BBC orgasmic at Obama win. I was due on BBC London this morning but was dropped. Meanwhile, I hear BBC pundits saying GOP needs to move “more to the centre” – unbelievable.
HAIL OBAMA..
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- Fedup2 April 24, 2024 at 11:12 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Rob - good to see the broken carrier is in rosyth having the same fix that the other one had...
- Thoughtful April 24, 2024 at 10:53 am on Midweek 24th April 2024We do not have aircraft carriers (plural) because one of them is so badly built it's unseaworthy ! The worst...
- The Mouse April 24, 2024 at 10:41 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I just wanted to add my few words to what has been said about Lord Frank Field. Frank Field "In...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:23 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Fed: Change the record. We now have 617 Squadron and 809 NAS. It has taken too long, I agree, but...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:18 am on Midweek 24th April 2024At the time of St George, the Turks were busy looting and pillaging in Central Asia. They did not invade...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:14 am on Midweek 24th April 2024I must give kudos to Dewbs. Letts just gave the impression of being a complacent tubby little squish. The level...
- Thatcherrevolutionary April 24, 2024 at 10:13 am on Midweek 24th April 2024So cloud seeding resulted in flooding in Dubai. So why not do this in Central Africa and end world hunger?...
- Lunchtime Loather April 24, 2024 at 10:08 am on Midweek 24th April 2024"Print Screen" and pasting it in to Paint also works.
- friend of yogi bear April 24, 2024 at 10:04 am on Midweek 24th April 2024None other than Lady Nugee, aka Emily Thornberry, was on the BBC sounding very concerned about her own branch of...
- Rob in Cheshire April 24, 2024 at 10:03 am on Midweek 24th April 2024Ian: Agreed. For ordinary people, you cannot live in France without papers. For the asylum seekers, however, it's suddenly not...
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
A sad day for the USA and Gt Britain. Now watch the billions roll away to China, South Korea and India. The money men of America have watched the start of hard socialism under Obama but kept some cash back out of patriotism and just in case of a Republican win. Not now.
Obama is a man that does not like business; do not forget his “you didn’t make that” speech to the business people of America. They will not stand by to be screwed over and over again and then blamed for the results when it ends up like Greece with a bankrupt government and riots in the streets. And it will.
REJOICE if you like but the people of the USA have just elected the man that is strangling the breadwinners that bring home the dough. Try eating ‘Hope & Change’ when you are hungry. It’s a bit chewy!
They increased their majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate is almost as close as it can get. Romney got within 2% of Obama in the popular vote. I don’t think the Republican ‘need’ to move towards the centre; what I think they need is to break the lefty stranglehold on the media.
This.
On the flip side, this was the MSM’s Battle of the Bulge moment. They threw everything behind supporting His Magnificence Sheik Barak I. Now they own him. His record is now their record.
And now have 30 Republican governors. That’s not a sign that the country as a whole is moving fiscally to the Left.
By the way David Preiser, many thanks for all your hard work on this site. Even when I disagree with you I find you interesting and informative, unlike the vast majority of reporting by the BBC from the USA – most of whose journalists seem to phone in their insights about America from planet lazy.
Where you get the patience to deal with trolls (who almost never contribute anything of substance themselves [Biased BBC should be ignored because it is full of middle aged guys who know nothing about life (unlike themselves) yeah yeah] I do not know.
If there was a heaven you would certainly earn your place in it for your unselfish dedication to articulating the truth (as you see it) as an end in itself.
There I have said it! When I click “Post Comment” I will not be able to delete it.
Ditto
Agreed.
Cheers, Wild. Hopefully I’ve demonstrated from time to time just how ignorant and biased the BBC’s reporting on US issues has been.
As for a chance at heaven, I’m more in the Mark Twain frame of mind.
“I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.”
I agree – it is all about the media –
Pity Brave Dave hasn’t realised that!!
the BBC s U.S. “jolly” has gone totally overboard, i wonder what the bill to US! … the licence payers for this excess will be?.
already gloating “panto” devotes your call to this.
so the “empty suit” (which has been proven to be yellow)
continues – as does the 6 trillion dollar debt train …
how much is the debt bill increased this hour nikki
any ideas? –
Well this perceived “intellectual” who can t even speak of the cuff or on anything important without a prompter, does he have the right birth certificate? … does he have an economic policy? or a foreign policy more like.
maybe its just an ahem “integrative complexity “issue eh!
oh! i ll help you nikki its 188 million dollars … not good is it?
They are bingeing out while they still can. Perhaps a whiff of reality heading their way?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9659692/BBC-presenters-face-pay-cuts-amid-tightening-of-tax-status.html
as an addition he s spent over one and a quarter billion dollars on the media machine ensuring his re election, oh … hussien!
the electricity, is it all on, in NY yet?. all sorted?
… and accepted foreign donations for his campaign, something expressly forbidden by US law.
Obama’s is the best government money can buy. Solyndra – and the rest.
The problem for Republicans is the changing demography of America, the fast breeding Hispanics who form a greater and greater proportion of the population are likely to vote Democrat.
Republicans need to win the female vote too, perhaps by bringinga fresh approach to the abortion issue.
Spot on. GOP has allowed the Tea Party loons to hijack it and they’ll never win a Presidential election if they can’t win this one. It was the high water mark of the Tea Party. We’ll see them begin to shrink back as GOP rediscovers its wider appeal.
The US demographics are quite clearly showing a country that is becoming far more a collection of minorities. Yet the great turnout in many areas at least shows that its still a democracy willing to listen.
Prole,
You have bought in to the race hatred of the left. The Tea Party movement is not stuffed full of loons and race haters BIT real Anericans concerned about their future.
The loon bit is merely a projection of the lefts race hatred politics of envy. They understand the threat the Tea Party represents to their beliefs and have done everything possible to smear them.
If anything, the Tea Party represents REAL America, not the Government dependant version the left wants.
Mailman
If the black vote are just voting for Obama because he is black (and if you look at the voting it certainly appears that they do) then I guess demographics become even more important, not sure it reflects well on their intelligence though.
he isn’t even black!!
what happened to the 50% bit that’s white?
oh yes-black trumps white doesn’t it?
He owes his success to his early formative years when he was encouraged to work hard by his deserted mother and her parents who brought him up and gave him a good education and purpose and attitude in his life.
It is always a disappointment when a successful mixed race individual allows themselves to be hijacked by certain pressure groups that acclaim the colour of that person’s skin and ignore or show disdain for the other 50% of the genes or the often 100% upbringing by the abandoned mother.
Halle Berry, the first ”Black” female Oscar winner had a white mother from Liverpool and a ‘sperm donor’ black father
To be fair to to Obama, he has always acknowledged the debt he owes to his mother and grandparents, but those around him, and the left wing media, especially in the UK the BBC play up race as an issue at every opportunity.
“Glenn Beck: Dreams of Barack Obama’s Father”
(2010, video clip)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44000/
And it’s the white side of his family – the one that stood by him and brought him up – he won’t acknowledge?
This guy’s judgement is serious cause for concern.
No nation that becomes a collection of minorities has a long term future. Name one succesful historical precedent.
The USA?
A nation that has only existed some 300 years and is already facing economic collapse? Has a $16 trillion debt anis facing a total dollar collapse if the the likes of Russia or China start selling oil in anything other than dollars.
That is NOT a successful country. It was once, it is perilously close to becoming a failed state.
I said “becomes” .
Without long delving into the history of the United States which would be interesting but not weaken my case substantially I stand by my use of the word “becomes” . That is not the same as “was” or “is”.
For all sorts of reasons the change of succesful Western states into minority majority states is the major social and political change of this century. How it is dealt with will determine whether the West joins the growing list of failed states or not.
It’s an immigrant democracy and as the President said: diversity laced with freedom is its strength
I think you would be well advised to look at the history of the USA from say the 17th century up to 1776. An immigrant democracy it was not. And later I see no evidence that the founding fathers of the USA had the slightest notion of creating an immigrant democracy. Please do not simplify the history of a most complicated and interesting country. It does your position no credit.
That part of Obama’s speech was the biggest load of bollocks of all.
Do you think ‘diversity’ would’ve been much use against Hitler’s Panzers?
Or Soviet nukes?
Did the Unionists triumph over Confederates by being more ‘diverse’?
Utter tosh.
Wrong. If you knew anything about the origins of the movement, and didn’t take the biased BBC line, you’d know that the loons hijacked the Tea Party’s momentum, and not the other way round.
Well, the voters will get what they voted for. In practice that means more debts.
More debts just delay the inevitable.
And who loses when it goes tits up?
The people who rely on the state, either because they need the state to help them, or because they were forced to for their pension etc.
Suck it up boys.
I thought the BBC’s coverage was pretty low key. Every time they mentioned Romney’s speech it was prefaced by ‘gracious.’ And they were careful to balance democrat voices with GOP ones. It is clear to the sane GOPers that they have to change to adapt to the changing demographic. They’re going to be up against a formidable Obama/Clinton coalition next time round.
Romney was treated with respect and showed what a great President he might have been.
I agree that the BBC has been fairer and more low key than I expected since the results came out.
Nobody ha smentioned the negative effect of Romney beinga Mormon. He might have been astrong candidate in many ways but werent the Repiublicans foolish not to recognise that his beinga member of a loony cult was not going to ring well with many Conservative Christians or with moderniser areligious floaters who are unhappy with Obamas economic performance.
I heard an American woman interviewed by Nikki on R5, this morning, say that a significant number of the religious right had been alienated by Romney’s Mormonism, which they consider a cult, and had abstained.
Romney was always going to be the Republican establishment’s choice, which is why there was so much opposition to him from the Tea Party movement. The establishment (viz Sen. Graham and his angry white men) and the Christianists were able to hijack the Tea Party momentum long enough to ruin the party for everyone. The more electable candidates were too fresh to be ready for prime time, and Herman Cain got torpedoed over something the liberal media gave Clinton a pass on, so we were left with a difficult task.
We’ll never know if that many Republican voters simply stayed home yesterday because they’re as prejudiced against Mormons as the BBC is (oh, except for caring Justin Webb). The BBC shares the same opinion as the Sun on this one, which is amusing, to say the least.
“a formidable Obama/Clinton coalition next time round. “
Unless they change the law to allow third termers this can’t happen. Unless you mean Michelle and Hillllary? Christ, that’s such a frightening thought I wish you hadn’t put it into my head.
No, I was thinking Hilary for pres. With her husband and Obama delivering a wide base of support. Depends of course whether the Obama brand becomes as toxic as Bush’s was when he stood down.
” her husband”
What was that quote again,
” Read my lips, I did not have sex with……………….”
Yup.
Hillary might appear to old in 2016. As unfair as that may sound, even the “isn’t it about time we elected a woman” identity politics agenda won’t help that. And if the US is still in an economic toilet (which I’m sure you couldn’t possibly imagine happening), she’s not going to look like a choice for hope.
“Suck it up boys.”
Projecting again I see Jimmy !
Never mind, Jim would never have said this or “support your President” to his American friends back when Bush was in charge. That kind of chiding is reserved for us.
‘Suck it up boys.’
Not sure that is quite as all-inclusive as it maybe was meant to be, as Chloe has suggested that she is here (still) for the BBC bias and in no way as a partisan stirrer.
Going through my morning emails I found this delivered post haste…
‘Romney admits defeat as Obama wins second term’
(an interesting complement to such as this, to be sure: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-wins-four-more-years-as-romney-challenge-is-crushed-8289578.html )
Sadly I don’t archive back that far, but I wondered how things were billed in an earlier time, and from the BBC page priorities that came up on search this appears to be the first headline outing..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3979367.stm
Kerry concedes election to Bush
Now, I know it was a different time, but what governs the change between a losing candidate being defined as conceding vs. admitting, and the term suddenly does matter?
I guess it falls under that unique ‘Labour says/Coalition’ grey semantic area that CECUTT can brush of with a flick of righteous belief.
The BBC is always nice to right-wingers…. once they’ve lost.
Consider Mr Portaloo and his journey from right-wing nut who wanted to eat the poor to sophisticated euro-intellectual.
All of which means that you should pencil it in your diary now for Summer 2016: ‘Horsepower’: a documentary where David Cameron explores man’s relationship with the horse.
Jim is right on this one. Despite my better judgement I had Toady on from half seven til 9 and it was actually tolerable.
Saying Romney was gracious is all you got, Jim? Any thoughts on Dimbleby openly stating that Mourdock and Akin “had to go” because of their statements on rape and abortion? Any thoughts on Katty Kay stating that the US is now “ungovernable”? Any thoughts on Stage Performer Maitlis making a cute little class war dig at Romney for owning a house on a lake?
Or are you going to continue to play the “see no evil” game?
I think you’re taking all those examples out of context.
I did though think the BBC tv coverage was very poor. Today, with Webb, Mardell and Naughtie were excellent. But tv was tedious. They should have included a Bolton type rather than the old style republican they had on. Sky was even worse, but itn made a decent fist
‘I think you’re taking all those examples out of context.’
The value of what a person thinks is of course enough to secure a BBC CECUTT Directorship, but as Ms, Abbott has been supported in showing, the taking of context, in or out, can be a very moveable feast.
Out of context, Jim? Are you just making things up? Do you know what the context was? Can you suggest in which context that would be appropriate?
I agree that the US panelists they had on with Dimbleby were mostly dire. The choice of a black man to represent Republican pollsters was curious. I guess that destroys all of Mardell’s and Dymond’s work for the last three+ years. He didn’t look particularly old or white to me.
One of the Democrat women didn’t even understand the concept of “checks and balances”. Of course, nobody at the BBC would know enough to correct her, but still.
I can’t refute what you say. But my bleary eyed recollection was the whole thing was bland and awkward rather than partisan. I just don’t recall the examples you give. agree on the republican. I think he was sane and sensible, but without wanting to be partisan he was to the left of the party. I wanted a nutty Nate silver denier.
It was bland and awkward, but there were clear personal opinions expressed by BBC talent. I got the impression very quickly that they had it all figured for the President early on, which is what they expected, and so there was no building up of emotion or anticipation over a cliff-hanger. If it had been really close all the way with Romney holding what looked like a real lead and the President then just won at the very end by a nose, the emotional display would have been much different.
I agree the BBC coverage was low key today, lacking the expected triumphalism.
But then, reality probably dawned on them: winning the election was the easy bit. No more excuses now.
The BBC was certainly short on the expected triumphalism today – almost muted, I’d say, so I agree too.
But maybe it’s because reality dawned on them: winning the election was the easy bit; no more excuses now.
So that’s where it got to. Oh, for photograhic memory.
BBC-Democrat inevitably, and predictably, turned to Simon Schama, its Obama political cheerleader, for an ‘impartial’ denigration of Republican politics.
Federal debt hits $17,500,000,000,000 next year, and is increasing under Obama at a rate of $1,500,000,000,000 a year.
It’s not a particularly attractive investment environment, somehow.
cant wait for it to go tits up,just wait when apple shares go down and gm goes bankrupt.
The writing is already on the cards,the people will live to regret voting for obama.
I’ve deliberately kept away from all news today, as I really don’t think I could put up with the smug faces trying not to look smug, so I’m not in a position to comment on the coverage. Time to crank out a few old albums I haven’t listened to in years, methinks.
I know how you feel.
I use one of these to avoid broadcast TV almost entirely.
Sky is worse – but they’ll cover anything that comes with pictures.
One left in stock… I wonder what that suggests?
From on high, BBC-Democrat gives its presumptuous global political endorsement of its Obamamessiah:
“Obama second term: What it means for the world.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20233941
In contrast, ‘Jihadwatch’ has:-
“What we have to look forward to”
[Excerpt]:-
“Now that pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist regimes are installed, thanks to Barack Obama, in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, the oppression of women and non-Muslims is certain to escalate in those countries. They are also certain only to grow in their anti-Americanism, and may try to unite in an attempt to restore the caliphate, which will only bring more bloodshed and strife to the region. And since the caliph is the only one authorized (and required) in Islamic law to wage offensive jihad against Infidels, if they succeed in choosing one, the result will not be happy for America and the West.
“Nor is it likely to be for Israel. Many elements within the new Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt have already signaled their readiness to jettison the Camp David Accords and start another war with Israel. ”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/what-we-have-to-look-forward-to.html
It appears that three outspoken anti Islamists have been defeated: Joe Walsh, Allen West and Bachmann. Were they targeted?
Yes.
At the moment it looks like a narrow win for Bachmann.
Mr Vance wanted her as GOP pres candidate.
This is OT, I’m afraid, but I don’t apologise for it.
Yesterday a regular contributor to this site posted a link to UK Enrichment News (“Keeping You Informed of the Benefits of Multiculturalism”). This is a white supremacist site, one of several websites edited by an individual calling himself Green Arrow. His articles are ultra-nationalist, and full of anti-Semitic bile (he defends Golden Dawn on the grounds that they are defending their ‘Zionist raped land’ – more here: http://bit.ly/YX6j5S)
The front page of UK Enrichment News links to British Resistance (a site edited by the same individual), an extremist nationalist site whose pages blame Zionists and racial minorities for the ills of this country, and hosts articles about eugenics.
I pointed this out in two separate threads to see what would happen. To my amazement, only one person agreed with me. The rest wrote personal attacks. Alan’s response began fatuously (‘The Left are famously supporters of eugenics.’) before showing his true colours: (‘Labour wants to encourage ‘interbreeding’ so we have a lovely lightbrown population….and very few whites….’) I’m not a Labour supporter, but this is not just bollocks, it’s dangerous, offensive bollocks.
Had it been an occasional poster, or a ‘troll’, then I wouldn’t have bothered pointing it out. But it’s somebody who’s on this site day in, day out. So far, Arthur Strebe-Grebling’s original post linking to UK Enrichment News has mustered 36 ‘likes’. If this is any indication of the views held by regular visitors to this site, it’s damning. Several times in recent days, posters have talked about the increasing traffic to the site, and its supposed influence. But do you wonder why BBC staff have stopped posting, why Telegraph and Daily Mail journalists never contribute or mention it? Let me tell you. It’s because there’s a nasty sulphurous smell of bigotry coming from it, because it’s become a forum for the prejudiced and the extreme This is not a site my UKIP-supporting friend next door feels comfortable visiting, but I bet the nasty racist old lady at the end of the road would be at home.
Anyway, that’s it, I’m done. If only a few new visitors to this site read this post, it will have been worthwhile. They’ll know who they’re dealing with.
you’re turning into a right spammer
it might help you to know that one of your fellow lefties who drops in here to spam posted links to neo nazi/ white supremacist groups in his defence of israel bashing
how’s that for high jinks billy boy?
“in his defence of israel bashing”
Erm, No. I was showing how what was written about “Jews” on Nazi groups was identical to what was being written about Muslims on this site (or “Mudslime Sand-niggers” as you so charmingly described them).
You are a liar and a fool.
“Personal attacks”…I called you a fool for pointing anyone and everyone on several threads to a link that otherwise some/most/many would never have paid attention to! I was wrong, you are far, far worse than a fool. Also you are a spammer and so deserve all the “personal attacks” that you get. You’re like a shrill, pompous, holier-than-thou turd that sees something they on’t like but just HAS to shriek it to the world. Fuck off.
succinctly put ,my learned friend 🙂
Though I may have been a bit harsh on the little twit but maybe not 🙂
Strebe Grebling’s post giving the link is the very first one on the ‘Intellectual classes have abandoned public service thread’. he link follows the words:
“The UK has obviously been enriched by unfettered immigration. Some of the benefits are shown here. “[the link in the highlightedword ‘here’]
Anyone clicking on it, would, at a glance, simply see a screen taken up by a single story headed ‘family of Kenyan benefit swindlers rip Britain off at least 4million’ I’d imagine the average blog reader would have taken in a few details of a fairly brief article and not given the rest of the page a second glance – clicking the ‘like’ button because they simply thought that foreigners entering the country and then ripping off the benefits system is an extremely disturbing thought and something which apparently does occur and can involve large amounts of money; perhaps this is what Strebe Grebing did when he originally posted the link, possibly having chanced on the page through google. To accuse large numbers of readers of this blog of being closet BNP supporters as a result, is being a bit hysterical and histrionic, to say the least. But that is not the real issue. It’s obvious you cried eureka and practically creamed your jeans when you found a link to a ridiculously dodgy site here: people naturally reacted defensively to your scarcely concealed glee. Your real purpose is, almost certainly, to discredit this blog to further some agenda of your own.
Funnily enough, the article S.G. linked to, was taken from the Daily Mail,originally, including the pictures:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223272/Ugandan-family-created-100-children-claimed-suffer-HIV-4million-benefit-fraud.html
“They’ll know who they’re dealing with”
Is that the best you can do? Really, in all honesty, is that the best you can do? Anybody who criticizes the BBC is a Fascist?
Fingers crossed Chris Patten sees that one and decides to run it up the flagpole too.
Funny, I can just hear Naughtie saying it now ‘….and the Biased BBC, which is known to have connections with white supremacist websites….’
You’re like a shrill, pompous, holier-than-thou turd that sees something they on’t like but just HAS to shriek it to the world. Fuck off.
Fine, but after that post don’t ever try to pull up anyone else for ad hominems. Time and time again you lot resort to personal attacks. What is sauce for the goose …
What you and others on this site want is the right to post any offensive, racist, homophobic bile and not be called on it. Well no.
When someone does pull you up you all run around like your hair is on fire whinging that someone is trying to “deny you the right of free speech”.
No they are not. No one is saying you can’t post this stuff. What they are saying is you don’t get a free pass.
In the same way you have the right to post this stuff, other people have the right not to agree with you, to challenge you, to point it out, and to disagree with it. They have a right to draw attention to foul comments, to racism, to bigotry.
0.o …. Here`s Nicked emus …. complete with a slightly differing viewpoint regarding the rights and freedoms of forum posting on teh internetz … Here you go mate, instead of wasting your prose on here why not fill out the form below
Sorry but what age are you? “Butthurt” automatically precludes you from grown up debate.
Cleo ………….
Oh you got me there. Fair play. Brilliant. Wow.
“people have the right not to agree with you”
You? Them? Us? It is the group thinking of somebody who has nothing to say.
Nicked, I am very rarely rude in such a personal way (I am often rude to ‘the Left’) but am perfectly happy to all and any sort posting…HOWEVER, Will had posted the same thing on 3 or 4 threads yesterday and what do we get this morning?…a whole epistle ranting about the same thing. His place (and he was right to highlight it if he was so upset) was the thread and post in question, not several other threads when his comments were off topic and irrelevant. If you want to use that as an excuse for petty bickering then you are as much a fool as him.
Your idea of racism, Nick, is anyone objecting to mass immigration and the separatism encouraged by multiculturalism.
Your idea of bigotry is anyone disagreeing with gay marriage.
Am I right?
Thanks for letting me know what my views are.
No.
Have you done common purpose?
Earls is a common purpose nutter. He’s genuine.
Good, now we’re getting somewhere.
PS It was a question. As in the ‘?’
“…nasty racist old lady…”
Black, Pakistani, White, Yellow…?
Or is it your projection that only Whites are racist? If so, maybe you need to read more than NUJ-filtered propaganda?
“…I’m not a Labour supporter…”
Even further to the Left?
He is being extremely ageist and sexist. I never read the item he mentions over and over and over again but he thinks we all support it, whatever it really is.
He is a spamming, ageist, sexist troll and I would imagine an anti-semitic racist too.
I do wonder if he and his fellow left-wing Beebatrons are the ones who keep liking that link just to get the numbers up, so they can complain about the number of likes.
If the MSM treated all crime equally, the likes of UK Enrichment News wouldn’t be necessary. So far as links are concerned, there are “respectable” organisations with shadier connections than this.
I find your reference to the “the nasty racist old lady” particularly interesting. My grandparents lived in Bradford their entire lives but, towards the end, found themselves in a totally alien environment that they had never asked for. They were working class, in some of the first neighbourhoods to have their noses “rubbed in diversity”. People in a similar position who complained were dismissed as nasty old racists, often agressively.
Sorry, but the finger wagging doesn’t work any more.
“…found themselves in a totally alien environment that they had never asked for”
I’m guessing that wasn’t caused by the liberal Left flooding in to be ‘enriched by the diversity’?
I’m not making light of your grandparents’ worrying predicament, but pointing out the hit-and-run holier-than-thou destructive hypocrisy of the Left.
“I’m guessing that wasn’t caused by the liberal Left flooding in to be ‘enriched by the diversity’?”
No, it wasn’t.
It’s worth adding that much of the damage (and I make no apology for calling it that) happened under Conservative rule. The “liberal left”, of course, can include Conservative voting hypocrites – the sort who criticised those awful white Bradford bigots from the security of the Yorkshire Dales.
The only reality a narcissist such as Nicked emus is interested in is his hatred of Christian white middle aged heterosexuals – I could speculate why but I won’t – so the chances of him reflecting (even for a second) on life in Bradford or Oldham is approximately zero.
” the sort who criticised those awful white Bradford bigots from the security of the Yorkshire Dales. ”
Yes, you may well say that. In the past I have commented here that perhaps installing the next wave of madrassas in the cotswolds, or even in Chipping Norton, would begin to modify the behaviour of our ruling elite. However it never gets any likes. Perhaps many readers of the blog live there?
In the end there will be no where else to run away from our multicultural society.
What’s that…..did you say they were building a new super-mosque in Hampstead, with a megadecibel loudspeaker – telling the faithful to slaughter all those same-sex couples on the Heath…?
Four gays bars in Tower Hamlets have had to shut recently because the Muslims have been naughty things to the Homosexuals.
One gay got assaulted by a gang of Muslims and he is now permantly paralyzed.
I wonder why we don’t see this on the BBC?
There were four gay bars in Tower Hamlets in the first place? Really?
I smell bullshit.
Not that anybody expects anything else from Earls Court, of course…
Hmmm fascinating. I have no doubt that you’ve smelled shit, but bull shit? – what an image that conjures. Mind you, some of those bovines are ‘kinda hot’.
‘This is OT, I’m afraid’
It seems Jim & Nicked are cool, so they’ll allow it. You must be unique or something.
‘but I don’t apologise for it.’
Your fear unfounded, as again it has been posted, and no need for apology for your post, though it is a poor apology for one on a free and open blog thread.
‘I pointed this out in two separate threads to see what would happen.
Using actual independent, unmodded blogs to assess anything in group terms, especially via anonymous likes or fatuous proofs of negatives is a route to madness. Hence much is already explained.
‘To my amazement, only one person agreed with me.’
Disappointment can abound in real life.
‘The rest wrote personal attacks.
Some did err on the personal, true, though as a method of securing empathy when that is kind of a feature of uncensored blogs an odd one to try again, especially given the two-way street nature of such things, which do appear to be forgotten by some as it suits.
I’m not a Labour supporter, but this is not just bollocks, it’s dangerous, offensive bollocks.
Entirely your right to say. Maybe even correct if proven. But no one, yet, should be required to agree, or get forced to follow in support no matter what.
‘Had it been an occasional poster, or a ‘troll’, then I wouldn’t have bothered pointing it out. But it’s somebody who’s on this site day in, day out.’
That is rather inconsistent. And an odd precedent. So you are of a view that if a raging ‘ist comes spamming through they should get a pass no matter what, but any exceeding a certain number of ‘offensive’ posts (by your measure) suddenly qualifies for special treatment? Not sure I agree with that, especially given the sudden surge in new-name drive-bys doing just that in service (albeit poorly) of anti-BBBC (as opposed to pro-BBC) whatever it is they are hoping for.
‘If this is any indication of the views held by regular visitors to this site, it’s damning.
I have no indication what views are held or by whom. They are anonymous. The BBC can muster 20,000 on an intranet call. Hence the whole thing is facile.
‘Several times in recent days, posters have talked about the increasing traffic to the site, and its supposed influence.
Nicked? Jim… how would you characterise your ‘talk’.
‘But do you wonder why BBC staff have stopped posting’
Not really. But if it’s under their own names, I’m guessing because they do so as one-trick ponies who suddenly bail to the bunker when getting back no more than they seek to give, and it looks bad at the career review… IF their name crops up as one engaging outside the bubble they have been told often enough not to leave as only it can be controlled.
‘why Telegraph and Daily Mail journalists never contribute or mention it?
Really? OK. Nothing to do with being scoop obsessed ratings hounds if so?
Let me tell you.
So far there has been no stopping you. But, again, unlike the BBC, belief in your own rectitude is no guarantee that it will be inspired in others, or a mandate to see it imposed.
‘This is not a site my UKIP-supporting friend next door feels comfortable visiting..
The ‘some of my best friends are..’ thing… really not worth it. Especially as any reading only have your word on it.
Anyway, that’s it, I’m done.
Thank you for sharing. And leaving only a small wonder as to what ‘done’ may mean. A name change or a deserved R&R break or a full flounce or an ‘ish-version simply to another thread?
‘They’ll know who they’re dealing with.’
Given the choice, and the ability to read all views, by making their own minds up, yes.
Not what you are advocating, though.
Well done. William Tell was properly fisked there, you placed the apple firmly on his head and your bolt scored a direct hit.
“…a route to madness. Hence much is already explained.”
Really very good!
So, anyway, how does this work?
Some random guy drops in a link of which you disapprove and everyone here is expected to rend their clothes and wear sackcloth and ashes, but Beeboids who chance across one of their ‘stars’ molesting kids can’t be expected to report it because, hey, that was just the way it was back then, right?
I’m thinking that’s kind of where the bar is. Absent DV and the rest deciding to dedicate a tribute thread to this guy, they’re still short of the BBC’s support of SERIAL CHILD MOLESTER Jimmy Saville.
Plus in so far as they haven’t deleted your comment, they’re doing better than the BBC did with the Newsnight investigation too.
And one more thing: the ‘some of my best friends’ gambit was officially retired from active service back in 1978.
‘Some random guy drops in a link of which you disapprove and everyone here is expected to rend their clothes and wear sackcloth and ashes, but Beeboids who chance across one of their ‘stars’ molesting kids can’t be expected to report it because, hey, that was just the way it was back then, right?
Seems to be what some are saying.
Drs. ScezandymanusChloeTellGrocer from Oslo… care to stake a claim on this interesting variable standard advocacy?
I followed the link, quickly assessed what the website was about (impotent rants driven by hatred of anybody non-white) and exited.
But my actions were sufficient for me to be condemned as a racist bigot by a hysterical troll.
Charming.
“The rest wrote personal attacks. ”
No, the “rest” did not. Some did, partly because you were starting to come over as the pub bore who gets louder and louder because no-one is paying attention to him.
The post was possibly ill-advised. As I posted, I don’t go out of my way to be offended so haven’t followed the link. So I have no idea whether it is and am not going to comment on it. The possible reasons for its posting and the “likes” have been explained to you. Another possible reason for the “likes” is just to annoy you. You have chosen not to listen to these arguments. Which is your prerogative. But don’t bother coming down with the vapours when people point out that your continued table-thumping is becoming tiresome.
I can’t help wondering how permanent your flounce is. There have been many flouncers who just can’t resist coming back to make themselves the centre of attention again.
A sort of ‘flounce-bounce’.
Willy, are there no UAF rallies you could be attending instead of spouting your leftist shite on here? If you don’t like it you don’t have to read or contribute to it, and, believe me, we won’t lose any sleep if sheeple from the MSM don’t post on here either!
“Romney was a decent and serious opponent, whatever the BBC would have us believe.”
By Jake Wallis Simons
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100188330/?
And now back to BBC bias . . Well not actually bias but failure (which is IMHO motivated by bias) to deliver basic information.
I turned on my radio at about 7:30 this morning and heard the fag-end of the sports news. Then the smiling faces (the only thing you can actually “see” on radio – or over the phone as it happens) announced Barry’s win. This was predictable and unsurprising. However, what was delivered at that point – and for the next 3/4 of an hour – wasn’t a rounded picture of the US elections. AFAIAA it was fully 7 minutes into the 8:00 news when it was disclosed that the Republicans had held on to the House of Reps: surely a vital aspect of what happened yesterday.
The BBC, in its delirium over Barry’s win, apparently sidelined a significant part of the news: it’s rather – and this is a stretch since the US and UK constitutions are completely different – as if PBS had announced to an adoring US public that Gordon Brown was still PM and then said an hour later, as a trivial afterthought, that the Conservatives had won a majority of seats in the Commons. Of course such an analogy is far from exact but conveys the gaping hole in the BBC’s coverage.
To be fair, the House result was alluded to later in the programme but it was treated as an interesting but, in the face of Barry’s triumph, irritating fact of life: no more. However, such an outcome (in a US not yet ruled completely by presidential fiat) is quite stunning since, in the end, the House holds the nation’s purse-strings.
Again, and although I understand the relief and triumph in the Today studio, in an editorial failure to prevent the BBC’s spectacular gorging on the night’s triumph, we had Today broadcasting, what, 5 minutes of the Obama
string of meaningless platitudesacceptance speech. Sure, the re-election of Obama is an important piece of news but to devote a significant part of the BBC’s flagship news programme to a speech delivered to and meaningful only for a US audience is patently OTT.interesting to see the Left’s take on various elections.
Michele Bachman winning by 1% – “squeaked through”
Boris Johnson winning by 8.6% – “a narrow victory”
vs.
Francois Hollande winning by 2.1% – “a resounding win”
Barack Obama by less than 2% as it stands – “a decisive victory”
Perhaps these figures may give context:
This year, Obama had 60,193,076 or 50.4% to 57,468,587 of the popular vote over Romney.
In 2008 Obama/Biden topped McCain/Palin in the popular vote 69 million to 59 million. (Obama down 9 million, Romney down 2 million)
For the record, in 2004 Bush/Cheney defeated Kerry/Edwards in the popular vote 62 million to 59 million.
In 2000, Gore/Lieberman won the popular vote over Bush/Cheney 50.9 million to 50.4 million
“a decisive victory”
And on a low turnout:
The Commentator
I wasn’t aware of the low turnout – interesting considering how both sides went bonkers trying to chivvy people to the polls. A defiant refusal to vote then.
‘I wasn’t aware of the low turnout’
Possibly, in analysis, or narrative terms, it didn’t suit many media to address this?
The drift of the Commentator article was that turnouts are always extremely low, by our standards, for presidential elections and have been since the year dot.
My favourite comment of the entire campaign was a moment of rare honesty from the GOP:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told the Washington Post.
Mr Graham sounds like he would fit in just fine around here; the redoubt of old, angry, straight, far-right white guys.
“…old, angry, straight, far-right white guys.”
Just out of curiosity, are you out to silence and exterminate people who have all those qualities, or people who have any of those qualities?
Or are you so confused by a Nu Liebore ‘education’ that you don’t realise how bigoted you are?
Are you out to silence and exterminate people
What an incredibly stupid question, even by the standards of this site.
Here is the good part. They all die out naturally. History is a liberalising force. You lot are on the wrong side of it — it sucks to be you.
Ah! So that’s the Nu Liebore ‘education’ then.
I have a pretty good rule of thumb that has never let me down. Anyone who says “Nu Liebore”, “Tony Bliar”, “ZaNu LieBore” etc etc can usually be safely ignored as they have nothing original to contribute.
Off you trot DP, I am sure you have something insightful to post on The Daily Mail.
And I have a similar rule about people who post ‘Camoron’
Yes. And ‘neo-con’ leftard, cultural Marxist. All lazy and glib. The worst is the use of liberal as an insult!
These rules, of which you seem to have many and are very keen on? Do they include signing off ‘Run along now’ as the optimal way of showing how keen to engage you are? Or just bringing Daily Mail readers in as a tired association at any opportunity to play to the… non ‘you lot’ crowd?
I hope I have, as always, avoided anything that may be seen as too robust for those of a vapour-fit sensibility. Which some may feel such as this could be, even if conceding a level of fatigue and emotion post overseas assignment…
Nicked emus says:
October 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm
You just vomit up any old unsubstantiated crap, you don’t have to bother with facts, sources, analysis, reasoning, balance, integrity; none of that is required. Just bash out what ever the voices tell you.
That would never do. And as we are surely keen to avoid anarchy, the hall monitors especially must of all people be seen to abide by their own rules…
‘don’t ever try to pull up anyone else for ad hominems
As I have you on the line, remember this?
‘Nicked emus says:
June 18, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Some one posts a reply suggesting racist gang rape and three people “like” it? What sort of site is this?’
Seems.. familiar. And what were the responses then I wonder?
Yes! ‘Munching’ ‘ cronies’ ditto
‘Yes! ‘Munching’ ‘ cronies’ ditto’
Prole’s good at code-breaking… well, reading… well.. hearing about them.
Any chance of cracking this one?
Losing your sense of humour, Nick? Thought you only came on here for a larf?
Lighten up kid.
You keep claiming this one, as I pointed out to you the other day, it is irrelevant if all the left-wing media have the same message if thast message is wrong and wrong-headed. All the media in Germany in the 1930s supported the policies of the Nazi Party and their attitude to Jewry. You obviously believe they must have been right then. That makes you a nazi supporter.
Eventually truth will overpower this disgusting left-wing establishment and decency will return. But we realise it will be a struggle before Beebatrons like yourself will be able to distinguish truth and decency from left-wing rhetoric, hate and bile.
You obviously believe they must have been right then. That makes you a nazi supporter.
Congratulations on producing the stupidest piece of “thinking” I have read in a long time.
As for your Nazi analogy. Have a sit down and a think and come back to me when you see the huge hole in your argument.
Run along now.
Smug, patronising brainwash victim.
The great irony as usual with you adolescents is that you think you are being clever and thinking for yourself, when in reality all you opinions have been poured into your head by the others.
thinking – – nicked emus, ?
an oxymoron surely
Nicked emus …………. `The answer to the question that nobody asked`
No hole in MY argument. You must try better.
Furthermore if you keep trying that “All the left-wing media are in agreement so we must be right” crap, I will always respond by asking you if you still support the nazis use of gas chambers.
I am sure you will. The absurdity of your argument is clearly lost on you, but I am sure in your own head it is a killer.
I didn’t say “All the left-wing media are in agreement”, what I said was that history is a liberalising force. By contrast conservatism, by its nature, attempts to stop the progress of history. Good luck with that.
What countless recent elections have shown us is typically that politics is won by those in the centre, not the nutty fringe. The (UK) Conservative Party knows it, the Republican Party has found out. Hollande is proving to be the disaster that everyone said he would be.
Now I suspect that at the next election UKIP will do pretty well, but it will be a flash in the pan, a UK Tea Party moment, a dying gasp by an angry, embittered, aging right wing that is unable to understand the world around it and desperately clings to the flag.
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
John Stuart Mill
“history is a liberalising force. By contrast conservatism, by its nature, attempts to stop the progress of history.”
It depends does it not on what the conservatives are attempting to conserve, and what the progressives are attempting to put in its place. Speaking for myself I am rather grateful that conservatives defeated progressives in the Cold War.
You’ve touted that historical canard before. It still remains pathetic. If the “conservatives” are more stupid, explain the following: You lefties are generally unable to think for yourselves so you all have the same pre-programmed lines, just like the Beebatrons you are. Also, it is an accepted fact that people tend to develop wisdom with experience, which is why intelligent people tend to become more conservative as they get older. Quoting a long dead philospher as an example of how modern thought works is a tad eccentric don’t youthink? (Of course you don’t you’re a Beebotron. Thinking is for the ones pressing your buttons.)
Well, there goes any pretence at having had an education, Nicked.
That’s not even the Whigg view of history (flawed though that is). It’s just a barking Left caricature of it.
Good to see the intellectual offspring of Tony Crosland are as intellectually benighted as we ‘stupid’ conservatives predicted you would be!
It depends on your time scale.
A person in Rome in 44BC may well have opposed current trends.
An inhabitant of the eastern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean in 650AD may have thought similarly.
In 1920, many may have been concerned, and may have opposed the trend in European politics – being fearful of a brave new world.
Some people today are more than concerned by the increasingly authoritarian nature of government.
BBC seems to support this authoritarian big state trend and, with the aid of its near monopoly, to skew the debate in this direction.
This site helps to point that out.
I’d point out how it’s always ostentatiously ‘non-judgemental’ liberals rather than the nasty right that fantasies about whole demographics being swept away as though by a purifying wind, but even that’s outweighed by the other weirdness here.
If the inevitable forces of history are combining to sweep aside the right, how come the left is so obsessed with loading the dice via devices such as speech codes, quotas and…. something else….oh yeah, I remember: a massive coercion broadcaster?
At what point in the inevitable ascension of liberals to world domination are they going to start paying for their own rubbish?
Fascinating. The Whig Interpretation of History rewritten for the liberal age. With Nick at the summit of human progress! The modish Beeboid who moves in circles in which
“each new school believes itself immortal
Just like the horse that pulls the knacker’s cart.” (Orwell)
Civilisations have on occasions declined, you know, old cock.
Yes, but the Democrats admitted that they played the race card continuously to get such a high percentage of black Americans to all vote for a particular candidate due to his race.
The same % voted for Kerry
Dandy, Where’s your proof?
Not true. There are various sources of data but they give broadly similar figures.
In 2004, 88% of black/ African-Americans voted for Kerry and 11% for Bush.
In 2008, 95% of black/ African-Americans voted for Obama and 4% for McCain.
Also, tellingly, in 2004, 37% of white men and 44% of white women voted for Kerry and 62% of white men and 57% of white women voted for Bush.
In 2008, 41% of white men and 46% of white women voted for Obama and 57% of white men and 53% of white women voted for McCain.
It is easy to see who the real racists are.
You’re right. I’d read somewhere %s were the same, but I think your data are right. Still a very high democrat African American vote for the Dems though even where the candidate is white.
And a higher white vote for Obama than for Kerry, despite the ‘racist’ comments.
I just feel Obama ended up lost with no fire in the last precidency.
In other words, it was image over substance……
If that was the case, it begs the question where does he go from here…..?.
Only further to the Left. He has nothing to lose now, more “flexibility”, and a rejuvenated and newly empowered mainstream media to support His every move. Plus, any criticism of Him from now on will be treated, like Jim Dandy and Nicked emus are doing here, as sour grapes.
The looming Congressional investigation into Benghazi is only going to help that Narrative, and the Republican-led House trying to keep us from going off the fiscal cliff will be met with more autocratic ruling by fiat.
Why are all my shares highlighted in red today?
Just wondering.
And the dollar dropped as well. Who could have imagined?
Well, at least it has teased one Editor into what may have seemed safe ground..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2012/11/election_night.html
So far, so disabused.
I predict a closing.
Bob’s posed a question..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20208174
And then tells us stuff…
‘I would just make a few bloomin’ obvious points’
Not sure if these matter to him, us, the US or…
So the Treasury is hoping that a reinvigorated President Obama will somehow persuade a House of Representatives – whose Republican majority has been enlarged – to over-ride the prescribed $600bn of tax increases and spending cuts, due to be implemented on 1 January, with a gentler fiscal consolidation package.”
Is Peston out of his mind? The only reason the President would try to convince the nasty Republicans to over-ride the oncoming automatic spending cuts is to get them to increase spending on everything except the military, and especially to raise taxes (a BBC favorite). Swinging :O automatic cuts to the Defense Dept. is one of the main reasons Republicans are not happy about that silly budget agreement. And it doesn’t really get harsh right away anyway, but is rather spread out over 10 years. Due to other factors, the whole thing doesn’t actually save money at all – ends up being a wash. No tax increases in there, either. Hands up, anyone who thinks the Republican-led House will be voting to raise taxes. I’ve got some great ocean-front property to sell you on the New Jersey south shore.
Peston needs to stick with writing books about how awesome Gordon Brown is.
Having said that, a diminished US economy and plummeting dollar would only benefit the UK and make it even more of a “safe haven”. Bonus: we’d get to see “Two Eds” Flanders all nauseated again.
Oh, Nick’s chipping in too..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20235270
Though I think they may need to bus in the guys on duty here on the most liked front…
51. PhilSpace
6. Get the BBC on your side, and supporting you at every opportunity.
‘One senior Labour figure told me he feared that the Tories would learn this lesson.’ Only those nasty Tories would run a negative campaign hey Nick? Not Labour of course.
Then, once order is restored, close it PDQ.
Ms. Flanders has only just got going..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20239114
Don’t know if this is a good sign..
’17. elysianfields
Error in paragraph 6?
Odd that “Two Eds” considers only what the continuation of our current fiscal policies would do to the Eurozone, rather than how it would affect Britain.
And I enjoyed the nice little dig at Republican Reps. at the end.
Obama’s second term is where the SHTF.
America is heading for a disaster that will make the Great Depression seen like a picnic.
The Fed’s hundred year charter comes up for renewal next year.
January 2013 is when America starts falling off the fiscal cliff.
Obama has fast and furious to deal with.
Where he was born etc
Let the fun begin.
I just can’t wait for another four years of the BBC telling us that the poor economy is not the President’s fault, He was dealt a bad hand and it takes eight years to fix, while at the same time telling you that the British economy is Cameron’s fault.
I`ve been very surprised at the venom aimed at anybody like me who preferred Romney to Obama.
The left liberal elite don`t seem to go in for free speech and the right to row any more. They`re so unused to meeting people outside their cosy circles, that all they can do is reflex abuse by way of argument.
Witness some of our gadflies above….happy to leech off the site, and offer no forum of their own for us to tell them why they`re wasting our time. If I want to hear their tropes, I go to the source itself-the BBC ,and its beachball; the Guardian.
I reckon the Americans will rue the day they let the lefty elite in to win, but America is a big, free and full democracy that knows its own mind…and we popinjays over here have nothing to add if we don`t live there or have a vote.
Be good to shut up now and watch for Iran and Israel…and if the Republicans don`t get their historic landslide in 2016, I`ll be surprised…even if they put Nelly the elephant up as a candidate(let alone the wonderful Sarah Palin!).
God Bless America-let`s hope that they know what they`re doing!
30 States will be trying to gird themselves against the coming disaster. Of course, that will mean nothing to the BBC or our defenders of the indefensible.
Things have to worse before they get better.
The SHTF during Obama’s second term.
This should hopefully wiped out the left/liberal establishment.
“Fox News exit poll summary: Obama’s key groups made the difference”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/fox-news-exit-poll-summary/
Obama’s victory speech promised another dose of Hope and Change.
It was supposedly Albert Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Problem is, He expects the same results, and so does the BBC.
The Left’s (inc BBC-Democrat’s) Obama deconstructed.
“’2016: OBAMA’ FILMMAKER TELLS BECK ABOUT THE ‘ROOTS’ OF OBAMA’S ANTI-COLONIALISM”
(July, 2012).
(scroll down for two video clips)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016-obama-filmmaker-tells-beck-about-the-roots-of-obamas-anti-colonialism/
Now that Obama has won, the PM programme seems happy to dance on thr grave of the bumbling plutocrat Romney for his failed campaign….which was not what they were saying only 24 hours ago.
Still the BBC has the right to change its mind, and the fears that the USA might turf out their golden boy, has got the BBC in full scathing scorn mode….nutjobs on the right won`t celebrate the diverse coalition of nice people who take drugs, go gay and then cross the borders illegally.
According to the BBC, it`s the Republicans lack of “embracing the diversity of the new liberal constituency” that has led it to its heavy(eh?) defeat.
Hope that all these gloats and liberal commentaries will be stuffed back down the throats of the BBC when the luscious Sarah has her landslide victory in 2016.
The BBC are either gloating over the body, or cringing in fear at any shadow made by the same body when it was upright. Their slants and contempt for the mass of people who hate their biased presumptions will be back to bite them once again…very soon.
As we were told last night by Katty Kay, Romney is too rich to connect with the public. End of.
She might have been right, but what a pity she didn’t add that Obama connects with the lowest common denominator – jealous, parasitical, useless types – whilst soliciting contributions from people as rich as Romney.
As one columnist put it recently – there just aren’t enough rich people to pay for what the government wants to spend.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have.”
This afternoon Richard Bacon – who had spent last night at the University of South Florida to give an ‘unbiased’ view, surrounded by young, non-white Hopey-Changey students – introduced a Radio 5 discussion with ‘the Republicans have won only two of the last six Presidential elections …’.
How about ‘the Republicans have won five of the last nine Presidential elections …’ or ‘the Republicans have won seven of the last twelve Presidential elections …’?
This year’s coverage was bad but mercifully not as awful as last time, when Dimbleby managed to be bored, badly informed AND partisan.
The little I saw I can agree with this summing up. last time was embarrassingly OTT.
It thought Dimbleby was much more partisan for the MEP elections than he was for the US elections in 2008. He was ripping into the BNP guy, among other things.
I believe Osama was re-elected through divine intervention. It is he who will inherit the wrath put upon this country soon, he will be at the helm and he will be held accountable. All the money, all the lies, all the manipulation will do him no good. He can not hide when the ones who he has enabled come for his flesh after they find their empty mail boxes.
God allows us to exercise free will however he will not cover for our atrocities and the consequences of our behavior. I pity those who have created this needy and ignorant society, they will pay with their very souls. They can not enter heaven since they have already sold out to the devil. To some this seems like a victory but to others, it is an end of decency and humanity. Prepare now because this is the beginning of the real end.
This what happens to 52% of unborn black babies in America.
Obama supports the genocide of his own people.
God will not be kind to Obama because of this.
You definitely are a false flag Mr. Court. I’ve called you on it before but no-one would be this religiously extreme. You are really a lefty masquerading as a Southern Bible Basher, imagining that is how those on the right of centre believe.
I’ve had you sussed from the beginning, and I believe you have cleverly convinced some people from both sides. I’m bored with your game now.
I bet you he’s genuine
I think he is genuine. It’s too bad he hasn’t made a single contribution to highlighting BBC bias.
I am genuine I just believe there is a higher purpose to life than what the BBC believes.
Well, that’s a no-brainer, no matter what any of us believe.
Demon: I have to say the same thought has occurred to me. But then his sheer consistency changed my mind.
Don’t you love the logic. This guy is too far right so he must be a “lefty”. With thinking like this it is no surprise you consider the BBC biased.
You definitely are a false flag Mr. Court
Well, there’s a lot of it about.
Muddy waters suit some, especially those in power.
I am intrigued though as to how all are so sure he’s a he.
But Cleo appears to be, and despite her uncertainty on my gender that I guess is going to have to serve.
You horrible horrible little prick.
I’m not going to bother watching it to see if it has anything to do with BBC bias. I suspect not.
Romney lost the election because of black racism and Latino selfishness and stupidity. How secretly thoroughly embarressing for Obama knowing absolutely full well he’s now twice ridden to victory on the back of blatant as fuck black racism – approaching 95% of all black voters again!
That is real, true, progress for black Americans? ..lol What a humongous joke! The ridiculously obvious elephant in the room for the likes of the bBC’s Panorama to just completely and utterly ignore again, completely UNLIKE what they’d do if Romney would’ve got such a disturbingly high percentage of all white voters voting for him!
Good luck! America. All the best for your future!
America just didn’t heed stuff like the above (plenty more like ’em to be found) and simply hasn’t learnt a bloody thing!
I love America and it is absolutely tragic to see them just bullshitting themselves again, instead of genuinely just voting for the best man for the job.
Just had to switch off the Newsnight Obama wank fest. Absolutely sickening liberal shite going totally unchallenged.
Yep!, i’m seeing exactly what you mean.
Unlike here, where a PM can keep on getting voted in and we try keeping them on their toes and earning their position as leader of the country, the Americans now have a leader with really less incentive to do better and with nothing to lose!
He can SAY “the best is yet to come” and maybe TRY and do better all he likes. He’ll still end up going down as being the first black (no, actually 50/50, but black looking enough for the plonkers) American president, getting remembered for his controversial Obama Care, and as usual with US presidents getting an aircraft carrier and tons of other stuff named after him.
China, Russia, and Iran are also saying the best is yet to come…..
“Hello Obama second term; bye bye Western Civilization”
By James Delingpole .
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100188419/hello-obama-second-term-bye-bye-western-civilization/
Romney would certainly not have been my first choice of GOP candidate. (Or indeed my second, third or fourth…..) He always struck me as being part of the same corporatist problem rather than the authentic, red-meat, free market solution. It wasn’t so much that I was rooting for Romney, last night. More that I was rooting desperately, passionately against Obama whose statist tendencies – and autocratic instincts – are just a great deal more extreme and dangerous.
I see Delingpole has been reading my posts again. 🙂
I wonder if obama will get another Nobel Prize now that he got a second term???
Yeah, the President does need a new one as the first one is kind of covered in blood.
The thing’s a complete farce after the way they couldn’t give it to Obama fast enough after he became President and they just couldn’t spit the truth out that he largely really got the prize on account of his bloody skin colour! And if that wasn’t a joke enough, this year the EU got the prize! Hilarious..
Bloody Nob Prize more like!
If it wasn’t a farce already when they gave it to Arafat and Peres and Shamir, it was a farce when they gave it to Jimmy Carter, and giving it to St. Algore as a consolation prize for having an election “stolen” from him was just extracting the urine.
Giving it to The Obamessiah simply for being Him was just icing on the sh!t cake.
Mardell and BBC-Democrat coterie try to emphasise the differences between Democrat and Republican policies, but as Spencer of ‘Jihadwatch’ argues here, the two parties are similar, especially on foreign and defence policies:-
“Not a dime’s worth of difference”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference-1.html
The only real differences between the Republican establishment and the Democrats is that the Republican establishment caters to conservative Christians on social issues and Mardell loathes them.