything about america.

dpeends if theres a mod online.

I call first Dobs!!!

PS: Ok now I've read it. Frankly. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. I think its supposed to be inflamatory.

Interesting to see that some on the Left, much as in the beginning of the Bush presidency, are still advocating his murder.

No, the Bolsheviks did not invent assassination. The Nazis did not invent genocide either. But both of these quasi-socialist, Leftist totalitarian factions managed to employ industrial methodologies to the practice of these crafts, such as the Bolshevik's practically mass-produced political assassins. And, like genocide, drug-trafficking, terrorism, low-intensity guerrilla warfare and kidnapping, the Left's various acronym gangs have reached new depths of excellence in these arts, and have thus become inexonerably linked with said vicious behavior.

I did indeed know of such things by the age of eighteen. I do not consider it a sign of immaturity to believe in such verifiable linkages in middle age, when it presumably "matters". Nor do I appreciate being called a moron for expressing empirically supported, obvious truths.

As for myself, I commend our President for having the courage to stand up to these amoral sophists, even at the risk of his own life. He will easily win my vote in November.

As if everyone voting for kerry or advocating bush's death is on the left?

Interesting to see that some on the Left, much as in the beginning of the Bush presidency, are still advocating his murder.

No, the Bolsheviks did not invent assassination. The Nazis did not invent genocide either. But both of these quasi-socialist, Leftist totalitarian factions managed to employ industrial methodologies to the practice of these crafts, such as the Bolshevik's practically mass-produced political assassins. And, like genocide, drug-trafficking, terrorism, low-intensity guerrilla warfare and kidnapping, the Left's various acronym gangs have reached new depths of excellence in these arts, and have thus become inexonerably linked with said vicious behavior.

I did indeed know of such things by the age of eighteen. I do not consider it a sign of immaturity to believe in such verifiable linkages in middle age, when it presumably "matters". Nor do I appreciate being called a moron for expressing empirically supported, obvious truths.

As for myself, I commend our President for having the courage to stand up to these amoral sophists, even at the risk of his own life. He will easily win my vote in November.

What the hell are you talking about?

Don't forget that a member of the British Parliament did propose to raise a statue of a pretzel in honour of "the would be assassin"

Calls for the assassination of GWB are what they call "tongue in cheek" a derivative of the "sense of humour" It's a concept that many people on the American Right have forgotten. Not to popular on the American Left either If it wasn't for John Stuart I would swear you were taking your head of state way to seriously. This is where a monarchy comes in handy. :rolleyes:

The fact that the Nazi's official name was National Socialist Worker's Party does not actually mean they were socialists. As a matter of fact, Hitler spent a lot of his time in Germany trying to eliminate the socialist movement there. So no, the Nazis were not Leftists at all.

The fact that the Nazi's official name was National Socialist Worker's Party does not actually mean they were socialists. As a matter of fact, Hitler spent a lot of his time in Germany trying to eliminate the socialist movement there. So no, the Nazis were not Leftists at all.



Pretending that the nazis were leftists is like pretending that the democratic republic of the congo is ruled by an enlightened representative democracy

Welfare!

Hmpf. When my old man ran out on us, we did a social program for a short spell. Mom bought off on the conservative crap about the woman staying home. She had no "usable" skills for the work place. She worked a crap job, went to school, and collected assistence.

We did it once. My sister has never used it and I have never used it.

Now brace yourself.

We are white.

If you are going to spout off, at least know what you are talking about rather then reading some Liberterian(do they argue that? I think they do) or Conservative crap.

Both the leftists and the south, of which JW Booth was a propnent, belive(d) in holding down the black man. Very similar.

Yes, the leftists are all against civil rights. :rolleyes: Do you have any idea what you're blathering about?

17 is the name of a song I like. Anbar is the name of a child molesting arab. Guess both names leave something to be desired.

Actually, Anbar is the Sumerian word for "holy metal," and relates to the technocentric society I designed my nationstate to be when I created it. As for the other comment, thanks for outing yourself to be the pig-ignorant racist you clearly are. I'm sure we're all thankful for such a candid disclosure of truth.

By the way, if that was to insult me, no dice - I'm not of Middle-Eastern descent, though I'm no less disgusted with your comment for it as I am a human, and it made us collectively look bad.

Interesting to see that some on the Left, much as in the beginning of the Bush presidency, are still advocating his murder.

No, the Bolsheviks did not invent assassination. The Nazis did not invent genocide either. But both of these quasi-socialist, Leftist totalitarian factions managed to employ industrial methodologies to the practice of these crafts, such as the Bolshevik's practically mass-produced political assassins. And, like genocide, drug-trafficking, terrorism, low-intensity guerrilla warfare and kidnapping, the Left's various acronym gangs have reached new depths of excellence in these arts, and have thus become inexonerably linked with said vicious behavior.

I did indeed know of such things by the age of eighteen. I do not consider it a sign of immaturity to believe in such verifiable linkages in middle age, when it presumably "matters". Nor do I appreciate being called a moron for expressing empirically supported, obvious truths.

Well, why don't you start verifying a few of these linkages? Otherwise, you're just spouting stereotypes worthy of a spot on Father Limbaugh's show, and no one gives two sh-ts about that here, beyond using it as criteria to determine who is quite likely a moron.

They are just stooges anbar. Dont lend them that much credence.

I would have to say that assassination is a much more conservative form of regime change.

Its hard to call liberals pussies and then lump them in with Stalin, Hitler, Booth, and Oswald.

Also remember that Lincoln was assassinated for believing in a strong central government (liberal idea) and John and Robert Kennedy were two of the staunchest liberals ever elected.

It seems like all the violent protesters (pro-lifers, Ku Klux Klan, gay bashers) tend to fall on the conservative side. Who are us gun hating liberal pussies supposed to kill with our political ideals anyway?

Both the leftists and the south, of which JW Booth was a propnent, belive(d) in holding down the black man. Very similar.

17 is the name of a song I like. Anbar is the name of a child molesting arab. Guess both names leave something to be desired.


That wrong quip abour 'anbar' shows that you are a racist.

Whilst it's a bit distasteful, it just reflects the British sarcastic way of writing. It's not actually a genuine call for him to be assisinated.

Americans should accept though that a majority of Europeans have a very very negative view of Bush Jnr, he has made himself and his government very unpopular in the rest of the world through his arogant actions. The article reflects that, but very strongly.

I havn't read it. I will now. but Im guessing its calling attention to the fact that every twenty years or so a president gets assasinated. And wondering why the most controversial president in memory seems to have escaped his fate.

You must have an exceptionally short memory.

They'll probably get a visit from the Secret Service.

WHich brings up an interesting question: WHy are they called the Secret Service? Shouldn't they be secret?

Or maybe they perform secret services. ;)
They are the SS. The successor of the Nazi Sturm Staffel. And they apparently serve the same purpose.

Thats actually kinda racist to say. Plenty of black people do quite well. Wellfare works. And just as many white poeple languish on it.

More "white" people are on welfare. However... White people in the US vastly outnumber blacks. So percentage wise, welfare is much more a component of a persons life if he/she is black.

same with jails. Though I think thats a fifty fifty split inmate wise.

They are just stooges anbar. Dont lend them that much credence.

I just find it more satisfying to give them enough rope with which to hang themselves.

Typical leftist trash paper pushing a typical leftist trash idea.

Trash paper? 'The Guardian'. Hmm, methinks you've never tried to read it. I'll grant you it is very left, it's the most left-wing quality paper I read. The article however is indeed toung-in-cheek, a form of British comedy. Get over it, most people who aren't British don't get our humour.

First off its a British news site note the .uk? The general populace of britain DO NOT LIKE GW. They do not like being drawn into the war in iraq.

No one forced them to join! The Parliment supported it. If you don't like it, vote those that voted for the war in Iraq out of office.

Second off its in the Columnist section, which means its an opinion piece, which means you should give it as much credence as "news" as ann coultier's ranting about how liberals hate everything about america.

With this I agree with you.

Don't forget that a member of the British Parliament did propose to raise a statue of a pretzel in honour of "the would be assassin"

Calls for the assassination of GWB are what they call "tongue in cheek" a derivative of the "sense of humour" It's a concept that many people on the American Right have forgotten. Not to popular on the American Left either If it wasn't for John Stuart I would swear you were taking your head of state way to seriously. This is where a monarchy comes in handy. :rolleyes:

And yet we tossed the monarchy out in 1783 when Britain agreed to the Treat of Paris thus establishing American Independence.

We broke away because your tyrant Mad King George the III was trying to be an absolute dictator in the Colonies and taxing us into nothingness with illegal taxes from the Parliment.

You must have an exceptionally short memory.

Its true that I came of age politically when Bush came to power. But that doesn't change the fact that no president in living memery has been more divisive, in the U.S and the greater world also.

Perhaps not living Memory. There was always Nixon. And then of course theres Geezers like Granny D (http://www.grannyd.com/) who have been politically active for ages. (Literally) But other than that I cant see how you could deny it.

Actually, as I understand it, King George III was a good ruler (as kings go) for many years until the whole madness thing set in.
He lived in a time where more and more power was being stripped from the throne and given to parliament.
In fact, I believe the American War of Independence followed a drop in most taxes (except tea, thus the Boston Tea Party). Furthermore, the Americans had both the French and Spanish on their side as a way of getting back at Britain, and so I found the whole 'freedom fries' episode really quite amusing.

Actually, as I understand it, King George III was a good ruler (as kings go) for many years until the whole madness thing set in.
He lived in a time where more and more power was being stripped from the throne and given to parliament.
In fact, I believe the American War of Independence followed a drop in most taxes (except tea, thus the Boston Tea Party). Furthermore, the Americans had both the French and Spanish on their side as a way of getting back at Britain, and so I found the whole 'freedom fries' episode really quite amusing.

You must be a brit! They ended those taxes because we colonists became enraged with them. We were boycotting British stuff left and right. We did not want to split from Britain, far from it. But when the King refused to see the Olive Branch Petition or ignored it, that was the last straw. The war started in 1775 at Lexington and Concord. On July 4th 1776, we declared Independence. I could go on and on about this but suffice to say, Mad King George III blew it when it came to the American Colonies.

But he was Mad. You can hardly hold it against him.

Originally Posted by Freoria
First off its a British news site note the .uk? The general populace of britain DO NOT LIKE GW. They do not like being drawn into the war in iraq.


No one forced them to join! The Parliment supported it. If you don't like it, vote those that voted for the war in Iraq out of office.

Therein lies a HUGE flaw in our political systems... We elect people on promises they've made during campaign. (yeah believable, huh?) And once they're in power they do whatever the hell they want. Brilliant democracy...

And yeah, I'd say the call to assasination was hyperbole... Not that I'd be complaining. Well... unless Cheney was still alive. :(

Typical leftist trash paper pushing a typical leftist trash idea.


Have you ever actually read the Guardian - it's a damn good paper - the quote was very out of sorts for it and it would have appeared in the editorial anyhow - not as part of their commentary on a main story.

It is true though how the whole issue seems to have just "died", I guess the mainstream American left just doesn't have the balls to ask the obvious questions - there was an enormous bulge in his jacket and from the pictures I saw it was quite plausible that he was wearing a wire under his tie.

Fine, you caught me out; I have next to no idea about that period of history.
Back to the actual subject, I've read the article in question and it is very obviously a joke.
I don't see why you're so insecure about the idea of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley Jr rising from the grave to kill your beloved president.

LOL!

To be honest, This article seems a little out of character for any news paper. And It seems kinda infantile.

You dont the Guardian was hacked do you?

Its impossible, they would have noticed by now.

Now if someone in the US would finally have enough courage to shoot the shrub, we would have a problem less on the planet. I am completely pro-Bush-assassination.

I don't like the guy, but he's got a family for Christ's sakes.

Fine, you caught me out; I have next to no idea about that period of history.
Back to the actual subject, I've read the article in question and it is very obviously a joke.
I don't see why you're so insecure about the idea of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Hinckley Jr rising from the grave to kill your beloved president.

Maybe because I respect the office of the President and anyone that kills the person in that office, wether I like the guy or not, would make me very very mad and calling for the dude's head to roll.

Now if someone in the US would finally have enough courage to shoot the shrub, we would have a problem less on the planet. I am completely pro-Bush-assassination.

You would be!

Maybe because I respect the office of the President and anyone that kills the person in that office, wether I like the guy or not, would make me very very mad and calling for the dude's head to roll.


Which brings up the question: "Would the 'Brits' find it amusing if some newspaper in the states called for the assassination of Tony Blair and or others of the British government?"


From the way it was written they condoned the assassination of Lincoln, Kennedy, and attempt on Reagan's life. Nice.

Which brings up the question: "Would the 'Brits' find it amusing if some newspaper in the states called for the assassination of Tony Blair and or others of the British government?"


From the way it was written they condoned the assassination of Lincoln, Kennedy, and attempt on Reagan's life. Nice.

I would call for that paper to print a retraction if that ever happened. I don't call for the assassination of anyone, no matter how much I hate them.

Deserves a touche, very nice :)


----


More to the point:

Three cheers for the guardian. If the US can advocate the assassination of leaders that it feels 'threaten the world,' the guardian can do the same.

It's called "freedom of the press" and "freedom of expression."

It is also highly illiagal to typ, print, or say you want to kill the president. It happens everyday but this paper will get visted and most likely prosecuted.

It is also highly illiagal to typ, print, or say you want to kill the president. It happens everyday but this paper will get visted and most likely prosecuted.
I would like to see the president of the US killed.
I would like to see the president of the US shot.
I would like to see the president of the US sent to Iraq and decapitated.
I would like to see the president of the US electrocuted, stoned to death (and no, I do not mean using drugs), quartered, hanged, intestines pulled inside out... etc. etc.

And I don't care who reads this. It's my opinion that a dead Bush is a good Bush.

I would like to see the president of the US killed.
I would like to see the president of the US shot.
I would like to see the president of the US sent to Iraq and decapitated.
I would like to see the president of the US electrocuted, stoned to death (and no, I do not mean using drugs), quartered, hanged, intestines pulled inside out... etc. etc.

And I don't care who reads this. It's my opinion that a dead Bush is a good Bush.

Can we get a mod on this guy?

I would like to see the president of the US killed.
I would like to see the president of the US shot.
I would like to see the president of the US sent to Iraq and decapitated.
I would like to see the president of the US electrocuted, stoned to death (and no, I do not mean using drugs), quartered, hanged, intestines pulled inside out... etc. etc.

And I don't care who reads this. It's my opinion that a dead Bush is a good Bush.


And what a mature response that was......

Can we get a mod on this guy?
*shrug*
Better presidents than Bush got assassinated. He of all deserves it but he's still around. I guess he's more lucky than skilled.

And what a mature response that was......
Yeah just as mature as the response that the Guardian will be visitied by the almithy SS (Secret Service) - the thought police of the US. How dare you say anything against the shrub!

Yeah just as mature as the response that the Guardian will be visitied by the almithy SS (Secret Service) - the thought police of the US. How dare you say anything against the shrub!
So if you see something that you think is immature you go ahead and do something on what you think is a similar level? :rolleyes:

*shrug*
Better presidents than Bush got assassinated. He of all deserves it but he's still around. I guess he's more lucky than skilled.

Gigatron, I don't mind your hatred for the Administration. What if I called for the Assassination of Shroeder. I would never do that but suppose I do. Would you be outraged?

So if you see something that you think is immature you go ahead and do something on what you think is a similar level? :rolleyes:
Not always, but with extremely immature posts I do a similar immature post to show the worthlessness of such posts.

Gigatron, I don't mind your hatred for the Administration. What if I called for the Assassination of Shroeder. I would never do that but suppose I do. Would you be outraged?
I expected this question. And no, I'd not be outraged. I don't like our corrupt politicians either. And even if, it's your free right to think that our chancellor deserves to be shot. So long as you don't actually do it, I got no problem :)

Not always, but with extremely immature posts I do a similar immature post to show the worthlessness of such posts.

And that just shows your immaturity. A mature person would not stoop to such levels.

And that just shows your immaturity. A mature person would not stoop to such levels.
Well it's called sarcasm. Something most immature people cannot grasp.

Well it's called sarcasm. Something most immature people cannot grasp.

And your sarcasm lowers yourself to their level. If you truely are a mature person, you would not have to stoop to their level to make a point.

And your sarcasm lowers yourself to their level. If you truely are a mature person, you would not have to stoop to their level to make a point.
Whatever.

Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html)
thanks, the link in the original post didnt work for me

wow thats the kind of column that would never be printed in the US. if it were posted here, it would be considered flamebait.

we certainly dont need to assassinate the president. this is what we have ELECTIONS for. we need to vote him out of office, its only 9 days away!

"Bush's image, even before the war in Iraq, was not good. The way he comports himself, the vocabulary he uses -- good versus evil, God and all that -- even his body language, most people think is not presidential." He added, "I've never seen such hostility."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58041-2004Sep28.html


Bush is widely unpopular outside the US so I think he's more in danger of being assassinated outside of the US than inside.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58041-2004Sep28.html


Bush is widely unpopular outside the US so I think he's more in danger of being assassinated outside of the US than inside.

Actually I think he doesn't have to fear being assassinated because then Dick Cheney will become President and I don't think the rest of the world will want that. LOL!

Besides, if Cheney goes then Dennis Hastart becomes President that if Cheney doesn't appoint a VP first and get it approved by Congress.

Oh. So he was trying to say welfare was a system for oppressing black people. :p And :headbang: at the same time.

Anyone want to take bets on how long he'll survive?
Welfare is a system for oppressing black people, and for ensuring theri slavish devotion to the democrat party.

Welfare is a system for oppressing black people, and for ensuring theri slavish devotion to the democrat party.

Please explain why then do all Klansmen and NeoNazis in the U.S. overwhelming support Bush.

It is also highly illiagal to typ, print, or say you want to kill the president. It happens everyday but this paper will get visted and most likely prosecuted.

You...do know that American law doesn't extend to a British paper...don't you?

It is also highly illiagal to typ, print, or say you want to kill the president. It happens everyday but this paper will get visted and most likely prosecuted.It is also highly stupid to typ, print, or say, or talk about matters you dont have a clue about ;)

Its times like these that make me realize why I dont visit the general forums to often...

I would like to make it known though, to all those out there that disagree with 7eventeen that Lincoln was a Republican, and he pushed the amendmants to free slaves and get them the right to vote through a Republican congress. The south, which at the time was DECIDEDLY democrat. In fact, I believe it was around the mid1960s that the South remaind democrat. So yes, while his argument is rather stupid, he his right, that democrats have been the more oppresive when it comes to the African Americans. Now, I shall whisk myself off to the nationstates and ii portion of this forum, and leave you all to be.

If anybody does such a dastardly thing let's hope it does not happen after Bush is reelected (may it not come to pass).

Imagine President Cheney? How long would it be before he had all American freedoms suspended?

*shivers*

Let's put this into perspective. This article, while out-of-line, was written by Charlie Brooker, a television entertainment columnist for The Guardian. It wasn't an editorial, or news story, or even a political column. He is a guy who writes about the latest sitcoms on the BBC.

This is fake outrage, like so much of the posturing that goes on in American public life today. How many of you people who are so offended about the silly remarks of a British TV columnist were bothered when North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms publicly warned President Bill Clinton that he would need a "bodyguard" if he visited a North Carolina military base?

The Guardian is an outstanding source of news and provides more indepth reporting and analysis of American foreign policy than you will find in any American paper. And for a foreign paper they pretty much hold their own on American domestic issues, as well.

Have you ever actually read the Guardian - it's a damn good paper - the quote was very out of sorts for it and it would have appeared in the editorial anyhow - not as part of their commentary on a main story.


Umm ... the apology referred to the remark actually being made in 'Screen Burn' - the Guide's weekly (comic) TV column. By somebody who professes to hate lots and lots of people and wishes them dead in various imaginative and twisted ways. Think Maddox-lite. I doubt regular readers would even have registered the assassination crack.

Let's put this into perspective. This article, while out-of-line, was written by Charlie Brooker, a television entertainment columnist for The Guardian. It wasn't an editorial, or news story, or even a political column. He is a guy who writes about the latest sitcoms on the BBC.

....



Damn! Why do I never check recent posts before hitting the Submit Reply button? :mad: