The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has offended Germany *and* refused to apologise, as he heads into a 6 month Italian EU Parliament presidency.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Page:
Goatboy wrote:
> No.
> "Many Germans regard Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's
> comments that a German member of the European Parliament would be
> "perfect" for the role of a guard in a film about a Nazi
> concentration camp as insensitive and crass"
Hang on one minute, "many" ? "regarded" ? Not exactly strong evidence there...and you say yourself that the wording was actually comandant, not a guard, which would have entirely different meanings.
> I'll repeat, just in case you don't understand, there was no simple
> mention of "commandant" and people got it wrong by using
> their own associations.
> He directly and literally said that the German minister would be
> perfect for the part of a Nazi Commandant in a motion picture being
> made about concentration camps.
> There's no grey area there Bell.
Er, cheers for proving my point, "commandant" was the wording as you say here, the Nazi bit is irrelevant as the association with comandant and concentration camps would naturally be Nazis. At the end of the day anyone can make as much of the comment as they want, but it has been seriously overplayed and was not majorly important.
> Or have you chosen to ignore "my beloved BBC" because Blair
> is angry with them?
> I think you need to crush the foil on your beanie, your getting mixed
> signals.
I posted a link in the other thread, before you posted this. As for the BBC ? I'd say "angry" was an understatement, if Campbell and co are indeed found to be innocent tomorrow then things will get interesting...
> No.
> "Many Germans regard Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's
> comments that a German member of the European Parliament would be
> "perfect" for the role of a guard in a film about a Nazi
> concentration camp as insensitive and crass"
Hang on one minute, "many" ? "regarded" ? Not exactly strong evidence there...and you say yourself that the wording was actually comandant, not a guard, which would have entirely different meanings.
> I'll repeat, just in case you don't understand, there was no simple
> mention of "commandant" and people got it wrong by using
> their own associations.
> He directly and literally said that the German minister would be
> perfect for the part of a Nazi Commandant in a motion picture being
> made about concentration camps.
> There's no grey area there Bell.
Er, cheers for proving my point, "commandant" was the wording as you say here, the Nazi bit is irrelevant as the association with comandant and concentration camps would naturally be Nazis. At the end of the day anyone can make as much of the comment as they want, but it has been seriously overplayed and was not majorly important.
> Or have you chosen to ignore "my beloved BBC" because Blair
> is angry with them?
> I think you need to crush the foil on your beanie, your getting mixed
> signals.
I posted a link in the other thread, before you posted this. As for the BBC ? I'd say "angry" was an understatement, if Campbell and co are indeed found to be innocent tomorrow then things will get interesting...
I believe the actual quote was, "There's a film being made about the concentration camps, I should suggest Mr Shulz for the part of the Nazi commandant". Either that or very similar. He didn't directly call him a commandant.
Practical Magic wrote:
> He called the guy a commandant, the associations people chose to make
> with that are their own.
---
No.
"Many Germans regard Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's comments that a German member of the European Parliament would be "perfect" for the role of a guard in a film about a Nazi concentration camp as insensitive and crass"
He didnt call him a commandant and then people misinterpreted.
He directly suggested he was a Nazi.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3045618.stm
You really are extremely ill-informed aren't you?
On this, the nuclear weapons programme in Iraq (that you're still avoiding discussing), your "public support" comment (that you're still avoiding discussing).
You can't admit when you make a simple mistake can you? You can't just say "Sorry, I got that wrong".
Instead you paint yourself into a corner where you become a figure of fun.
I'll repeat, just in case you don't understand, there was no simple mention of "commandant" and people got it wrong by using their own associations.
He directly and literally said that the German minister would be perfect for the part of a Nazi Commandant in a motion picture being made about concentration camps.
There's no grey area there Bell.
Or have you chosen to ignore "my beloved BBC" because Blair is angry with them?
I think you need to crush the foil on your beanie, your getting mixed signals.
> He called the guy a commandant, the associations people chose to make
> with that are their own.
---
No.
"Many Germans regard Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's comments that a German member of the European Parliament would be "perfect" for the role of a guard in a film about a Nazi concentration camp as insensitive and crass"
He didnt call him a commandant and then people misinterpreted.
He directly suggested he was a Nazi.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3045618.stm
You really are extremely ill-informed aren't you?
On this, the nuclear weapons programme in Iraq (that you're still avoiding discussing), your "public support" comment (that you're still avoiding discussing).
You can't admit when you make a simple mistake can you? You can't just say "Sorry, I got that wrong".
Instead you paint yourself into a corner where you become a figure of fun.
I'll repeat, just in case you don't understand, there was no simple mention of "commandant" and people got it wrong by using their own associations.
He directly and literally said that the German minister would be perfect for the part of a Nazi Commandant in a motion picture being made about concentration camps.
There's no grey area there Bell.
Or have you chosen to ignore "my beloved BBC" because Blair is angry with them?
I think you need to crush the foil on your beanie, your getting mixed signals.
Racist ? Nope it isn't. And plenty of people could argue the case, and whatever you say I did type "it could be argued", hence I'm not trying to get out of anything, you simply chose to react overboard again without properly seeing what I had said.
He called the guy a commandant, the associations people chose to make with that are their own.
He called the guy a commandant, the associations people chose to make with that are their own.
No, don't weasel out of it.
By using "you could argue", that's suggesting that anyone had thought of it.
Any reasonable person would react to a comment like that of Berlusconi.
I admire the German's reaction, because had someone suggested that to me, I would not care for punishment, that person would be punched as hard as humanly possible.
Nobody could argue it's a "liberally biased media", because it's nothing to do with that at all.
It's an extremely offensive comment, racist and deserves being removed from office.
By using "you could argue", that's suggesting that anyone had thought of it.
Any reasonable person would react to a comment like that of Berlusconi.
I admire the German's reaction, because had someone suggested that to me, I would not care for punishment, that person would be punched as hard as humanly possible.
Nobody could argue it's a "liberally biased media", because it's nothing to do with that at all.
It's an extremely offensive comment, racist and deserves being removed from office.
Goatboy wrote:
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered
> offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
>
> ---
>
> Moron.
> So it's a liberally-biased media that takes offence at a politician
> suggesting that a German politician would be perfectly suitable for a
> role in a concentration camp movie?
I'm saying that by choosing to pursue it with such vehement zeal, the media has largely ignored other stories because one man, who it is widely regarded is something of a bungler anyway, said the wrong word. I believe he told the politician he could be a comandant ? But all of a sudden the media shouts "nazi" etc and it's off we go. The media linked the comandant comment to nazism, not Berlusconi.
> Again, read your post. Read it and try to understand how utterly
> simplistic your thought patterns are.
> "such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority
> of the media is liberally biased"....
Ahem, go read it again, I typed "you could argue that", not that I necessarily agreed that was the case, just that it would be possible to argue that was the case.
> Practical Magic wrote:
> Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered
> offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
>
> ---
>
> Moron.
> So it's a liberally-biased media that takes offence at a politician
> suggesting that a German politician would be perfectly suitable for a
> role in a concentration camp movie?
I'm saying that by choosing to pursue it with such vehement zeal, the media has largely ignored other stories because one man, who it is widely regarded is something of a bungler anyway, said the wrong word. I believe he told the politician he could be a comandant ? But all of a sudden the media shouts "nazi" etc and it's off we go. The media linked the comandant comment to nazism, not Berlusconi.
> Again, read your post. Read it and try to understand how utterly
> simplistic your thought patterns are.
> "such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority
> of the media is liberally biased"....
Ahem, go read it again, I typed "you could argue that", not that I necessarily agreed that was the case, just that it would be possible to argue that was the case.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered
> offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
---
Moron.
So it's a liberally-biased media that takes offence at a politician suggesting that a German politician would be perfectly suitable for a role in a concentration camp movie?
Are you seriously suggesting that it's only dirty pinko press whipping this up?
Again, read your post. Read it and try to understand how utterly simplistic your thought patterns are.
"such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased"....
> Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered
> offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
---
Moron.
So it's a liberally-biased media that takes offence at a politician suggesting that a German politician would be perfectly suitable for a role in a concentration camp movie?
Are you seriously suggesting that it's only dirty pinko press whipping this up?
Again, read your post. Read it and try to understand how utterly simplistic your thought patterns are.
"such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased"....
lol, it's going to start spreading, soon you'll have a waiting list for hairdressers two years long and you won't be able to go shopping for 3 years...
Least i'll get a operation before i die waiting anyway and by the sounds of it in a better environment than a NHS Hospital :D
I find Prince Philip highly amusing with his comments that can offend anyone.
Page: