|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:20 am Post subject: Fox New Pundit Jokes About Assassinating Obama |
 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4WRajuaVnY
Notice the Osama-Obama gaffe. I think we are going to see a lot of this during the Presidential race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't wait until Olberman gets ahold of this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't this what many people, not just 'liberals,' have advocated happen to Bush?
I cannot say I am shocked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Isn't this what many people, not just 'liberals,' have advocated happen to Bush?
I cannot say I am shocked. |
Name one human American, liberal or not, who has even whispered such a desire under their breath. You can't.
Anyway, what sane person could possibly envision a President Dick Cheney? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Isn't this what many people, not just 'liberals,' have advocated happen to Bush?
I cannot say I am shocked. |
Name one human American, liberal or not, who has even whispered such a desire under their breath. You can't.
|
I can think of a few individuals, IRL, who have said this to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Isn't this what many people, not just 'liberals,' have advocated happen to Bush?
I cannot say I am shocked. |
Name one human American, liberal or not, who has even whispered such a desire under their breath. You can't.
|
I can think of a few individuals, IRL, who have said this to me. |
Some idiot on the Internet is not the same as someone speaking on a major news network.
Please cite one person that has advocated this happen to Bush on a major news broadcast (Fox, NBC, CNN, ABC).
Her comment was shocking and wrong! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
Two Kennedys, MLK. We favor gun control, and this is why.
If some wingnut pulls a Baretta in a crowd where Sen Obama is speaking, is Fox going to claim, what? First Amendment privelage? Since when did advocating the death of one's political opponents become protected speech?
FCC needs to pull their licence. I can't believe fines get levied over an exposed nipple but people treat this as if it were nothing. Absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Isn't this what many people, not just 'liberals,' have advocated happen to Bush?
I cannot say I am shocked. |
Name one human American, liberal or not, who has even whispered such a desire under their breath. You can't.
|
I can think of a few individuals, IRL, who have said this to me. |
Some idiot on the Internet is not the same as someone speaking on a major news network.
Please cite one person that has advocated this happen to Bush on a major news broadcast (Fox, NBC, CNN, ABC).
Her comment was shocking and wrong! |
Its very true that some idiot on the Internet is not the same as someone speaking on a major news network. But this statement is trending less and less true as each day passes.
The growth and popularity of blogs is making political coverage more personal. This has its upsides as well as its downsides, but one of its clear downsides is the apparent erosion of professionalism.
You are right, I cannot cite one person that has advocated this happen to Bush on a major news broadcast. This pundit's behavior is pretty despicable, but alas, I cannot say I am surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I can't wait until Olberman gets ahold of this. |
He has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
|
That is very naive. Take a peek at the comments on the Daily Kos anytime the health of McCain or Cheney is mentioned let alone Bush. The Bush Derangement Syndrome is very real. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
|
That is very naive. Take a peek at the comments on the Daily Kos anytime the health of McCain or Cheney is mentioned let alone Bush. The Bush Derangement Syndrome is very real. |
There's no connection. The woman used the word "hit" then transposed the Democratic candidate's name with that of the world's most wanted terrorist, and said, "Well, both if we could." You really can't be more clear than that as far as advocating violence as a political means.
Scenario: Early next week a radical anti-abortion activist pulls a revolver out of his coat at a political speech. When arrested he claims that voices coming out of his television set strongly suggested it would be a good idea. And guess what? He wouldn't need to be schizophrenic for it to be true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
Two Kennedys, MLK. We favor gun control, and this is why.
If some wingnut pulls a Baretta in a crowd where Sen Obama is speaking, is Fox going to claim, what? First Amendment privelage? Since when did advocating the death of one's political opponents become protected speech?
FCC needs to pull their licence. I can't believe fines get levied over an exposed nipple but people treat this as if it were nothing. Absurd. |
The Guardian in 2004 had an article that called for the assassination of the US president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
Two Kennedys, MLK. We favor gun control, and this is why.
If some wingnut pulls a Baretta in a crowd where Sen Obama is speaking, is Fox going to claim, what? First Amendment privelage? Since when did advocating the death of one's political opponents become protected speech?
FCC needs to pull their licence. I can't believe fines get levied over an exposed nipple but people treat this as if it were nothing. Absurd. |
The Guardian in 2004 had an article that called for the assassination of the US president. |
I'd love to read that. Can you find a link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
A liberal would never, not even in jest.
Two Kennedys, MLK. We favor gun control, and this is why.
If some wingnut pulls a Baretta in a crowd where Sen Obama is speaking, is Fox going to claim, what? First Amendment privelage? Since when did advocating the death of one's political opponents become protected speech?
FCC needs to pull their licence. I can't believe fines get levied over an exposed nipple but people treat this as if it were nothing. Absurd. |
The Guardian in 2004 had an article that called for the assassination of the US president. |
I'd love to read that. Can you find a link? |
| Quote: |
JEFF JACOBY
More liberal hate speech
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 30, 2004
AS IT DOES every year, the empty folder I labeled "Liberal Hate Speech" in January had grown to a thick sheaf of clippings by December. 2004 wasn't even a week old when two videos explicitly comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler appeared on the website of the liberal group MoveOn. They were entries in a contest soliciting "really creative ads" that would help voters "understand the truth about George Bush."
So began another year in which liberals engaged in, and mostly got away with, grotesque slanders and slurs about conservatives -- the kind of poisonous rhetoric that should be beyond the pale in a decent society. Once again, too many on the left -- not crackpots from the fringe, but mainstream players and pundits -- chose to demonize conservatives as monsters rather than debate their ideas on the merits.
As in years past, Republicans were almost routinely associated with Nazi Germany. Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," like "a Jewish person working for Hitler."
Such Nazi labeling is no less disgusting when it comes from Republicans, of course. According to Bob Woodward, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as running a separate government out of his "Gestapo office." Commentator Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, accused Democrat Howard Dean of using the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels to silence his competitors. Too many conservatives and libertarians refer to antismoking extremists as "tobacco Nazis," or to the humorless critics of fast food as "food Nazis." Whether it comes from the right or the left, language like that is vile.
Overwhelmingly, though, political hate speech today comes from the left. It has increasingly become a habit of leftist argumentation to simply dismiss conservative ideas as evil or noxious rather than rebut them with facts and evidence.
That is why there was no uproar when Cameron Diaz declared that rape might be legalized if women didn't turn out to vote for John Kerry. Or when Walter Cronkite told Larry King that the videotape of Osama bin Laden that surfaced just before the election was "probably set up" by Karl Rove. Or when Alfred A. Knopf published Nicholson Baker's "Checkpoint," a novel in which two Bush-haters talk about assassinating the president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character rages.
Bill Moyers warned a television audience on Election Day that if Kerry won narrowly, "I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. . . . The right wing is not going to accept it." Chevy Chase, hosting a People for the American Way awards ceremony at the Kennedy Center in Washington, slammed Bush as "an uneducated, real, lying schmuck." A cartoon by the widely syndicated Ted Rall described Pat Tillman, who gave up his NFL career to enlist in the Army and was then killed in Afghanistan, as a "sap" and an "idiot."
So many examples, so little space. A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."
The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, `We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, `This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger." Fantasies of murder likewise animated British pundit Charlie Brooker, who ended his Oct. 24 column in the Guardian with a plea for Bush's death: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?" Brooker later assured readers that he "deplores violence of any kind" and had meant his call for an assassin only as "an ironic joke."
But the "joke" of left-wing hate speech stopped being funny a long time ago. There is room in the marketplace of ideas for passionate, even angry, rhetoric, but there are also lines that, as a matter of decency and civic hygiene, should not be crossed. The violent invective so often hurled at conservatives pollutes the democratic stream from which all of us drink. Democrats no less than Republicans should want to shut those polluters down.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].
� Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/30/more_liberal_hate_speech?mode=PF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/0,14676,1335307,00.html
Screen Burn, The Guide
| Quote: |
Sunday October 24, 2004
The Guardian
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." |
On October 24, 2004, he wrote a column on George W. Bush and the forthcoming 2004 US Presidential Election which concluded:
� John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley, Jr. - where are you now that we need you? �
The remark was picked up by the Drudge Report website, which ran it as a headline. The matter was immediately referred to the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., who allegedly contacted both Drudge and Brooker over what was regarded by some to be an incitement to murder the President, although in the introduction to his book Dawn of the Dumb, Brooker denies that the secret service ever contacted him, saying that "they have better things to do".[5]
The Guardian quickly withdrew the article from its website and published and endorsed Brooker's apology.[6] He has since commented about the remark in the column stating:
� I ended a Screen Burn column by recycling a very old tasteless joke (a variant of a graffiti I first saw during the Thatcher years), and within minutes half the internet seemed convinced The Guardian was officially calling for assassination. My inbox overflowed with blood-curdling death threats, and it was all very unfunny indeed - a bit like recounting a rude joke at a dinner party, only to be told you hadn't recounted a joke at all, but molested the host's children, and suddenly everyone was punching you and you weren't going to get any pudding. I've had better weekends. [7] �
[edit] Dead Set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brooker
| Quote: |
Paper sorry for 'kill Bush' line
A UK newspaper has apologised for an article seeming to urge the assassination of the US president.
The Guardian apologised for the "flippant" final lines of a Saturday column written by Charlie Brooker but added that the tone had been ironic.
"John Wilkes-Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr, where are you now that we need you?" the piece had asked.
The former two assassinated Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy while Hinckley wounded Ronald Reagan.
Regretting Mr Brooker's "flippant and tasteless comments", the paper said the final line of the article was meant to be an "ironic joke, not... a call to action" against George W Bush.
"He [Charlie Brooker] believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand," the Guardian said in its corrections section on Monday.
The newspaper recently annoyed residents of Clark County in the US swing state of Ohio by encouraging its readers to contact undecided American voters urging them to vote.
The quest sparked a flurry of offended replies telling Guardian readers to mind their own business.
The newspaper called an abrupt halt to the campaign after its website was broken into by angry hackers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3952091.stm
Published: 2004/10/25 16:46:25 GMT
� BBC MMVIII |
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3952091.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see. A tasteless joke and the Guardian apologized profusely.
Has the Fox network apologized yet? I haven't heard it, but I've been busy so maybe I missed it.
Again, exercise your imagination a bit - some wingnut whacjob pulls out a gun at an Obama rally ... would an apology be enough.
A difference with the Guardian, by the way: the airwaves are owned by the American people and leased in trust to the networks. Fox needs permission to use them, and that permission ought to be pulled if this sort of speech is allowed. Incitement, nothing more or less.
By the way, evey one of Jeff Jarvis's examples are mild as day-old Hawaiian Punch compared to a typical half our of Fox or an average broadcast segement of Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, and thanks for finding the link for me. I do appreciate it because I really was just interested, and I know you didn't think I was accusing you of inventing things. You've usually got a source for whatyuou say, even if we disagree on interpretations of what's in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
