The Fish 10963 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'm confused, I'm talking about a Christian woman who thought it was appropriate to have a symbol of peaceful martyrdom nestled in a symbol of violent action. Now if it was irony I'd appluad it. That it was intended to say "I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus" scares the crap out of me. maybe your taking it the wrong way Fish. maybe it was intended to say 'i used to be violent but have now replaced that with Jesus'?? Well she was asked "Is your message 'I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus'?" and her response was "yeah, pretty much" here http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-octo...-g20-protesters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Reminds me of the priest in 'Braindead'. "I kick arse for the Lord!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 You meet some scarily ignorant Americans doing the whistlestop tour thing in Europe. Some of them aren't even sure what country they're in. Another favourite was the girl who'd claimed to have 'done' (an obscenely arrogant use of the verb that irked my brother and I no end) England, when on further questioning it revealed that she had seen Buckingham Palace and been to a few Walkabouts in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 189 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'm confused, I'm talking about a Christian woman who thought it was appropriate to have a symbol of peaceful martyrdom nestled in a symbol of violent action. Now if it was irony I'd appluad it. That it was intended to say "I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus" scares the crap out of me. maybe your taking it the wrong way Fish. maybe it was intended to say 'i used to be violent but have now replaced that with Jesus'?? Well she was asked "Is your message 'I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus'?" and her response was "yeah, pretty much" here http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-octo...-g20-protesters ah, sorry fish, had'nt seen that. as i said earlier tho, complete loony!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 At a party in Paris a few years back I was asked by some Americans if England was in London.....True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 At a party in Paris a few years back I was asked by some Americans if England was in London.....True story. Well, some of it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 yeah, but you get loonies like that from all walks of life!!! does'nt christianity tell the 'believers' to smite their enemies?? in fact does'nt every religon?? funny!! I'm confused, I'm talking about a Christian woman who thought it was appropriate to have a symbol of peaceful martyrdom nestled in a symbol of violent action. Now if it was irony I'd appluad it. That it was intended to say "I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus" scares the crap out of me. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) I'm confused, I'm talking about a Christian woman who thought it was appropriate to have a symbol of peaceful martyrdom nestled in a symbol of violent action. Now if it was irony I'd appluad it. That it was intended to say "I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus" scares the crap out of me. maybe your taking it the wrong way Fish. maybe it was intended to say 'i used to be violent but have now replaced that with Jesus'?? Well she was asked "Is your message 'I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus'?" and her response was "yeah, pretty much" here http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-octo...-g20-protesters ah, sorry fish, had'nt seen that. as i said earlier tho, complete loony!! Tbh I'm always in two minds reg guns....As a lefty I find it hard to re-concile my lefty grounding with the idea that the people should be armed. Edited October 7, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'm confused, I'm talking about a Christian woman who thought it was appropriate to have a symbol of peaceful martyrdom nestled in a symbol of violent action. Now if it was irony I'd appluad it. That it was intended to say "I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus" scares the crap out of me. maybe your taking it the wrong way Fish. maybe it was intended to say 'i used to be violent but have now replaced that with Jesus'?? Well she was asked "Is your message 'I'm going to shoot you in the face with Jesus'?" and her response was "yeah, pretty much" here http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-octo...-g20-protesters ah, sorry fish, had'nt seen that. as i said earlier tho, complete loony!! Tbh I'm always in two minds reg guns....As a lefty I find it hard to re-concile my lefty grounding with the idea that the people should be armed. But as a toff, stick on a deerstalker and you'll shotgun anything that moves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'm vehemently anti-gun, I think that guns on the streets are just disasters waiting to happen. However I can't think of a viable way to get them off the streets, the toothpaste is definitely out of the tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21980 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 America must be the most heterogenous county in the world. When I've been there, I've been asked the following, all seriously: 'How long did it take you to drive here?' 'Do you have electricity in England?' 'What part of London is Newcastle in?' 'Do you know the Queen?' Also got 'Do you know the Beatles?' 'Has Shakespeare made any good films recently'. However, on the other hand I've met plenty of highly educated Americans in the medical field who really know their stuff. Some of them find the state of their nation profoundly depressing in fairness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Undoubtedly. If he avoided any media with an agenda he'd do nothing whatsoever. At the moment he only caters to the corporate agenda though....as you'd expect given that he's owned by them. As are just about all the reporters in the White House Press corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 However, on the other hand I've met plenty of highly educated Americans in the medical field who really know their stuff. Some of them find the state of their nation profoundly depressing in fairness. It works both ways - I can remember when I started work people found the idea of travelling around England to watch football absolutely amazing as quite a few of them had either never been out of the NE or maybe had been to London once on holiday. Of course for all our boasting of passport holders compared with the US, how many have only been to Spain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Undoubtedly. If he avoided any media with an agenda he'd do nothing whatsoever. Agreed, but the solution is not to deal with only those with a leftist bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Undoubtedly. If he avoided any media with an agenda he'd do nothing whatsoever. Agreed, but the solution is not to deal with only those with a leftist bias. I think he meant at least deal with them occasionally by inference to the wall to wall corporate agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 (edited) He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Undoubtedly. If he avoided any media with an agenda he'd do nothing whatsoever. Agreed, but the solution is not to deal with only those with a leftist bias. I was referring to the weekend gone where he gave interviews to 4 or 5 of the majors and Fox were outraged at being left out. They were put out because a presidential interview legitimises the channel as a serious news organisation and the snub pointedly does the opposite. What I meant was, in this instance I'd have liked to have seen them all snubbed and interviews granted to a wider range of organisations than just the interchangeable network/cable news stations. Obama owes a debt to the internet generation for getting him elected and generating him unprecedented campaign funds....but he only continues to repay his coporate sponsors leaving a lot of disillusioned nerds out there. Edited October 7, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 My bad, I did think you meant instead of. It's a shame these disillusioned nerds couldn't see where it was going in the first place. Would be nice to think this would wake them up, but it won't. Nothing changes until a candidate is backed who promises to stay the fuck out of everyone's business as much as possible, but that's not what the vast majority (on either side) want either, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 7, 2009 Author Share Posted October 7, 2009 He shouldn't give any of the major channels interviews though. He should go on Dailykos, Salon, Democracy Now, NPR etc and promote a wider discourse amongst the American public. All the other corporate owned channels would be able to pick up whatever he says. Aye, because none of those have an agenda. Undoubtedly. If he avoided any media with an agenda he'd do nothing whatsoever. Agreed, but the solution is not to deal with only those with a leftist bias. I was referring to the weekend gone where he gave interviews to 4 or 5 of the majors and Fox were outraged at being left out. They were put out because a presidential interview legitimises the channel as a serious news organisation and the snub pointedly does the opposite. What I meant was, in this instance I'd have liked to have seen them all snubbed and interviews granted to a wider range of organisations than just the interchangeable network/cable news stations. Obama owes a debt to the internet generation for getting him elected and generating him unprecedented campaign funds....but he only continues to repay his coporate sponsors leaving a lot of disillusioned nerds out there. Yup. At some point he will TURN. Normally this can't occur in the first term as business has to be taken care of.....The SECOND TERM is when a president starts to get his OWN IDEAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 War has officially been declared after months of skirmishing. First to the front was Fox News' latest star, Glenn Beck, who laid out the battle plan with a map, a couple of toy tanks and a plastic attack helicopter. "What a bunch of warmongers we have in the White House. America is fighting the war in Iraq, they're fighting in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban. And now these people have taken on another enemy: Fox News," said the anchor who once wept out of patriotic fervour as he introduced Sarah Palin. "I want to show you right where the enemy is located," Beck added as he circled Rupert Murdoch's Fox News headquarters in green ink on a map of New York. "This is the enemy, America!" Like many wars, it wasn't hard to see this one coming, but the formal declaration of hostilities still caught almost everyone off guard. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, fired the first shot of the formal conflict at the weekend when she said that Obama had refused to appear on Fox News last month - at a time when he was doing a round of interviews on other stations to promote healthcare reform - because the most-watched cable news channel in America dealt in rightwing propaganda, not news. "Fox News often operates either as the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party," she said. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is ... We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." Fox's two most excitable presenters, Beck and Bill O'Reilly, are spearheading the counterattack. "They're more worried about the war on Fox than the actual war in Afghanistan," Beck said. O'Reilly claimed that the criticism he gets from different quarters is evidence that he is even-handed. He then went on to attack the rest of the press for "rhapsodic" coverage of Obama and described the New York Times as "as far left as you can get". Fox News said the White House was failing to distinguish between its news reporters and commentators who, the channel readily admits, are conservatives. But the administration says that is because it is almost impossible to make the distinction when the network is so often actively involved in promoting a political agenda. Scott McClellan, a press secretary to President George Bush, has said that the White House regularly gave talking points to Fox News to promote the administration's agenda. Fox News' vice president, Bill Shine, has described the channel as "the voice of the opposition on some issues". To its critics, it is more like an attack dog. The network has riled the White House by vigorously promoting conservative "tea party" protests against Obama earlier this year, named after the Boston Tea Party revolt against British rule. Fox gave great publicity to the demonstrations beforehand and then extensive live coverage as its presenters revelled in what they characterised as a spontaneous populist revolt against an increasingly burdensome government. At one point, a Fox News producer was filmed telling part of the crowd at a "tea party" protest in Washington when to cheer for the cameras. Similarly, Fox News gave great prominence to opposition to Obama's plans for healthcare reforms, heavily promoting meetings at which the president was characterised as a Nazi and a communist. At other times, Fox News appears guided by a philosophy of Keep Fear Alive. Viewers are regularly reminded of the government's terror alert level, although it seldom changes. The administration is also attacked for endangering America with its proposals to dismantle the prison at Guantánamo Bay. O'Reilly has wrapped himself in the flag of patriotism - he sells mugs and caps on his website with the legend "American Patriot" - and persistently questioned the loyalty of those with views different to his own. This includes Obama for his efforts to improve relations with the rest of the world. What might have remained robust political differences entered a different realm in July after Obama criticised a white policeman who arrested the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Beck accused the president of "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist," Beck said. That has prompted an advertising boycott of Beck's show or Fox News as a whole by more than 20 companies, including Waitrose in Britain. Yet even some of those sympathetic to the White House's view of Fox question the wisdom of open confrontation with a major news network. Fox News is revelling in the publicity, using it to portray itself to a growing viewership as the only network prepared to stand up to the president. It has some commentators repeating an old adage about newspapers, repeated by Bill Clinton when he was president: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/1...ama-white-house at the bold bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 and in equal measure there like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10963 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Absolutely terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 White House advisers say Fox News is not news The growing rift between the White House and Fox News has deepened after Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama's chief of staff, said the channel was "not a news organisation." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...s-not-news.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4856 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 well they're right to be fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 This is lush. Seems to be a trend in the whitehouse to come out fighting. The president bitch-slapped the insurers in his address this weekend too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now