President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama

[pussyluver]

Channel 4 Britain

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ama/article.do

Don't care what you think of Bush, this is low class and dangerous. This type of docudrama pushes the acceptability of such an action in the wrong direction. There will be another ELECTION in the US and BUSH will not be able to run.

[mrprezident]

it does seem like we are living in a movie right now...
what is going to happen next???

[DJ Slave to Classic Rock]

this is a very thinking idea to me.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by DJ Slave to Classic Rock

this is a very thinking idea to me.

Oh please please explain yourself for the federal agents reading GFY lol.

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Channel 4 Britain

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ama/article.do

Don't care what you think of Bush, this is low class and dangerous. This type of docudrama pushes the acceptability of such an action in the wrong direction. There will be another ELECTION in the US and BUSH will not be able to run.

fucking hell not you aswell. its tv, how fucking much shit is there on tv about blowing up presidents,
look at 24 for fuck sake.

his plane got shot down in 4 the ex president was assinated in 5 and there have been numerous attempts.

its fucking drama deal with. I think the people who want to do it wont be persuaded by some bullshit program.

[notabook]

Low class and dangerous? What the FUCK? How is it dangerous, or low class for that matter? Jesus fucking christ what is wrong with pussies these days. How many novels (yes, I don?t read books/novels but some of you fucks do) out there discuss presidential assassinations as a method to reformation; how many times are these assassinations carried out? Hell, or even attempted assassinations?

How many people have played GTA and actually ran over people on purpose as direct response from playing that game? I?m willing to wager I could count the number on one hand. This kind of talk, that this kind of documentary is ?dangerous?, is usually coming from the same kind of people who claim that pornography makes honest, good, hard working men into cold blooded rapists and child abusers. It?s retarded to call this piece ?Low Class and Dangerous?.

[Webby]

Oddly.. the only people so far to make any comment on that article are from the US.

Seriously doubt anyone else gives a shit.

[minusonebit]

For once, I hope someone tries to act out what they see on TV.

[Lykos]

Bush is an idiot.....

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Channel 4 Britain

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ama/article.do

Don't care what you think of Bush, this is low class and dangerous. This type of docudrama pushes the acceptability of such an action in the wrong direction. There will be another ELECTION in the US and BUSH will not be able to run.

How is it low class? If you are wanting to make something "real" why use a fake "Mr Jones" as preisdent. We all know out the real President's name is Bush. That's why all these movies and shows with fake Presidents are stupid to me. I KNOW this dude isn't REALLY the President. why not just make a show about the "president" of Wal-Mart or something.

I guess if they made a movie about the Lincoln assisination they should change his name to "Abe Smith" instead.

[Ace_luffy]

i hope it would be true

[Webby]

Damned if I remember the title...

Who wrote a book (fiction) about an ex-US president who lost his immunity when leaving office and had to keep flying around the globe to avoid capture by international agencies for crimes??

Whoever the author was, - amazing what he saw in his crystal ball. Fact can turn stranger than fiction

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by notabook

Low class and dangerous? What the FUCK? How is it dangerous, or low class for that matter? Jesus fucking christ what is wrong with pussies these days. How many novels (yes, I don?t read books/novels but some of you fucks do) out there discuss presidential assassinations as a method to reformation; how many times are these assassinations carried out? Hell, or even attempted assassinations?

How many people have played GTA and actually ran over people on purpose as direct response from playing that game? I?m willing to wager I could count the number on one hand. This kind of talk, that this kind of documentary is ?dangerous?, is usually coming from the same kind of people who claim that pornography makes honest, good, hard working men into cold blooded rapists and child abusers. It?s retarded to call this piece ?Low Class and Dangerous?.

Clearly novels, movies and documentaries peppered with a little fiction to make a point or spark interest has motivated some to do stupid things. A fictional novel or movie is one thing, placing the face of a sitting president comes dangerously close to an actual threat. In other-words, calling someone to action.

The fact that people do stupid things that were motivated by other events or a fiction movie is the price we pay for free expression. Placing the actual face of a real president could be argued that the producers are crossing the line!

What's the next step? political opponents calling for assassinations so they can gain power? At some point a line must be drawn or chaos evolves and and our society fails along with the precious few freedoms we are still able to enjoy.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Channel 4 Britain

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ama/article.do

Don't care what you think of Bush, this is low class and dangerous. This type of docudrama pushes the acceptability of such an action in the wrong direction. There will be another ELECTION in the US and BUSH will not be able to run.

You do have a brain and you are able to form opinions of your own?

It may suprise you to learn that you are not the only one.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by minusonebit

For once, I hope someone tries to act out what they see on TV.

And the result of your hope? A free America? I suspect that we would be living in yet more of a police state.

[fallenmuffin]

It's 2006, we've seen it all. Someone explodes in front of you on the street.. are you really goning to care? Or simply shake your head and keep on walking whispering under your breath "so fake" lol. We're detached by generation after generation trying to out do each other in shock factor.

No one really cares .. I've "assassinated" bush a million times in flash games and flash movies. Lol, where's your thread regarding those. Oh, because it wasn't on Channel 4 sponsored by Stella. Instead it was broadcast online to millions upon millions.

To summarize no one gives a shit.. have a great day.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

And the result of your hope? A free America? I suspect that we would be living in yet more of a police state.

lol - it must have been a a really good docu-drama.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by minusonebit

For once, I hope someone tries to act out what they see on TV.

Those of you that hope and pray for this action need to really think about the end result. There are other legal ways to remove a president. Advocating someones murder is serious stuff. Now if an attempt is made, you could be considered a suspect.

[Splum]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t028.htm

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by fallenmuffin

It's 2006, we've seen it all. Someone explodes in front of you on the street.. are you really goning to care? Or simply shake your head and keep on walking whispering under your breath "so fake" lol. We're detached by generation after generation trying to out do each other in shock factor.

No one really cares .. I've "assassinated" bush a million times in flash games and flash movies. Lol, where's your thread regarding those. Oh, because it wasn't on Channel 4 sponsored by Stella. Instead it was broadcast online to millions upon millions.

To summarize no one gives a shit.. have a great day.

The flash games are no better. They tend to make taking the action for real more acceptable. We are free to make games and docu-dramas. If there is no exercise of self control, the society will self destruct. People willingly blowing them selves up for some miss-guided cause is a simple example. Look how anesthetized you've come to it.

[clip4free]

i say, if its on TV, then its real...

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Splum

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t028.htm

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

---

So is the making of this docu-drama fall under the above. Some could argue that it does. To be fair, I must see the piece first and then draw the conclusion for myself. Then it is to late. My biggest point is not that the government should sensor every piece of controversial presentation, but that our society needs to exercise self control

Just as sponsors should refrain from shaving and webmasters should refrain from traps and hijacks etc. A little self control goes a long way. If every TGP ended in a trap, surfers would be less likely to click.

It is time for 12clicks to take over this discussion.... I usually argue for the return of our bill of rights and more freedom, not less.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Clearly novels, movies and documentaries peppered with a little fiction to make a point or spark interest has motivated some to do stupid things. A fictional novel or movie is one thing, placing the face of a sitting president comes dangerously close to an actual threat. In other-words, calling someone to action.

The fact that people do stupid things that were motivated by other events or a fiction movie is the price we pay for free expression. Placing the actual face of a real president could be argued that the producers are crossing the line!

What's the next step? political opponents calling for assassinations so they can gain power? At some point a line must be drawn or chaos evolves and and our society fails along with the precious few freedoms we are still able to enjoy.

Your post is almost as pointless as non-alcoholic beer. This is far from crossing the line and if you think people are going to take action because just because the face of President Bush has been superimposed over the person in question, then you are no better than those fucktards who claim that pornography turns men into monsters.

Remember when the movie Contact came out? It had footage of President Clinton in it setup in such a way to make it seem like he was confirming the existence of extraterrestrial life. The first thing I did was wrote Clinton everyday, demanding him to send bibles to our new alien friends so they too could share in the love of God. I?m super cereal, I did. I wrote him seven thousand times. Ok maybe I didn?t.

?How in the fuck does this compare to someone assassinating Bush??

Imagine if people were so retarded that they thought the footage in Contact were real (as in Bill Clinton seemingly affirming the existence of extraterrestrial life). Can you imagine the number of letters Clinton would have received from the Christian Right? Can you imagine how many DEADLY PAPER CUTS he could have received?

Thankfully most human beings simply aren?t that retarded and they take things for what they are. You have the occasional nutjob that goes overboard, but you?ll have those happen regardless of whatever circumstance you put them in. Rapists don?t become rapists because they watch too much porn ? they are rapists because they are rapists.

Those who assassinate people don?t become assassins because they watch violent movies or dramamentaries depicting assassinations ? they are assassins because THEY ARE ASSASSINS. Saying that this dramamentary will magically turn people into crazed assassins (or push some over the edge) is just ludicrous. Oh yeah, I like cheesepie.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

---

So is the making of this docu-drama fall under the above. Some could argue that it does. To be fair, I must see the piece first and then draw the conclusion for myself. Then it is to late. My biggest point is not that the government should sensor every piece of controversial presentation, but that our society needs to exercise self control

Just as sponsors should refrain from shaving and webmasters should refrain from traps and hijacks etc. A little self control goes a long way. If every TGP ended in a trap, surfers would be less likely to click.

It is time for 12clicks to take over this discussion.... I usually argue for the return of our bill of rights and more freedom, not less.

A) the docudrama does not ADVOCATE the killing of Bush

B) It's made in the UK for non-American audiences so where does American law even apply?

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by notabook

Your post is almost as pointless as non-alcoholic beer. This is far from crossing the line and if you think people are going to take action because just because the face of President Bush has been superimposed over the person in question, then you are no better than those fucktards who claim that pornography turns men into monsters.

Remember when the movie Contact came out? It had footage of President Clinton in it setup in such a way to make it seem like he was confirming the existence of extraterrestrial life. The first thing I did was wrote Clinton everyday, demanding him to send bibles to our new alien friends so they too could share in the love of God. I?m super cereal, I did. I wrote him seven thousand times. Ok maybe I didn?t.

?How in the fuck does this compare to someone assassinating Bush??

Imagine if people were so retarded that they thought the footage in Contact were real (as in Bill Clinton seemingly affirming the existence of extraterrestrial life). Can you imagine the number of letters Clinton would have received from the Christian Right? Can you imagine how many DEADLY PAPER CUTS he could have received?

Thankfully most human beings simply aren?t that retarded and they take things for what they are. You have the occasional nutjob that goes overboard, but you?ll have those happen regardless of whatever circumstance you put them in. Rapists don?t become rapists because they watch too much porn ? they are rapists because they are rapists.

Those who assassinate people don?t become assassins because they watch violent movies or dramamentaries depicting assassinations ? they are assassins because THEY ARE ASSASSINS. Saying that this dramamentary will magically turn people into crazed assassins (or push some over the edge) is just ludicrous. Oh yeah, I like cheesepie.

You lost me somewhere around "non-alcholic beer" - dont be so fucking stupid. Why would someone invent such a thing?

Seriously, just because we have to even debate this issue IS THE REASON we have to show the film.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by GatorB

B) It's made in the UK for non-American audiences so where does American law even apply?

American Law is GOD'S law. And that?s why it applies everywhere in the universe. Even Mars.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Seriously, just because we have to even debate this issue IS THE REASON we have to show the film.

Debating is good! Masturbation is better.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by notabook

Debating is good! Masturbation is better.

I cant argue with that.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by notabook

American Law is GOD'S law. And that?s why it applies everywhere in the universe. Even Mars.

American law applies to this bulletin board.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by Splum

American law applies to this bulletin board.

Interesting point - complete bollocks, but interesting.

American law applies to the owners of the board - not the particicpants.

The internet has opened a whole can of worms.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally Posted by Splum

American law applies to this bulletin board.

But only to those who reside in America. Your laws only apply within your borders. Outside your borders your laws mean shit.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT - 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

---

So is the making of this docu-drama fall under the above. Some could argue that it does. To be fair, I must see the piece first and then draw the conclusion for myself. Then it is to late. My biggest point is not that the government should sensor every piece of controversial presentation, but that our society needs to exercise self control

Why is the President entitled to more consideration under US law than anyone else? Laws already exist for the protection of all folks, tho assume this is supposed to stop US presidents being shot.

The TV program in question does not fall under US law and doubt the producers gave second thought to US law. It is worth noting that many TV programs (not necessarily as "topical") are rarely distributed to the US market - it's not a market which likes to have issues questioned.

BTW.. One notable documentary (also happened to be produced by Channel 4) was transmitted by a TV station near New York several years back and was then praised with awards in the US. (The subject was East Timor re attrocities committed by Suharto's govt with funding and support from the US)

Channel 4 has a reputation for producing high quality documentary material and using the cream of journalism in the production of this material. Sometimes issues arise where governments may not like the truth - and, sure, this happened in the UK where production offices were bugged by security services and that resulted in the resignation of govt ministers, tho these instances are rare. A production team such as those attached Channel 4 would certainly not exist in the US as it is now.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

But only to those who reside in America. Your laws only apply within your borders. Outside your borders your laws mean shit.

Since when?? Tell that to the Attorney General or any of the presidents.

Just look at the arguments for going to war with Iraq.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Webby

Why is the President entitled to more consideration under US law than anyone else? Laws already exist for the protection of all folks, tho assume this is supposed to stop US presidents being shot.

The TV program in question does not fall under US law and doubt the producers gave second thought to US law. It is worth noting that many TV programs (not necessarily as "topical") are rarely distributed to the US market - it's not a market which likes to have issues questioned.

BTW.. One notable documentary (also happened to be produced by Channel 4) was transmitted by a TV station near New York several years back and was then praised with awards in the US. (The subject was East Timor re attrocities committed by Suharto's govt with funding and support from the US)

Channel 4 has a reputation for producing high quality documentary material and using the cream of journalism in the production of this material. Sometimes issues arise where governments may not like the truth - and, sure, this happened in the UK where production offices were bugged by security services and that resulted in the resignation of govt ministers, tho these instances are rare. A production team such as those attached Channel 4 would certainly not exist in the US as it is now.

Point is he is as commander and chief etc.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

But only to those who reside in America. Your laws only apply within your borders. Outside your borders your laws mean shit.

That's the nice way of putting it

[Webby]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Point is he is as commander and chief etc.

So he needs two sets of laws??? Duh??

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by notabook

Your post is almost as pointless as non-alcoholic beer. This is far from crossing the line and if you think people are going to take action because just because the face of President Bush has been superimposed over the person in question, then you are no better than those fucktards who claim that pornography turns men into monsters.

Remember when the movie Contact came out? It had footage of President Clinton in it setup in such a way to make it seem like he was confirming the existence of extraterrestrial life. The first thing I did was wrote Clinton everyday, demanding him to send bibles to our new alien friends so they too could share in the love of God. I?m super cereal, I did. I wrote him seven thousand times. Ok maybe I didn?t.

?How in the fuck does this compare to someone assassinating Bush??

Imagine if people were so retarded that they thought the footage in Contact were real (as in Bill Clinton seemingly affirming the existence of extraterrestrial life). Can you imagine the number of letters Clinton would have received from the Christian Right? Can you imagine how many DEADLY PAPER CUTS he could have received?

Thankfully most human beings simply aren?t that retarded and they take things for what they are. You have the occasional nutjob that goes overboard, but you?ll have those happen regardless of whatever circumstance you put them in. Rapists don?t become rapists because they watch too much porn ? they are rapists because they are rapists.

Those who assassinate people don?t become assassins because they watch violent movies or dramamentaries depicting assassinations ? they are assassins because THEY ARE ASSASSINS. Saying that this dramamentary will magically turn people into crazed assassins (or push some over the edge) is just ludicrous. Oh yeah, I like cheesepie.

Man you sure write a lot with a nick of notabook. We got a fucking book going here. Let's just publish the thread and collect the royalties.


Disagree on the red.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Since when?? Tell that to the Attorney General or any of the presidents.

Just look at the arguments for going to war with Iraq.

You dont actually believe that do you?

Every country had its own reasons for going in. Some reasons are better than others - the UK seems to think it owes some sort of debt to the US.

Most countries are playing the US like a game of chess, but you have Bush making your moves. You cant win.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Since when?? Tell that to the Attorney General or any of the presidents.

Just look at the arguments for going to war with Iraq.

What the hell are you babbling about?

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Webby

So he needs two sets of laws??? Duh??

Well yes. Why do bees protect the queen. The president was elected by the people to be "King" of the United States. Can't loose your King now can you.....

As you ponder all, the next in-line of succession is Chenny. He'll be in bunker 1. Not sure, but think he could make Bush look like a pussy cat.

[Webby]

Another odd, but interesting "feature"....

In any real democracy, it is very usual for a leader to waive rights of immunity from prosecution to make it clear that their conduct is within the law and they have nothing to fear under whatever justice system.

The vast majority (at least in western countries - and several others), also have no problem ratifying treaties where elements within those treaties can open up the possibility of prosecution internationally for whatever crimes committed by leaders while in office.

Both these elements are notably missing from the "world's greatest democracy".

[Splum]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Interesting point - complete bollocks, but interesting.
American law applies to the owners of the board - not the particicpants.
The internet has opened a whole can of worms.

And you dont think the owners of this board wouldnt cooperate with the USA Secret Service if asked to check out a possible threat against a sitting Presidents life?
Even if you are not American and you travel to the United States you are subject to our laws.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally Posted by Splum

Even if you are not American and you travel to the United States you are subject to our laws.

Yes, but if you are not American and you don't travel to the US, your laws mean shit. Actually, they mean less than that.

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

What the hell are you babbling about?

I don't babble unless I'm drinking. Sober tonight. Bush babbles, most politicians do.

Point I was trying to make is that the US does indeed try to impose it's laws outside the boarders. There are to many examples to list. Drug enforcement comes to mind.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Well yes. Why do bees protect the queen. The president was elected by the people to be "King" of the United States. Can't loose your King now can you.....

As you ponder all, the next in-line of succession is Chenny. He'll be in bunker 1. Not sure, but think he could make Bush look like a pussy cat.

A duplicate law is not offering any "protection" to anyone.

Cheney.. hell, since neither Bush or Cheney have bestowed massive benefits on folks in the US, - what difference? Sadly the US has got the people they elected - and God's blessing sure is needed.

[BusterBunny]

behold the surprise ending..........

[tungsten]

bushs an idiot but this is wrong

[pussyluver]

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

Yes, but if you are not American and you don't travel to the US, your laws mean shit. Actually, they mean less than that.

The FBI has offices and agents (they're all special) in dozens of countries. We also have CIA agents and secret prisons.

[notabook]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Man you sure write a lot with a nick of notabook. We got a fucking book going here. Let's just publish the thread and collect the royalties.


Disagree on the red.

I could never collect royalties on said book, as books are for fags. At least we agree on one thing: Miracle whip makes for one tasty turkey sandwich!

[Webby]

Originally Posted by pussyluver

Point I was trying to make is that the US does indeed try to impose it's laws outside the boarders. There are to many examples to list. Drug enforcement comes to mind.

US drug laws are not enforced or valid in any other nation.

Sure.. there is cooperation between nations on this - same as with serious crime (murder), child abuse etc, - but US law means nothing elsewhere.