Bush grants interview to the Sun - Page 5

Peter Triggs · November 20, 2003, 09:04

No interview yet, but

Quote:

C0ckney · November 20, 2003, 11:10

don't think it's in todays, but i've only just brought it. the reason bush is giving the interview is probably (and no doubt this has already been pointed out, but i couldn't be arsed to read all the pages) because the sun is the most popular daily paper in england by quite a long way, so by giving this interview he'll reach more people than if he gave one to a more 'upmarket' paper.

DinoDoc · November 20, 2003, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
the reason bush is giving the interview is probably (and no doubt this has already been pointed out, but i couldn't be arsed to read all the pages) because the sun is the most popular daily paper in england by quite a long way, so by giving this interview he'll reach more people than if he gave one to a more 'upmarket' paper.

No, it hasn't been pointed out yet. We've been to busy argueing that anything owned by Rupert Murdoch is crap to notice.

Solly · November 20, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Oh please. The trouble with the rhetorical nonsense you, the Sun, and the flag ****ers seem to regard the "us and them" mentality of patriotism and wars caused thus, as being more valuable than human life. War is a tragic waste, nothing more. People that celebrate the death of humans, are rather sickening to me. Nothing beats simple minded idiocy to stimulate a sense of superiority.

No-one is celebrating the loss of life. Defending as a like-minded group is necessary when it's your group that is being attacked. You plainly do not understand human nature. We're not machines.

Whaleboy · November 20, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

No-one is celebrating the loss of life. Defending as a like-minded group is necessary when it's your group that is being attacked. You plainly do not understand human nature. We're not machines.

Oh great, the regurgitated attack on liberals. "Its against human nature"

. Well lets all go out and rape somebody then

. You assume a nation to be a likeminded group. Indeed, you assume a nation to be a valid distinction. I wont even get started on the problems with your propositions of "attack". I assume humanity to be a far more valid inclusive distinction than any fallacious national identity, and murderous wars thereof.

Arrian · November 20, 2003, 17:52

@ this thread. One of the best threadjacks I've seen in quite a while.

-Arrian

GePap · November 20, 2003, 19:12

INteresting-Bush is giving an interview to a paper who's staff would have been imprisoned in the US for child pornography, indecensy and who knows what else...

Just as long as a copy of it is mailed to all houses that are part of the Christian coolition, with explicit instructions for the kiddies to open up to page three, I will be happy.

Tripledoc · November 20, 2003, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, 100% serious. I don't get it (the irony that is). What is wrong with liking what Calvinists believe?

You don't think that being a Calvinist (read fundamentalist Protestant)would make him somewhat biased in deciding whether Britain should join the Euro or not? Considering that the Euro is obviosly a Catholic/Communist plot. Also I would find it discouraging to know that the finance minister would put his faith in God concerning economic matters, particularily employment. Money and religion are two things better kept seperated. (I thought that was the idea of protestantism)

Regarding the sovereignty issue. I find it amusing that Murdoch, a recently naturalized American citizen, should be so concerned about the British sovereignty and decide to propagandize for a 'no' in four of the nation's biggest selling newspapers.

GePap · November 20, 2003, 19:36

And on the threadjack:

There are many reasons the Brits would NOT have moved to strike any targets on the Argentine mainland: the primary reason would be that the only way this could have been done would have been to move the two small carriers in range of the argentine mainland- this would have out these ships right smack in the middle of the range of the Argentine airforce: as Laz pointed out, 6 british ships were sunk, and the Falkands area was right at the very edge of the range of the aircraft, so that they could only come in, drop their ordinace, and leave. The brits made sure to keep the aircraft carriers out of range of the argetine airforce. And the fact was that a couple of squadrons of Harriers would NOT have cut it against the argentines if the Mirages of the argetines had the fule to manuever and fight, as opposed to rushed hit and runs. And this is not counting briging the carriers into exocet range.

As for the naval game: the argentine Navy was not a dinky operation..they had a couple of Type 42 Destroyers themselves (just as big as the biggest surface warships after the carriers the Brits had), and they had an old WW2 carrier themselves (the veintecinquo de mayo)..but after the belgrano went down, the Argentine navy spent the rest of the war at home, leaving it all to the undersupplied conscripts in the Falklands and the Argetine Air Force. The Argentines also lost at least one of their diesel subs during the war.

Imran Siddiqui · November 20, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

You don't think that being a Calvinist (read fundamentalist Protestant)would make him somewhat biased in decideing whether Britain should join the Euro or not? Considering that the Euro is obviosly a Catholic/Communist plot

A. Calvinist and 'fundamentalist Protestant' don't mean the same exact thing. Not by a LONG shot. Calvinists can be fundamentalist, but that doesn't mean they must be.

B. Calvinist came FROM Europe, more accurately in Geneva. Calvinist spread from Switzerland to France, the Netherlands (or United Provinces, then), and then Scotland and such. However, Europe is probably MORE Calvinist than England. You do remember the Anglican Church, don't you?

C. Calvinism hasn't had a great history in England. I mentioned the Anglican Church. It was/is big in Scotland (Presbyterians), but Calvinists in England were forced to leave! The Puritans were Calvinists and could not deal with the persecution in England.

So to hold England as a Calvinist bastion against the 'Catholic' Europe is silly to say, and I'm sure he believes none of that.

Quote:

Also I would find it discouraging to know that the finance minister would put his faith in God concerning economic matters

Who said that? Murdoch just said the finance minister is a Calvinist that believes it is the duty of people to work, and he approves. How do we know he puts his faith in God concerning economics? Does he pray every day for the FTSE to go up?

Secondly, a person's background is going to influence his political beliefs. I don't think you can seperate a person's religious beliefs from the type of person you are (though some sects of Anabaptists believed maybe you could... ie, Roger Williams).

Quote:

Regarding the soveriegnty issue. I find it amusing that Murdoch, a recently naturalized American citizen, should be so concerned about the British sovereignty and decide to propagandize for a 'no' in four of the nation's biggest selling newspapers.

A. You don't have to be British to be concerned for British soveriegnty, and oppose their joining of the Euro. There are many Americans who are. Look on this forum.

B. How am I supposed to know he just become a naturalized US citizen?

Guynemer · November 20, 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, it hasn't been pointed out yet. We've been to busy argueing that anything owned by Rupert Murdoch is crap to notice.

Do you disagree that anything owned by Murdoch is crap? ("The Simpsons", "Malcolm In the Middle", "King of the Hill" and "24" exempted.)

At the very least, you must acknowledge the staggering craptidue of the Sun. It's positively craptastic. Craptacular, even.

Whaleboy · November 20, 2003, 19:58

Guynemer: Look what the bastard did to "God, the Devil and Bob", and Family Guy!!!

GePap:

I'll join the theo-con forums just to... inform them

TCO · November 20, 2003, 21:09

tonnage is good. Go subs.

Dauphin · November 20, 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Regarding the sovereignty issue. I find it amusing that Murdoch, a recently naturalized American citizen, should be so concerned about the British sovereignty and decide to propagandize for a 'no' in four of the nation's biggest selling newspapers.

The Times position on the Euro has softened a lot in the past few years to a point where I would say it is pretty much neutral. I doubt it would run a NO campaign.

TheStinger · November 21, 2003, 08:18

Gordon Brown is Scottish so being a Calvanist is not unlikely(not that I see the problem)

I feel the Belgrano was sunk more to send a message to keep the Argie carrier in port which would have been more dangerous to the fleet.( it was criminal of the Argies even to put it out to sea though, a ww2 cruiser against the 2nd best navy in the world, really stupid)

Whoever keeps saying Murdoch was the editor of the SUn should really check their facts.(although I'm not saying he doesn't have an input into overall policy)