[article] John Kerry - Haunted Tree

Redleslie2

I'm bored out of my mind with slaggings of Bush at this stage but Charlie Brooker's article in The Guardian is a good one.

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?

Hobbes

thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all.

Or proving that God has a sense of humour.

sceptre

John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

He's currently in St Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington. He'll probably shoot anyone you like in exchange for a table napkin used by Jodie Foster.

Redleslie2

I think Kerry is more likely than Bush to get whacked, assuming he gets in. What are the odds?

He does look like a haunted tree/ent though doesn't he?

dangerman

i read that yesterday I like this bit of it:

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.

It's true! Kerry looks like an ent!

gandalf

Hmmm dangerman I disagree strongly with that description. I have never seen Bush drooling once

Saw this article on another discussion board I am on in the US and they are not impressed by it at all. Unfortunately I think Bush is going to get back in.........God help us all !!

dangerman

Yeh I originally saw it on metafilter.com -

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36472

have a look at some of the comments. These two are my favourite:

First of all, I would like to remind everyone here that threatening the life of the President of the United States is a serious felony, even in jest, and individuals who do so are regularly, and successfully, prosecuted. If you are living in the US, and you make such a comment in this thread, you may expect a visit either from the FBI or the Secret Service.

If nothing else, by making such a comment you are exposing the operators of MetaFilter, and their web hosts, to harassment, even if they are located outside of the US.

Ironically, what amounts to threats is liberally interpreted by the US government. So please be careful what you write.
posted by kablam at 4:54 PM PST on October 23


and kablam brings an official tactic of the GOP--fear-- into Metafilter, with a threat to Matt and the rest of us. sad.
posted by amberglow at 5:01 PM PST on October 23

Victor

First of all, I would like to remind everyone here that threatening the life of the President of the United States is a serious felony, even in jest, and individuals who do so are regularly, and successfully, prosecuted. If you are living in the US, and you make such a comment in this thread, you may expect a visit either from the FBI or the Secret Service.

Call it régime change. No presidents will be harmed.

Redleslie2

It seems that the article has been removed and Mr.Brooker has had to apologise because idiots got upset.

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologises for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Political correctness gone mad. Like everything else.

RE*AC*TOR

The Guardian is a bit OTT I must say. I agree with the sentiment, but really I don't want to bother reading such an overtly biased paper. No different than republican american's watching FOX.

Redleslie2

All the papers in the UK are biased one way or the other. On the whole I prefer the Guardian's sort of bias to the Daily Mail's sort.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

No different than republican american's watching FOX.

Rubbish tbh.

RE*AC*TOR

Redleslie2 wrote:

All the papers in the UK are biased one way or the other. On the whole I prefer the Guardian's sort of bias to the Daily Mail's sort.

Rubbish tbh.

How is it different?

Cork

A very good website is:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

I think Ralph Nader could have a big influence on this election. He does not not seem to be filling many column inches in newspapers over here not even the Irish Examiner.

I really can't comment on the Daily Mail. (no local news)

Redleslie2

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

How is it different?

If you want spoonfeeding go somewhere else.

Hobbes

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think Kerry is more likely than Bush to get whacked, assuming he gets in. What are the odds?

Hardly. All people running for president are automatically given a Secret Service group to look after them.

If he was to get whacked in Office John Edwards is not a bad replacement.

You know if Bush/Cheny or Kerry/Edwards were to get whacked before the election results there would be civil war. Especially if they won.

RE*AC*TOR

redleslie2 wrote:

If you want spoonfeeding go somewhere else.

Beautifully put. I would expect nothing less from your good-self. Anyway, I'll throw that one to the floor, is there a difference (in principle) between the overtly right wing FOX News, and the overtly left wing Guardian? Now I would consider myself to lean quite a bit to the left, but I don't read newspapers to be spoonfed biased opinion.
Anyone?

OfflerCrocGod

Cork wrote:

I think Ralph Nader could have a big influence on this election. He does not not seem to be filling many column inches in newspapers over here not even the Irish Examiner.

Ye he's going to help the Democrats to defeat, again.

Redleslie2

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Beautifully put. I would expect nothing less from your good-self. Anyway, I'll throw that one to the floor, is there a difference (in principle) between the overtly right wing FOX News, and the overtly left wing Guardian? Now I would consider myself to lean quite a bit to the left, but I don't read newspapers to be spoonfed biased opinion.
Anyone?

Fox news is not a newspaper is it? For a start. It's a completely different bloody medium. Jesus. Compare it with the BBC if anything.

RE*AC*TOR

"(in principle)"
The medium was not my point, rather the nature of the reporting. I wouldn't say the BBC was anything as biased as either of those two organizations.

Redleslie2

Hobbes wrote:

Hardly. All people running for president are automatically given a Secret Service group to look after them.

If he was to get whacked in Office John Edwards is not a bad replacement.

You know if Bush/Cheny or Kerry/Edwards were to get whacked before the election results there would be civil war. Especially if they won.

The secret service didn't do kennedy much good. But anyway what if it looked like an evil muslim operation? I wouldn't underestimate the looniness of the neocons especially if they really believe that Kerry represents the far-left as Bush said during the last debate.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

The secret service didn't do kennedy much good.

they were in on it....

Redleslie2

Mordeth wrote:

they were in on it....

They said they got lost on the way to the hospital (in Washington DC) after Reagan got shot. As you do.

mycroft

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Beautifully put. I would expect nothing less from your good-self. Anyway, I'll throw that one to the floor, is there a difference (in principle) between the overtly right wing FOX News, and the overtly left wing Guardian? Now I would consider myself to lean quite a bit to the left, but I don't read newspapers to be spoonfed biased opinion.
Anyone?

Because for starts the Guardian makes no bones about being the paper for sandal wearing, museil eating liberals, it wears it's heart on it's sleve and makes no bones about it.

Furthermore the Guardian will regularly give over editorial and leader comments to people who aren't George Monibot and Naomi Klein, they've give column inches to people like Max Hastings, Kissinger, Former members of GB Senior cabinet, to argue their point of view. It is not Hannity and Coombes with it's inane attempt at "non partisan" but it will give people who's viewpoint doesn't mesh with the general viewpoint of the paper.

I'm a guardian reader. Trying to find a paper without a bias is like to trying to find a sober glaswegian on a saturday night (more hassle than it's worth) I found a paper who's bias most agrees with my world view.

RE*AC*TOR

Ok, I see your point. But why not buy a paper that takes a contrary stance to your beliefs as well? Surely none of us are so arrogant as to assume we are 100% right and the opposition are 100% wrong.
Ok, so The Guardian pays better lip service to the right, than FOX pays to the left, but in principle they are essentially two sides of one coin IMHO. Neither are particualrily constructive socially.

RuggieBear

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok, I see your point. But why not buy a paper that takes a contrary stance to your beliefs as well? Surely none of us are so arrogant as to assume we are 100% right and the opposition are 100% wrong.
Ok, so The Guardian pays better lip service to the right, than FOX pays to the left, but in principle they are essentially two sides of one coin IMHO. Neither are particualrily constructive socially.

I see where you are coming from....politics and the media are becoming more and more a zero-sum game...there is no middle ground and to place yourself there draws scorn and contempt from both sides.

I like the Guardian and i find it very difficult to read anything that comes from the rightwing medja without contempt especially things like the Daily Mail..... and I suppose it goes the other way too

RE*AC*TOR

I used to read The Guardian a lot, but its a bit too much like preaching to the choir for my taste.

RuggieBear

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I used to read The Guardian a lot, but its a bit too much like preaching to the choir for my taste.

perhaps....in a similar way, i can't really read R. Fisk anymore as he has become to zealous in his views but then i haven't seen the injustices and horrible **** that he has or i'd probably go the same way.

mycroft

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok, I see your point. But why not buy a paper that takes a contrary stance to your beliefs as well? Surely none of us are so arrogant as to assume we are 100% right and the opposition are 100% wrong.

Cause frankly I dislike the idea of giving O'Reilly, Murdoch or Black any more money?

And where do i suggest I'm arrogant to asume I'm right or my worldview is right all the time, however take immigration, the Mail the Sun etc espouse arcadegame esque worldviews that illegal immirgrants are only here to take our jobs women, eat our swans, and spread the bubonic plague. They're also the papers that are generally the most conservative, nationalistic, jingoistic, papers, spouting an attitude that I believe is detrimental to our planet and society.

Ok, so The Guardian pays better lip service to the right, than FOX pays to the left, but in principle they are essentially two sides of one coin IMHO. Neither are particualrily constructive socially.

Actually read the guardian. For a week, examine it's extensive educational and society sections, it's special reports in it's G2 section, I think it's a socially progressive paper, trying to highlight and offer constructive suggestions to social problems. it did an excellent extensive report ABOS orders in the UK recently interviewing families who had children under ABOS, their neighbours, social workers, community workers. It's the kind of indepth human reporting lacking from fox and the right wing press.

RE*AC*TOR

As I've said, I have read the Guardian, quite a bit in fact. And I never suggested you were arrogant, rather than we could all do with not being fed one point of view only, especially when we happen to agree with it. Its too easy.
ie in the absence of an unbiased source, surely its better to get all sides of the story and make up your own mind.

mycroft

Well yes and again the guardian wears it's sandal wearing ikea buying nigel slattery eating museli chomping heart on it's sleave.

Secondly while I like the guardian I cannot for example stomach monbiot a man who makes Fisk seem self depreciating, and whose book captive states had so many flawed analogys it was embarssing even reading it.

If I doubt or am unsure of what I see, I have a web connect and google, a handy way of fact checking and seeing the alternative.

Redleslie2

So for the sake of balance, Should the Guardian come up with Daily Mail type stuff like "Evil Chris Morris In Gay Asylum Seeker Smuggling Plot"? I think not.

BEAT

Mordeth wrote:

they were in on it....

carefull, they are watching....