America:Threat to us all

Published on January 8, 2004 By jaberwocky In Politics

To most Americans, the USA is the land of the free and the brave, head of the Free world and all round ace place. To most Americans socialism is a dirty almost blasphemous word, a hideous vision of uniform greys, browns and 10 mile queues for bread and turnips(and thats for the lucky ones).

Well I've had enough of being marginalised by a bunch of fachist inbreed red-neck fucks. Far to much. The list of injustices visited upon the world by the USA grows longer each day, the lies of the Washington Consensus grow each day, the uniformity of corporate globalisation more each day.

You capitalist bastards. (sorry im a bad mood) and as an Englishman I suppose I have a birth-right to moan and complain, but also to look on disapprovingly at the USA.

In a recent article on Hilary Clinton this was said: "...challenged on why she would undermine the President in Iraq by stating to the troops, “There are many questions at home about the [Bush] administration’s policies,” she entered the angry left paranoia wing of the Democrat Party."

What the FUCK? I am unable to undestand this. There is not only a Bill of Rights to defend her statement:

"Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

but also the fact that the war in Iraq was fought without provocation - Saddam was a dictatorial Bastard who deserves a lot of shit, but then so was General Pinochet. He led a coup in Chile that ousted a Democratically elected Marxist, and was aided by the USA. Hmmm. If Saddam had invaded somewhere, I dunno like Kuwait, then fair enough invade and oust the Fuckface. We had that chance. What changed? How had he suddenly become a threat? Hmmmm.

I'm having trouble understanding this maybe I'm just a socialist retard? Or maybe its because there is nothing to understand: he hadn't changed, the situation regarding oil changed. Osama Bin Laden (who is also a fuckface who needs a public bumming in every country by Elton John to humiliate the bastard then a few rotten vegatables, you know the score [osama bin laden tours texas; you know it makes sense ]) is a Saudi Arabian. Saudi is the prime oil supplier to the USA. HMMMMMM!!! I don't see a connection! Will someone point it out to me?

So back to Hilary Clinton being a dangerous left wing lunatic: How does questioning the policies of a President (who got less votes than the other guy in the election) make her a paranoid leftie? I just don't see it. The USA is a democracy, a pluralist democracy. Why argue? What is the fucking point?

I know not all americans are like that but they aren't in charge, so its irrelevant. Lets not debate it, Dean won't win and if he does I'll happily eat my hat and my unterhosen.

I saw on the internet an article about some 30 second advertisements against President Bush. Some compared him to a Nazi:

"Soros’ Nazi nightmare showed up in duplicate on MoveOn.org in the form of two submissions to the “Bush in 30 seconds” contest in which MoveOn.org asked anyone over 15 years of age to send in a Bush-bashing ad that would then have a chance to run on TV sponsored by MoveOn.org’s money sometime around the President’s State of the Union address. The two ads show President George W Bush compared to Nazi mass murderer Adolph Hitler."

Well, they got pulled. how surprising. Do you honestly think they literally meant it? And if they did they have the fucking right to do so [re: the bill of rights]. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush so why can't they make those ads? Why fucking not? Hilary Clinton is not left wing or liberal. She won't legalise pot or create a National Health Service. I'm a fucking communist, thats left wing you fucks, don't insult me. Its a good job you don't hear the word on the street round my way.

Comments (Page 2)

OccultPizza

on Jan 10, 2004

Sure, bombing Serbia into submission A-Okay when it's Clinton. No problem bombing Iraq repeatedly or the Sudan or whatever. But when similar events occur under Bush, oh horrors.

No, it was wrong regardless of which lame party was/is in office

Draginol

on Jan 10, 2004

Just an added bit of irony - in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government.

jaberwocky

on Jan 12, 2004

"Just an added bit of irony - in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government."

That's a blantant factual inaccuracy. The BBC is funded by a liscene fee that everyone pays, and has a charter from the government. But apart from that they have complete control - just look at the Hutton affair. The other 3 main free channels 'Independent Television', Channel Four, and Channel Five. Its a bit of a 'Socialist Nightmare' as Bill Hicks might say. They are all private and have complete indepence - though Channel Four has charter like the BBC. The BBC is an alternative to the private american syste; it doesnt have adverts so you can watch films properly.

'Substanceless claims and poor spelling.'
Im dyslexic so I cant spell good, but hey. I try but I never see anyone else attempting communicate in a Dyslexic manner so twice the work twice the right wing dismissal.

And did George bush win the election despite having less votes than Gore?
Does Free Speech create industry that is manipulated by capitalists?
Does Fox engender interlectual enlightenment and tolerance?
Or is it the propogation of the lowest common denominator to get advertising revenue?

EMacy

on Jan 12, 2004

This is really funny:
in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government.
hahahahaha_Corporate owned news outlets.....that own chunks of the media market, TV Radio, print news, by single corporations..controlling large area "markets"___Not dictated to by the government? You are having a laugh, hahah.
Here, this_which was censored_by the government_The second time around, may expalin how it works in America Inc.
Enjoy.

Link

Solitair

on Jan 12, 2004

Brad,
you really should research a bit about Britian before making such a silly and completely untrue statement.

As for the topic of this thread ... I have absolutely no problem with a democratic country having TV stations which pull ads or shows that generate hatred and incite racism. In England there are laws against incitement to violance or hatred and so I would expect the TV stations to do their job and pull such articles (wherther ads or whatever). Not sure if the US has such laws, but if they did then TC stations should be enforcing them. The BBC has just pulled an entire chat show series as the host wrote an article in a national newspaper which looks to be extremely racist.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!