kill bush

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:35pm

so the guardian now calls for the killing of bush.

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

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:38pm

Politics aside, that is over the top.

Killing someone isn't funny.

[grownupgroupie]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:42pm

And the article really had been quite coherent and clever until..."John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

That's not ok. I'll be crying in my beer and praying for the Supreme Court if he "wins" again, god forbid, but that's not even funny.

Not to mention that it's a British paper, can't they mind their own a bit?!

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:43pm

Yeah, even I...pink-o-er than your favorite drinks, adgal...agree that *that* is unacceptable.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 8:05pm

Ew. Just...ew.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 9:03pm

Interesting, coming from a country that won't allow a person to speak out against the Queen at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 9:07pm

*waves little American flag*

[TGIF]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 11:41pm

It was a very enjoyable article til the last line.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:12am

Agreed--fantastic until the last line, which is way too much. The writer also needs to realize that even Paul Begala has agreed he wasn't wired---that it was a ruffle in his coat.

However, let us not pretend that this election does not greatly affect the rest of the world. We do not live in a bubble. And, if we can be upset with the leadership of another country, why can't other countries be upset with our leadership?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:37am

4 Out of 4 Porn Stars Surveyed Prefer Cock to Bush

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 1:21am

An op-ed in a British newspaper does not represent the sentiments of Americans. I hope you didn't intend to tar the American anti-Bush movement with that column.

Such violent thoughts are frighteningly visible on many conservative websites. FreeRepublic.com contains daily message threads advocating violence toward John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Teddy Kennedy.

Of far more relevance is another kind of violence: REAL violence that has been done by the Bush administration to our economy, our civil liberties and our status as a world power and advocate for peace.

THAT is the violence we should be decrying. Leave the crackpot right and left to themselves.

Updated On: 10/24/04 at 01:21 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 8:47am

i just hope we're as blase about such sentiments when an op-ed piece in a major newspaper advocates for the assasination of someone else, someone for whom ya'll have a li'l love. sweep it under the rug, there, joey, that's exactly the sentiment i expected from you. you can't even come out and take a stand against an article openly advocating for murder, that's a sad example of just how ugly partisan politics can really be. that's for the object lesson.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 8:53am

I don't ask you to comment on AMERICAN conservative hate speech, so don't ask me to comment on BRITISH leftist hate speech. It's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

It's called in debating "setting up a straw man": creating an extraneous weak argument for your opponent and then demanding that your opponent defend your weak argument rather than speak to his strong points. It's sometimes an effective debating technique when your side is LOSING.

The slimy DrudgeReport posts many of these false accusations daily. They don't fly anymore. The public is getting too smart to fall for them.

Updated On: 10/24/04 at 08:53 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 9:25am

i'm just asking you to admit that it's wrong and that such language has no place in civilized society. but ya can't even do that. you hate bush that much, eh? maybe you'd like to be the one pulling the trigger?

false accusations? it's right there on the page. unless you're thinking that the vast right wing conspiracy wrote that article as part of a rovian plan to discredit the guardian.

i'm not setting up any straw men, i merely posted a link to an article which contains a horrid example of a person advocating murder. but you're right, i guess when it's someone calling for the death of george w. it's irrelevant.

[InTheMoney]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 10:23am

"Not to mention that it's a British paper, can't they mind their own a bit?! "

In case you hadn't noticed, we just so happen to be pretty much the only Allies you have regarding Iraq. Your oh-so-wonderful Pres has also just comandeered 500 of our best troops to one of the most violent regions of that country because the Bush election campaign is struggling. Where they are to be placed under AMERICAN control. Which none of OUR commanders are happy about, having seen that the "shoot first ask after" policy currently in place is inferior to areas where the British are out of their tanks and engaging in level communication with the Iraqis, acting as little like occupying forces as possible.

Oh yeah, and these were men due home on Monday!!!!

Your government says this is because it requires British expertise gained during the Irish troubles. If that's the case, why aren't these forces remaining under British military command?

When our troops are no longer used as pawns in American politics then we will stop commenting on your leaders. However, whilst they still set themselves up as Godlike figures who don't have to listen to anyone, including the UN and international law, we will continue to pass judgement on their actions.

[InTheMoney]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 10:24am

Having said that, the last sentence of that article does rather let the side down.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 10:29am

"When our troops are no longer used as pawns in American politics then we will stop commenting on your leaders."

That's a problem with your government not with the USA. I never saw the USA force GB into doing anything.

[InTheMoney]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 10:41am

I fully admit Tony Blair is a wimpish, self-serving, hypocritical kiss-ass. However, when you're issued with ultimatums such as "If you're not with us you're against us" and much of your trade is with the US, you're kinda screwed.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 11:51am

Good for you, InTheMoney--you are absolutely correct.

Just to be devil's advocate--why is it "ok" to talk about murdering the leader of Iraq, North Korea, or at one time, Russia? This country seems to have no trouble with that as long as that leader is painted (rightly or not) as the villian in a real life action film.

And, while I will not justify that comment, I will say that many in the world see Bush in that manner.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 11:53am

Well... I wouldn't advocate killing him, but I have to admit, I wouldn't mind if he dropped dead!

[Liam]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 11:53am

DID YOU KNOW?
evry president elected in the year with an 0 or an 00 (i forget witch) was assasinated and bush was eleted in 2000

KILL BUSH!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:01pm

jrb, can you find an op-ed in a major daily newspaper in a g8 country advocating the assasination of any of those leaders? can you find one hinting at it?

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:02pm

He wasn't REALLY elected, Liam. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. He's safe.

[Liam]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:07pm

same diffrence

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/24/04 at 12:14pm

papa, if I had your powers of google and yahoo--and time--I might try to find something like that. I do know that it has been said--in writing--the whole "why didn't Bush finish Saddam off in the first Gulf War?" coems to mind.

It certainly has been discussed in other places, if not "an op-ed in a major daily newspaper".