I mentioned this British newspaper headline on another forum yesterday. It really angered me then and it still does now. Regardless of our views of the GW Bush administration which are valid for everyone to criticize. To insult the good folk of The USA like this pisses me right off.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/mi...BFB6FA0000.jpg


Is this racist? if the newspaper 'USA today' had done the same thing about an election in Britain how would it be taken? I will not be buying this rag ever again.

Actually, I sort of agree with you. No matter how much I dislike Bush and his policies, it's a bit rich to call everybody who voted for him dumb, based on that single fact. And I also agree it's insulting. However, I have to say I also do not really understand the way Americans themselves seem to like mudslinging when it comes to politics. The things both parties say about each other, the way they dig up as much crap about each other as they can find, the epithets they bestow on each other... I like my political campaigns slightly more focussed on content and arguments. [img]tongue.gif[/img] It's impossible to be left-wing and not be a "pinko treehugging moron" or to be right-wing and not be a "fat-assed redneck gun-toting maniac". So in a way the headline is keeping in line with the usual comments.
But that doesn't mean British newspapers have to act in a similar way - you're right it's lame to call people stupid based on a single fact about them.

Edit: I don't think it's racist though. It's not insulting Americans, it insults Americans who voted for Bush. [img]smile.gif[/img] It's just insulting, which is bad enough.

[ 11-05-2004, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

I hate to say it, but what did you expect from the Daily Mirror... :rolleyes:

I can see where their coming from though, but insulting like that is a bit undiplomatic. I subscribe to the view that 'if they vote him in for a second term, they deserve him'. I doubt he'll cause much turmoil in the international sphere in this term. Fiscally irresponsible though he is, he'll have to take note of the budget deficit at some point, and Congress will never let him have the cash for another war, even if the Republicans have strengthened their hold. Maybe that'll give the American public time to focus on the domestic failures he's caused in time for the next election. Fingers crossed! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-05-2004, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color=plum>You're absolutely right, <font color=yellow>Melusine</font>. It is really insulting to claim ALL right-wingers have fat-asses. That simply is not the case. :D Mine may have gotten a bit bigger over the last few years, but I still wouldn't call it "fat". [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] </font>

[ 11-05-2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">When I read the title of the thread...I thought you were refering to me :D

I don't really mean to be insulting [img]smile.gif[/img] Honestly ;)


Seriously though, I guess you can just chalk it up to every country having rude people, I don't think any one nation has a monopoly on that.

As far as my fat gun totin ass goes....it's probably the slimmest part of me...I wish I had more of a caboose.....but oh well me bum is me bum and I have to accept that [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

[ 11-05-2004, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well, I'm kinda glad somebody said it. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

LOL, I came in to see what this thread was about and it seems to be about butts... LOLOL! ahem... on topic, Wellard, I have to agree that a front page comment like that is pretty insulting to alot of people but I guess I'd laugh it off as sour grapes by the losing side or those who prefered the loser in the race. It is a real shame, but that's how politics seems to be around these parts so you just start expecting to see things like that. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Mel, you and the whole rest of the world I think would rather political candidates to actually discuss the issues so that the voters can be informed as to where each stands. While I also think it is important for the candidates voting and legislative records to be made open and available, I think the press rather than the campaign hacks should do that....

As for the Muck raking....we all would be far batter off without it.
</font>

To add to a topic french newspaper Le courrier international had a front page headline in front of a picture of Bush) saying.

Putain!! 4 ans.

Which would roughly translates to:
Sh*t!! 4 years.

I feel that they went too far

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it ? If Kerry would have won, would everyone be crawling up America's ass now, trying to kiss and make up ?

Besides, what would messageboards be without George W Bush ? A whole lot more boring, at least y'all should be gratefull for that. :D

Does anyone really think that much would be different if Kerry had been elected?

I have to say that my overall impression of the Presidents powers in the states is that he still has to go throgh a lot of people before he can actually instigate anything major. For this reason, I can't see how a change of Pres. would have changed a lot anyway.

This is a private joke DPlax. We have a satirical muppet show here in France called "les Guignols", where many political an other people are represented by a muppet, and this expression refers to back in 1988 when Mitterrand was elected president against Chirac, and in the show Chirac's muppet kept saying "Putain ! 7 ans !", meaning that he would have to wait for 7 years before trying again to be elected, referring to the duration of the presidential mandate back then (it has since been reduced to 5 years).

That was meant to be understood by the French people as 'tongue in cheek'.

Try to get information first before jumping to conclusions.

I'd appreciate little snide comments about French to stop too.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Johnny, not a chance. However I think the impression was (and I may be wrong here) but I think the impression was, that if Kerry got into office, the EU and the UN would have a lot more control over US national Policy.

I also think that there was some hope of having the US military or at least it's use under a UN control.....not that this would have happened..I just think this was what was hoped for froma Kerry Presidency.
</font>

Moiraine:

First of all sorry for misinterpreting that newspaper headline. Not even the french people who were with me when we saw this new about this. They also told me that they thought this was going a bit far. This is probably because us university students were only little kids in 1988 when that event happened, so we can't remember it.

Secondly I did not intend to make a little snide comment about French people, I intended to make a little snide comment about a certain newspaper. If I had any problems with french people then I wouldn't have come study in France. I have no problem whatsoever with french people, I even prefer their mentality to that of hungarian's.

It's the Daily Mirror people.. I don't think the average Mirror reader should be calling anyone else dumb.

I'm kinda glad somebody said that, too. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

As someone once said "You only need a big hammer if you've got a big nail" [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Mouse ducks, covers then runs for the hills....... [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] :D

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">DoH!


hehehe good one Mouse ;)

Djin not everyone knows the character of the media rags of every nation [img]smile.gif[/img] I take it that you mean to say this paper is somewhat like our Enquirer or some other tabloid.
[img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

</font>

Like that yeah, but i'd say, like most British tabloids, it has a bit more venom to it.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Is there a reason why the British tabloids would have more venom? I mean I don't really read many of the Papers in the UK unless someone quotes an article form them. OUr media kind of walks a fine line because they might get sued if they go too far. Guess I really should pay more attention, but life has a way of keeping one busy so you can't do everything.
</font>

Melusine, I weigh the same as I did in college with out any of the usual weight shift to to mid section or rear end. So that's " Mr. No-assed reckneck gun-toting maniac" ;)

oh and just for good measure to irritate female lady type persons, I can eat anything I want, don't workout, sit on my non exsisting rear end and still keep my figure ;) .

Wellard don't let it get you down, the mirror is free to say what they want, keep reading it if just to learn what not to believe ;)

The Daily Mirror?

wellard, don't waste energy reading that "newspaper".

:rolleyes:

It's for the reader's interested with "Jordan's Pregnancy test results" and "Peter Andre's love affair with David Beckham's second cousin once removed who spoke to Victoria Beckham about her secret love affair with some random z-list celebrity".

God almighty, the Daily Mirror? It's genuinely not worth it mate! :D

The Daily Mirror is garbage. Such a WASTE of good trees.

Same for all the damn credit card app's we get each DAY. And I'm sure everyone gets that many. Imagine all the trees being WASTED there too. I makes me so angry. CHOC! BREAK THE MIRROR!


[img]graemlins/choc3.gif[/img]

So, Z, you have faith that a broken mirror's bad luck is crossed out by the black cat? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>That was my basic reaction too, <font color=yellow>Sigmar</font>. I admit I know practically nothing about the Daily Mirror itself, but I figured it was nothing more than a tabloid...so I didn't feel it was worth my time to be offended by anything they said.

But I agree with <font color=white>John D.</font> that they have a right to say whatever they want to (within the limitations of the law, of course). Obviously there is a demagraphic group that the Mirror caters to and if they want to read that kind of stuff, that is their right.</font>

As someone once said "You only need a big hammer if you've got a big nail" [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Mouse ducks, covers then runs for the hills....... [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] :D </font>[/QUOTE]Sir freddie Trueman.

The Mirror? That's just above the Sun when it comes to being a bastion of journalistic integrity, eh. Although I hear Donut subscribes! :D

Completely off topic, but have you changed your sig a bit, Memnoch? The genie runs like he needs to take a crap really bad and is heading for the bathroom.

[ 11-06-2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

I used to buy it or the Guardian (20 years ago) it used to be good for sport. But even the 'Times' has gone down market and is no longer a broadsheet. I guess I should not be so angered by the headline but I wonder if that type of headline was used against another race of people like Israel or India would the newspaper not be fined for racial slurs? I am sure there are laws against it Cerek, but because it's America no one seems to care ... It just does not seem right to me. :(

[ 11-06-2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

For those interested, this is the article that the Daily Mirror ran. It's actually worse than the cover suggested, so read at your own risk. ;)

GOD HELP AMERICA

Nov 4 2004

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN..

THEY say that in life you get what you deserve. Well, today America has deservedly got a lawless cowboy to lead them further into carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world.

This once-great country has pulled up its drawbridge for another four years and stuck a finger up to the billions of us forced to share the same air. And in doing so, it has shown itself to be a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation.

This should have been the day when Americans finally answered their critics by raising their eyes from their own sidewalks and looking outward towards the rest of humanity.

And for a few hours early yesterday, when the exit polls predicted a John Kerry victory, it seemed they had.

But then the horrible, inevitable truth hit home. They had somehow managed to re-elect the most devious, blinkered and reckless leader ever put before them. The Yellow Rogue of Texas.

A self-serving, dim-witted, draft-dodging, gung-ho little rich boy, whose idea of courage is to yell: "I feel good," as he unleashes an awesome fury which slaughters 100,000 innocents for no other reason than greed and vanity.

A dangerous chameleon, his charming exterior provides cover for a power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves whose goal is to increase America's grip on the world's economies and natural resources.

And in foolishly backing him, Americans have given the go-ahead for more unilateral pre-emptive strikes, more world instability and most probably another 9/11.

Why else do you think bin Laden was so happy to scare them to the polls, then made no attempt to scupper the outcome?

There's only one headline in town today, folks: "It Was Osama Wot Won It."

And soon he'll expect pay-back. Well, he can't allow Bush to have his folks whoopin' and a-hollerin' without his own getting a share of the fun, can he?

Heck, guys, I hope you're feeling proud today.

To the tens of millions who voted for John Kerry, my commiserations.

To the overwhelming majority of you who didn't, I simply ask: Have you learnt nothing? Do you despise your own image that much?

Do you care so little about the world beyond your shores? How could you do this to yourselves?

How appalling must one man's record at home and abroad be for you to reject him?

Kerry wasn't the best presidential candidate the Democrats have ever fielded (and he did deserve a kicking for that "reporting for doo-dee" moment), but at least he understood the complexity of the world outside America, and domestic disgraces like the 45 million of his fellow citizens without health cover.

He would have done something to make that country fairer and re-connected it with the wider world.

Instead America chose a man without morals or vision. An economic incompetent who inherited a $2billion surplus from Clinton, gave it in tax cuts to the rich and turned the US into the world's largest debtor nation.

A man who sneers at the rights of other nations. Who has withdrawn from international treaties on the environment and chemical weapons.

A man who flattens sovereign states then hands the rebuilding contracts to his own billionaire party backers.

A man who promotes trade protectionism and backs an Israeli government which continually flouts UN resolutions.

America has chosen a menacingly immature buffoon who likened the pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to a Wild West, Wanted Dead or Alive man-hunt and, during the Afghanistan war, kept a baseball scorecard in his drawer, notching up hits when news came through of enemy deaths.

A RADICAL Christian fanatic who decided the world was made up of the forces of good and evil, who invented a war on terror, and thus as author of it, believed he had the right to set the rules of engagement.

Which translates to telling his troops to do what the hell they want to the bad guys. As he has at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and countless towns across Iraq.

You have to feel sorry for the millions of Yanks in the big cities like New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco who voted to kick him out.

These are the sophisticated side of the electorate who recognise a gibbon when they see one.

As for the ones who put him in, across the Bible Belt and the South, us outsiders can only feel pity.

Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets.

The self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".

You probably won't be surprised to learn of would-be Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn who, on Tuesday, promised to ban abortion and execute any doctors who carried them out.

He also told voters that lesbianism is so rampant in the state's schools that girls were being sent to toilets on their own. Not that any principal could be found to back him up.

These are the people who hijack the word patriot and liken compassion to child-molesting. And they are unknowingly bin Laden's chief recruiting officers.

Al-Qaeda's existence is fuelled by the outpourings of America's Christian right. Bush is its commander-in-chief. And he and bin Laden need each other to survive.

Both need to play Lex Luther to each others' Superman with their own fanatical people. Maybe that's why the mightiest military machine ever assembled has failed to catch the world's most wanted man.

Or is the reason simply that America is incompetent? That behind the bluff they are frightened and clueless, which is why they've stayed with the devil they know.

VISITORS from another planet watching this election would surely not credit the amateurism.

The queues for hours to register a tick; the 17,000 lawyers needed to ensure there was no cheating; the $1.2bn wasted by parties trying to discredit the enemy; the allegations of fraud, intimidation and dirty tricks; the exit polls which were so wildly inaccurate; an Electoral College voting system that makes the Eurovision Song Contest look like a beacon of democracy and efficiency; and the delays and the legal wrangles in announcing the victor.

Yet America would have us believe theirs is the finest democracy in the world. Well, that fine democracy has got the man it deserved. George W Bush.

But is America safer today without Kerry in charge? A man who overnight would have given back to the UN some credibility and authority. Who would have worked out the best way to undo the Iraq mess without fear of losing face.

Instead, the questions facing America today are - how many more thousands of their sons will die as Iraq descends into a new Vietnam? And how many more Vietnams are on the horizon now they have given Bush the mandate to go after Iran, Syria, North Korea or Cuba...?

Today is a sad day for the world, but it's even sadder for the millions of intelligent Americans embarrassed by a gung-ho leader and backed by a banal electorate, half of whom still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Yanks had the chance to show the world a better way this week, instead they made a thuggish cowboy ride off into the sunset bathed in glory.

And in doing so it brought Armageddon that little bit closer and re-christened their beloved nation The Home Of The Knave and the Land Of The Freak.

God Help America.

[ 11-07-2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

If this aint outright racial abuse then what is? I am just visiting Britain for a few weeks holiday and am not sure of their laws, but surely there must be some laws broken here? How can they get away with such crap? It may be passed of as humour but I dont see any!

Methinks the author of this article ought to go out some more, have some fresh air and just stroll around. Pehaps taking some hot cocoa with him/her, sit down on a parkbench and just enjoy the beatuful day.

I'm an avid reader Memnoch.

The day after the election the Poodle called the Pres to congratulate him on his victory. He told him that the British people were in denial about the result.

This confused Bush because he couldn't understand why anyone would want to go to Egypt in the first place!

I agree that it would have been better if they had congratulated the 56 million who had the courage to oppose him.

59 million people dumb? they weren't dumb. they knew what they would be voting for and the post-election polls show it was for their brand of "moral values". More important than any other reasons? **sigh** :(

Notice the person didn't DARE sign his name to this piece of shit article? Totally insane. Whoever wrote this is a moron, and acts like a 10 year old kid that didn't get his candy.

WAAAA. Get over it, loser.

If anyone can find out who wrote this slag, let us all know here. An email address would be even BETTER! [img]graemlins/evillaughter1.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>It wouldn't be worth the time it took to type the email, <font color=yellow>Ziroc</font>. And it would only serve as "justification and proof" to the author that he was right about Americans.

Personally, I found the article to be so idiotic it was laughable. The part quoted by <font color=white>wellard</font> clearly shows what type of prejudiced bigot the author is. He (or she) is a perfect example of somebody hanging themselves if you give them enough rope. If you give a blantant bigot the opportunity to express his (her) opinion - then they can't help but let their prejudices and bias show through. In my opinion, the author destroys his (her) own credibility early into the article.

<font color=orange>Donut</font> - it didn't really take any courage to "oppose" Kerry. I liked a lot of what Kerry said and some of the ideas he had and I had to give a LOT of consideration as to whether or not he would get my vote this time. But I eventually decided to vote for Bush because I didn't feel Kerry could actually carry through on even half of the programs he was promising. When asked how he planned to fund his various program proposals on education, Social Security, National Health Care and a couple of others, his first answer for every program was "I'll use the funds we gain by repealing the tax cut my opponent gave to the wealthiest 1% of the American citizens". That makes a good sound byte, but the fact is that the funds from that repeal could not fund even a SINGLE program completely, much less provided funding for ALL of them - but that was his answer to each of those issues in the 3rd debate. The bottom line is that BOTH sides lie a great deal about what they can (or will) deliver. I just decided that Bush was telling fewer lies and could deliver more of what was important to ME and my values than Kerry could. So it had nothing to do with "courage", rather it was based on intellectual discernment (which us dumb, ignorant, in-bred redneck ain't even supposed to be capable of). :rolleyes:

<font color=red>Jonas Strider</font> - Yes, President Bush does represent my moral values better than Kerry does. And, YES, that IS important to a large part of the country. In fact, it is apparanlty important to a majority of the country. You feel he doesn't represent your moral values - that's fine and dandy. You voted for your guy and I voted for mine. That's all either of us can do.</font>

Groj, as I said, I'm glad somebody said it. I agree with more of it than I don't. Despite the fact it was what we all knew would happen this election, I'm nevertheless obviously and overtly angry at my country for being so stupid. Thanks for posting.

yep, looks like you'll be getting all the moral values you wanted. imo all those values bush supports discriminate against others not on his red team. he has no sense of uniting this country, he will divide us further. already he has begun pursuing an amendment to ban gay-lesbian marriages. this clearly discriminates and imo unconstitutional. another 4 years i must bear. don't get me wrong. i'm not mad just very concerned, cerek.