| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 12:28 - Feb 25 with 1957 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:05 - Feb 24 by raynor94 |
As Darran says the fanzine is shit, a poor attention seeking effort |
And he'd be the one to know  |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
|  |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 12:28 - Feb 25 with 1956 views | rob |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 11:04 - Feb 25 by monmouth |
My opnion. Cover is w*nky; 'official statement' is w*nkier, particularly in its laughable attempt to 'explain' the cover. No one cared where they were from. Nor were we against them because they were foreign or american. We did care about their personal motives and what the club would gain from them though. In case you missed it, the supporters Trust were against the deal. Perhaps they are xenophobes?
Perhaps you need an official statement clarifying your official statement. |
LOL!
I really just don't get the need to use that image. Anyway
BTW, JackSwan, do you have permission to carry on using copyrighted images in increasing number, each issue? :D |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 12:32 - Feb 25 with 1951 views | Clinton |
the statement is full of contradictions. If the JackSwan editor has connections in the States, hell know that burning the flag is offensive to them. Much more so than if anyone burned the Union Jack or Welsh flag.
So to say the magazine is meant to be light-hearted whilst having a calculatedly offensive cover is disingenuous to say the least, dishonest to say the worst.
Jack Swan pile of crap, I wont read it again. |  |
| If you can fill the unforgiving minute.
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son! |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 12:44 - Feb 25 with 1939 views | Brynmill_Jack |
You should know that burning the Stars and Stripes (or using an image thereof) is equivalent to burning the Bible to some Americans . As offensive to them as cartoons depicting Mohammed are offensive to Muslims.
Bearing that in mind was it really the wisest thing to portray on your magazine cover considering the work the club has done regarding link ups with US clubs and tours etc. Hopefully this cover will not be recognized by any prospective new fans as being in any way representative of the club or it's existing fanbase. | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 13:35 - Feb 25 with 1898 views | MattG |
Terrible cover - not offensive (to me, anyway) but needlessly antagonistic and just plain tasteless.
You should have gone for
YANK$
BUT
NO THANKS!
No need to thank me. [Post edited 25 Feb 2015 23:09]
|  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 13:36 - Feb 25 with 1896 views | ScoobyWho |
I take it the advertisers in this edition endorse the cover ? |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 14:13 - Feb 25 with 1871 views | snork44 |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 19:30 - Feb 24 by UltraAmericanJack |
Tummer pretty much sums it up. I don't particularly care for it, but whatever floats your boat I guess...
I will say as someone whose been supporting Swansea since 1991 I personally find it rather disappointing that someone who issues a magazine would stoop to that level. I'm against American ownership of the club as well, even though I'm American myself, and what corporate America stands for and what that flag stands for are two totally different things.
However, it's your call. I've enjoyed your magazine and will continue to either way. |
I live here in the States and the pride the people have in the flag is humbling. You see the Stars and Stripes flying outside of businesses and Government buildings, that is something I would love to see in the UK is the Union Jack and the Welsh flag being flown proudly and not as happens back home people can't as it is maybe construed as being 'Racist and Xenophobic'! Getting back to the cover, it was childish and immature , America is not a perfect country, but no country is perfect. If you made a comment about Corporate America then I would agree that these two clowns are what Corporate America is all about 'Greed and Ignorance'. But to show that image was classless and tasteless. |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 14:41 - Feb 25 with 1846 views | blueytheblue |
Just as well Tate and Trudnle didn't hold an American flag with vulgarity written on it then. ;)
They'd be Guantanemo bound. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 14:45 - Feb 25 with 1840 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 08:56 - Feb 25 by blueytheblue |
Well, with all due respect, America seemed to have little to no interest in aiding until Pearl Harbour. So there was an element of self-interest in there rather than any noble aims ascribed by Hollywood. I'd also be raising an eyebrow at the claimed fact we paid for materials only and there was no degree of profit made whatsoever.
Still, I guess everyone must thus be eternally grateful and never question Vietnam, Guantanemo, Iraq, Afghanistan, CIA activities around the world, backing of Saddam whilst gassing Kurds etc, causing the radicalisation of terrorists worldwide etc. |
He's right Dav no matter how little you like what he says. Joseph Kennedy overtly influenced by his republican Irish sympathies didn't give a damn about Britain being bombed the sh*t out of during 1940.
There was no love lost with the Limeys and the very fact that the US was going to invade Canada to keep the British Empire at as length in the 30's pre WW2 shows an enmity rather than an empathy between the two nations.
There is also significant evidence that the US banks including chase and JP Morgan and Prescott Bush among others funded the Nazi's along with leading industrials including General Electric for one.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/big-banks-funded-the-nazis-and-launched-a
I still don't agree with the front cover of JS magazine though | |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:16 - Feb 25 with 1796 views | Davillin |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 14:45 - Feb 25 by Brynmill_Jack |
He's right Dav no matter how little you like what he says. Joseph Kennedy overtly influenced by his republican Irish sympathies didn't give a damn about Britain being bombed the sh*t out of during 1940.
There was no love lost with the Limeys and the very fact that the US was going to invade Canada to keep the British Empire at as length in the 30's pre WW2 shows an enmity rather than an empathy between the two nations.
There is also significant evidence that the US banks including chase and JP Morgan and Prescott Bush among others funded the Nazi's along with leading industrials including General Electric for one.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/big-banks-funded-the-nazis-and-launched-a
I still don't agree with the front cover of JS magazine though |
I respond to your post, Brynmill Jack, with the same respect you always show me. Thanks for that.
Roosevelt kicked Kennedy out of his ambassador's post for his anti-Britain and pro-Germany positions, for his anti-Semitism, and for going behind the back of the U.S. government -- well before the U.S. entered the war.. He was roundly and publicly criticised. To the best of my memory, that was Joe Kennedy's last experience in government. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
The statements about Canada are wildly overblown. Someone not in a position to do anything about it made a comment, which was brushed aside with the disdain it deserved. I'm sorry I don't remember the details anymore. "Going to invade" is most definitely not true. Not a chance in Hell.
If you're going to talk about U.S. banks and corporations "funding" anyone, you should first ask whether any British banks, "industrialists," or others of significance, supported them. Before the war, banks loaned money to anyone who applied and was even marginally qualified.
Personally, I'd never blame the U.S. for something a bank did. They do not represent me or the U.S., but only themselves and their shareholders. But you already know that.
Regarding "enmity" between the U.S. and the U.K., you couldn't be further from the truth. You might want to study up on certain specific areas of deep cooperation between the two countries, not limited to full and complete military planning [did you know that British military personnel worked in the Pentagon at all levels?], completely shared intelligence, and complete sharing of secrets regarding the atomic bomb -- not a dot of which we shared with anyone else. |  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:21 - Feb 25 with 1791 views | Thursday |
A lot of folk find flag burning highly offensive. And, in return, a lot of folk use the imagery to cause high offense.
Personally, I don't think that any flag is above blazing reproach as an expression of free speech. But, keep it in the right context, which is exactly what the fanzine didn't do. I don't believe they published the photo to be highly offensive, so I can only assume that they're idiots. But, idiots with the right to do so.
Still, it does make a nice change from the readership who surely must torch their copies each issue. It has to be more useful than reading it. | | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:27 - Feb 25 with 1780 views | swan_si |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:21 - Feb 25 by Thursday |
A lot of folk find flag burning highly offensive. And, in return, a lot of folk use the imagery to cause high offense.
Personally, I don't think that any flag is above blazing reproach as an expression of free speech. But, keep it in the right context, which is exactly what the fanzine didn't do. I don't believe they published the photo to be highly offensive, so I can only assume that they're idiots. But, idiots with the right to do so.
Still, it does make a nice change from the readership who surely must torch their copies each issue. It has to be more useful than reading it. |
it's too glossy to be used as toilet paper, and too thin to make a roach. it has no use at all. |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:31 - Feb 25 with 1770 views | Darran |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 17:27 - Feb 25 by swan_si |
it's too glossy to be used as toilet paper, and too thin to make a roach. it has no use at all. |
|  |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 18:45 - Feb 25 with 1737 views | blueytheblue |
To clarify, Dav, I'm not anti-American despite the way I acknowledge my posts have read.
I dislike the USA jingoism that borders almost to the degree of xenophobia - not necessarily caused deliberately but by wrapping themselves so tightly in the flag they can't see a damn thing through it.
An example would be the "liberation" by removing Hussein. Aside from the fact that was done purely due to him being no longer useful to America - after all, when the Kurds were being gassed the West driven by the US couldn't goive one single toss. The tearing down of the statue of Saddam showed what I mean.
Vehicles there, chains put on, cheering crowd.
What does Billy Jo Bob Redneck then do? Drape the status with the US flag.
People weren't there cheering the American involvement. They were cheering the removal of Hussein- enemy of my enemy and all that.
That seeming lack of self-awareness seems to drive a fair bit of US foreign policy.
As for the flow of intelligence, eh.... | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 14:13 - Feb 26 with 1665 views | dantheswansman |
It`s not a official magazine , It`s not even endorsed by the club , so why would anyone who reads it think badly of Swansea City ?
If you are going to stop supporting the swans because of what a fanzine has published then you are not worth having as a supporter anyway .
Grow a pair .
Personally think its in bad taste . |  | | |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 19:11 - Feb 26 with 1615 views | Darran |
Hahahaha. | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 21:05 - Feb 26 with 1568 views | ScoobyWho |
Surely the advertisers need to have a serious rethink now.
Not that my previous question regards advertisers endorsing this publication and cover was ever answered.
Fcking thoughtless. | |
| |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 21:59 - Feb 26 with 1538 views | bluenile |
| Jack swan issue #34 - Is cover too controversial? on 22:15 - Feb 24 by JackSwanTV |
My head is the size of a house right now. We all thinking that the future of swans fans in America rests on my shoulders? That jack swan magazine has the power to greatly increase or decrease our popularity on the other side of the Atlantic?
I'm seriously chuffed. Thank you all! |
Stop being a dickhead, admit you made a mistake, and you might get over it....................otherwise stop publishing your poor excuse of a magazine. By the way, I'm not offended, it's just really, really poor......................... |  |
| Open the ipod bay doors Hal |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
!