Dubya and his Cronies at their best

Remove all ads!

Watch this .

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2004/m-record-of-failure-p1.php

 

I don't see one thing funny about this. It's trivializing and making a joke of 9-11 for one thing. I think it's all in very bad taste. Spreading fear? No one has to spread it -- just look at what happened in New York, London, etc. -- and if you think it can't or won't happen again, you need to change your shades. I think it's a pretty serious thing and not really a laughing matter. Sorry.

 

Bush explains tribal sovreignty

 

THAT is indeed priceless! (what an idiot)

 

Oh my! So funny! !

eleven september!

 

@The first one - Sounds like they're talking about the U.S. As for it not being funny, you don't have to laugh at it. It's been 4 years and it's all that those guys can invoke to get attention. I, for one, am getting sick of hearing about September 11. I don't go out of my way to find the stuff; I avoid it when I can. The video and sound are more about a guy who has too much play time with his recording equipment.

@The second one - So, the Indian tribes the U.S. government has screwed over for the past 250 years are now *sovereign* equals? Well, it's about damn time!

 

The first one I busted a gut laughing so hard! It's not a funny subject, but the way they show it, and how many times each person says the same thing over and over again makes you laugh.

As the the second one...I didn't laugh as much, but it's still funny.

 

I've seen the second one - it's a permanent quote on the wall at work!

 

For some reason I can't get the first one to play but I found the second hilarious.

 

sovereignitities! hahaha

 

They were both extremely funny, especially the second one!

 

Funny. Both of them.

Spelly,
you should get yourself a set of humour. Even with Bin Laden around, people in the West are more likely to die of cancer, diabetes, heart attacks or traffic accidents, or of hurricanes for that instance, than of terrorists attacks.

It's about keeping things in perspective and about considering them, among other things, in terms of probability.

As one great anglosaxon legal saying goes: Hard cases make bad law.

How very wise.

 

While I don't need to relive it certainly, I surely can't find it within me to laugh about it. I'll let other people do that.

 

Considering the general risks in life, 911 was a red herring. You cannot make an incident, how tragic and devious however, that happens once in a blue moon, the basis on how to judge anything else.

That's what I meant with 'hard cases make bad law'.

You need to make a difference between the tragedy itself - and the response on it. That are two distinctly different things.

If anything does injustice to the victims, then an exploitative official response - and not so much criticising this response by ridiculing it.

 

I certainly can and have. Most Americans' lives have changed after that incident. They view things differently. And I would hardly say it's a "once in a blue moon" occurrence. The potential exists daily.

The fact that I choose not to laugh at the remembrance of that day is MY affair. Let's leave it at that.

 

The difference in my point is the one between 'what it is' and 'how it feels'. One should keep every one of these two questions in it's proper place. I have recently noted that in the media too: Anchors showed people pictures and then asked along the line: "How do you feel about this?" I consider that bad journalism. It invites manipulation.

So does invoking the horror and the images of 911 when voicing political statements. It rings all my alarm bells.

How it feels sure is an interesting sidenote to an issue, but one cannot really argue about how one feels. So you feel a certain way? Interesting. And now? There are just very few options after that: (a) Say: "No you don't feel that way!" (which is foolish) or perhaps (b) give attention, if one wants to understand such a statement as an implied call for it. 'How it feels' is of limited value in a discussion.

In any case I can only warn against getting too attached to a worst case oriented worldview. People act strangely when they perceive threats out of proportion and that must lead to excessive behaviour, and historically it has. That's not good. It also draws odd looks.

I disagree that 911 changed the world. It did not. Terrorism was there well before 911. I rather think it changed you and your perception. And that probably applies to the others whose 'lifes changed' as well.

You're entitled you're subjective position, and you leave no doubt how deeply 911 affected you. You voiced that frequently. Fair enough. The folks in the first clip are making a valid point, and you dislike it, and find it distasteful? Well, I just feel you're not right in that.

 

Christ, even a joke thread can be turned serious around here!!!

 

First one didn't make me laugh only because I've seen better on the Daily Show (without the obviously-bashing commentary). Second one didn't make me laugh because I was expecting a mispronunciation even more severe than just SOVerEIGNity.

@Barmy:
Yeah, that's Rags for ya (and to a much lesser extent, Spelly). Report him if you feel like it, or just get a mod to move the topic to AoLS (it's certainly got the potential now).

 

Ragusa -- Fortunately I don't need your validation to feel comfortable.

With that said, let's get this thread back on topic, shall we?

 

lol, Feliniod, I'm not going to report anyone. Just commented on how even a joke thread can turn into serious debate .