DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   The Guardian (UK) strikes again! (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/392344-guardian-uk-strikes-again.html)

Nazgul 10-24-04 01:15 AM

The Guardian (UK) strikes again!
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html

Charlie Brooker
Saturday October 23, 2004
The Guardian

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?

General Zod 10-24-04 01:19 AM

In other news.. The guardian is reporting that batboy has been captured in iraq!

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 01:22 AM

totally agree with that article, but being in the US i never heard anything about that wire thing - typical.

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 01:23 AM


Originally posted by General Zod
In other news.. The guardian is reporting that batboy has been captured in iraq!
You do realise the Guardian is one of the most repected newspapers in the world - to be honest with you i was suprised to see that article with such language from the paper - but the guardian is no "National Enquirer"

Nazgul 10-24-04 01:25 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
totally agree with that article.
Really? Even the assertion he makes with his last sentence?

dork 10-24-04 01:28 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
You do realise the Guardian is one of the most repected newspapers in the world
It certainly used to be. I must admit my opinion of it has taken a dramatic nosedive after reading that juvenile screed.

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 01:28 AM


Originally posted by Nazgul
Really? Even the assertion he makes with his last sentence?
The "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?" line?

I have no idea what he was getting at there as i have no idea who those people are. I was refering to the general message the writer was getting across.

Nazgul 10-24-04 01:29 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
The "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?" line?

I have no idea what he was getting at there as i have no idea who those people are.

Seriously? (I think you're kidding, right?)

Google the names and then tell me what you think he's getting at.

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 01:30 AM


Originally posted by dork
It certainly used to be. I must admit my opinion of it has taken a dramatic nosedive after reading that juvenile screed.
Well, i;ve been out of the UK for a bit now so haven't seen it lately but like i said i was surprised to see that article/opinion in the paper.

dork 10-24-04 01:32 AM

One of them is the dude from Greatest American Hero; not sure about the others.

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 01:34 AM


Originally posted by Nazgul
Seriously? (I think you're kidding, right?)

Google the names and then tell me what you think he's getting at.

The middle same sounded familiar but i didn't know the others - but i should mention i am a Brit who moved to the US recently so my American history is not as good as everyone else here - but i yahooed the names and see what he was getting at now.

But you know what, i believe the world will be a better place without him. When he was first running for president i, like many people thought "thats the anti-christ" - and look at all the wonderful things he has done since. I honestly believe he has done so much damage to the USA, something the USA will have to deal with for a very long time.

kvrdave 10-24-04 01:50 AM

I agree with the article as well. Bush will probably win.

The Guardian can kiss my ass. Ooops, sorry liberals...I am not taking their feelings into consideration with that statement. My bad.

Everyone hates the top dog.

kvrdave 10-24-04 01:53 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo

When he was first running for president i, like many people thought "thats the anti-christ" - and look at all the wonderful things he has done since.

Me too. I always figured the anti-christ would be someone who openly admits to being a follower of Christ. :whofart:

That's pretty silly. And I think the same thing was said about Reagan. And other conservatives. Generally by people that don't believe in God. Irony.

Birrman54 10-24-04 01:55 AM

what a shitty article. I'm amazed it can get published at all.

So would the author prefer Dick Cheney as President?

birrman54

Myster X 10-24-04 02:30 AM


DivxGuy 10-24-04 03:53 AM


totally agree with that article, but being in the US i never heard anything about that wire thing
Whoa, you'd better watch your tongue if you don't want a visit from the Secret Service!

RoboDad 10-24-04 05:00 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
The middle same sounded familiar but i didn't know the others - but i should mention i am a Brit who moved to the US recently so my American history is not as good as everyone else here - but i yahooed the names and see what he was getting at now.

But you know what, i believe the world will be a better place without him.

So you do support what the "guardian" is advocating in the last sentence of the article? :confused:

DVD Polizei 10-24-04 05:14 AM

What happens if we all pray Bush wins...and he doesn't?

Aldarion 10-24-04 06:07 AM

It looks like the author Charlie Brooker is the Guardian's TV critic and sometime satirist. That may explain why the writing was so juvenile. I don't think it was meant to be a serious piece, and it certainly isn't the paper's editorial stance. Still, they need to find a new satirist, since that wasn't funny at all. Also, that last bit isn't something they should be joking about either.

OldDude 10-24-04 08:54 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
totally agree with that article, but being in the US i never heard anything about that wire thing - typical.
Do you read papers or go to news sites? Quite a bit of coverage, including threads here -- use search. Although I think some later photos convinced many of us that both Bush and Kerry were wearing discrete bullet-proof vests at the orders of the Secret Service, while denying they wore them. The last set of photos show clear lines/bulges down both their backs.

That's mostly due to the last line in this guy's piece. I'm sure he is now on the terrorist watch list, and if he came to the US, would be crying for his mommie in the basement of the Secret Service. We take assassination threats/wishes pretty serious here.

SunMonkey 10-24-04 09:17 AM

Ridiculous drivel.

General Zod 10-24-04 10:32 AM


Originally posted by PresidentGringo
You do realise the Guardian is one of the most repected newspapers in the world - to be honest with you i was suprised to see that article with such language from the paper - but the guardian is no "National Enquirer"
So is the L.A. Times, but I can show you plenty of articles written by thoughtless stupid cretins that the paper has published. Your point?

DJLinus 10-24-04 11:32 AM

Wow - that's pretty low. There's plenty of people that I dislike, but no one that I would actually wish death on.

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 12:08 PM


Originally posted by DivxGuy
Whoa, you'd better watch your tongue if you don't want a visit from the Secret Service!
When i said i agreed with the article, i was refering to the undertone. I'm not saying word for word i agree or i think Bush should be asasinated - not at all. I just believe Bush is bad for America and is not fit to be the leader of one of the most powerful countires in the world. And i think alot of Americans would agree with me - i think alot are not voting FOR Kerry but against Bush....in most peoples eyes its a case of "Anyone but Bush".

PresidentGringo 10-24-04 12:10 PM


Originally posted by DJLinus
Wow - that's pretty low. There's plenty of people that I dislike, but no one that I would actually wish death on.
I don't think he was being serious about that - i don't think the aricle was suppose to be taken as a serious piece.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.