I was watching the BBC News last evening as it was in full Obama cheer-leading mode. One of the things that struck me was that the BBC instantly played the race card, showing images going back to the 1950’s of the discrimination faced by coloured people then. This was followed by images showing the rise of the Civil Rights movement. In the BBC mind, if Martin Luther King was John the Baptist, a President Obama would be Jesus Christ. It’s all about race and the enlightenment of (at least some) American people, or so the BBC would have you believe . However when the hated George W Bush promoted both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice to the very senior position of Secretary of State, I don’t seem to recall similar BBC euphoria. Then the skin colour did not matter so much. I read somewhere that people should not vote for Obama because of his skin. I fully agree. Not because it is black (which is neither here nor there for any civilised person) but because it is too thin. Obama reacts badly to any criticism and between now and November you can be certain that the BBC will flay those who point out his many defects. If only Obama was gay then I suspect the BBC would be in 7th heaven. Instead , when he is beaten byMcCain to the horror of the BBC, they will be in hell. Can’t wait.
RACE HUSTLING.
Bookmark the permalink.
Pot-Kettle-Black | 05.06.08 – 7:31 pm |
You obviously know a lot more than me, so I would appreciate some links where you prove that to me, if you could make it more than support for a health service or similar, after all David Cameron supports those.
Well, Obama was has barely been in the Senate long enough to decorate his office, never mind develop much of a voting record on important issues. Nevertheless, he has been identified as having the most Liberal voting record in the Senate.
Rather than my paraphrasing what I’ve heard him say during debates and on the campaign trail (my nasty right-wing nutjob filter will probably distort anything he says), have a look at Obama’s own website:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
Just click on “Issues” and check out any number of the sections in the drop-down menu. If you look at issues like Healthcare, Fiscal, Poverty, or Economy, and you’ll see quite a few policies with heavy socialist leanings. Even in his “Blueprint for Change”, there are elements of Marxist yearnings dressed up as “protect the American worker”. I guess we should just ignore all the Marxism Obama studied in college, since that’s easily dismissed by putting it down to youth and learning.
David Cameron is not a proper Conservative at all, and the only reason he is currently Party leader is because the rest of the Tory leadership are confused and desperate. They decided about three years ago that youth and Green populism was the way to take back No. 10, and that the BBC-indoctrinated masses would understand a toff as Tory leader more than someone like David Davis. Cameron is the poster child, regardless of all the breathless encomiums in The Spectator. Nothing more. He could stand for nationalized mosques for all gay abortionists and a 100% income tax on all corporations, and it would not reflect in any way on what proper Conservatives want.
Peregrine said: “…(many Americans believe that all UK parties are socialist!)…”
Peregrine | 05.06.08 – 3:13 pm |
Name me a significant UK party that has no Socialist leanings please as I’d be interested to know who they are!
I would kindly suggest this hypothetical American is not wrong.
David Preiser,
Yes I would accept ‘liberal’, even ‘social democrat’, but Marxist socialist seems really unlikely.
Though your point about Cameron and the Conservatives being highly questionable whether they are actually ‘conservative’ does seem to stand.
Cameron has sacrificed so much that I expect the Conservatives to sweep in at the next general election but turn out to be nothing of the sort (conservative that is).
GBS
Although I am not familiar with all their policies I am pretty sure that UKIP, very minor as they are, have not a single socialist policy.
As a Tory I am confident that any radical policies we have which we may have have different roots; however, I am aware that there are still mainstream policies left over from Heath’s time that could be considered socialist, but are more likely to be social democrat. The big exception in the UK is health care, no other country has such a state controlled system, even if the state itself is starting to use private health care providers it is still a supply led system.
Of course there is another state supplier that nearly everyone on this site loves, apart from Hillhunt etc who secretly hate it as it is their only source of capatalist exchange vouchers.
‘The real point is the BBC ALWAYS tries ot deflect accusations of bias by pointing the finger as someone else’
Is it so difficult to understand the point Martin?
If you say the BBC has a liberal/left wing bias because it covers a story about a US soldier using the Koran for target practice, doesn’t it follow the same accusation must be true of the Daily Mail because it covered the story? If the same criticims of the Obama coverage are true of the Mail’s coverage, is it too biased? Are you suggesting the Mail has a left wing bias?
Choice of news stories is subjective. It’s very difficult to link bias to the choice of any particular news story.
But One (1)objective measure of the BBC’s coverage is to look at the coverage given by the rest of the ‘msm’ as you like to call it. Even better if you can compare it to the choice of stories chosen by a publication very definately known not to be left leaning.
I know we have our disagreements, and forgive me if I have not explained it very well, but to say ‘we don’t pay for the Daily Mail’ totally misses the point. Its not rocket science Marty. Don’t be defensive, just think about it.
Pleas xcuss mi spelin n grmar, greeen lable wisky is kikin in.
Joel: No one is saying that there are stories the BBC should not cover. The issue is the priority the BBC put on “certain” stories
Take the BBC news tonight. Why did the BBC feel the need to lead with some Tory no mark MEP and his expenses? None of the other major broadcasters made it their main story
Would the BBC have lead with it if it had been a McLiebour MEP?
Again you miss the point. The Daily Mail like other newspapers has to sell copies to survive. They will stick any old story in the papers (including old recycled ones) to get sales.
The BBC is a state funded broadcaster that claims to be the most authorative news service provider in the world. Yet many of its stories are factually incorrect, distortions of the truth or out and out lies.
And we are forced ot pay £3.5 billion a year for that crap?
The Guardian newspaper is left wing, yet often attacks the Government. So what?
The job of the BBC is to report the facts. I don’t want “opinion” from from beeboid with a drug addled pea brain.
BBC rediscovers the ‘T’ word:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7437980.stm
Only when the perpetrator is white! Obviously, no need for ‘nuances’ here.
Joel,
No you miss the point.
Is the daily mail left wing biased or right wing biased about something?
I don’t care I’m not forced to pay for it or read it.
Is the BBC left wing biased about something or right wing biased about something?
It cannot be biased like a newspaper because of its unique position as state broadcaster funded by regressive compulsory poll tax aka licence fee.
Whether its right or left wing I don’t care, its just not allowed to be biased.
very good points.. it is amazing how the bbc has forgotten about Condi Rice’s appointment.
i guess that doesnt fit into the “republicans are racist” meme.
they also forget that Bush wanted to sign an amnesty for illegal Latinos.
and he knows a fair bit of Spanish too..the man simply doesnt have a racist bone in his body.
but of course , that doesnt work out on the standard “hate bush” bbc script…
whereas all i have seen and read about Obama is about someone who is seriously f***ked up about race.. that guy has serious problems – both with himself and with how he relates to people.
NB: Off topic and FAO Pergrine only Do not read if you are not Peregrine.
However, the ethical ideas expressed below (albeit briefly) do touch upon why the BBC will be forever with us.
Peregrine said: “I am aware that there are still mainstream policies left over from Heath’s time that could be considered socialist, but are more likely to be social democrat.”
“Could”? I think “are” is the correct verb here! 😉
However,the issue is more to do with the prevailing ethics of altruism which afflicts our society and the distorted anti-human nature politics which are the consequence.
The politics we are suffering so badly with derives from the accepted ethics of the day. That is why individual rights (reflecting the ethics of egoism in politics) are being so quickly eroded without a whimper. Altruistic ethics leads to socialistc politics (and a never ending gravy train).
“…no other country has such a state controlled system, even if the state itself is starting to use private health care providers it is still a supply led system.”
I’m sure yuou’ll agree that it’s far from a free-market service even when the private sector is involved. Universal health care (& the BBC)is a dead duck of an idea – the evidence is ample; just ignored thanks to the ethical disease called altruism.
As for the BBC, the evidence on this site is sufficient to indicate it should be eradicated from the airwaves with immediate effect. But, the prevailing ethics will ensuire it’s survival.
The gravy train of public sector sevices is the second biggest threat to our futures after religion (notably Islamic terrorists); no tinkering around the edges or appeasing will cure us of their respective risks to our well-being.
However, whilst private religion is rightly a free-will choice, funding the public sector at the point of a gun due to the evil of altruistic ethics (and yes, I did say and mean “evil”) is something I’ll fight against to my dying day!
Do not ask me to live for the sake of another man, and I’ll never ask another man to live for mine.
Best regards,
GBS
“Joel | Homepage | 05.06.08 – 8:29 pm”
if i could choose to pay for the bbc , this blog would not exist.
i’m increasingly finding that i can get my news from biased sources – but i can make my own mind up. for example, i regularly watch Al jazeera to get an arab perspective.. and then i hit the israeli blogs to get the other side of the story.
we no longer need the bbc to bring us the “unbiased” news. we can do it ourselves.
HAY! The BBC Newsnight have another story on the Presient of the USA, Barack Obama.
Did I miss the election then?
Ladies and Gents. Obama has zero experience at anything. I’m American, and I frequent U.K. blogs, because Mom is from Edinburgh. I love Britain, but you too are in dire straits.
Obama has done nothing with his life. He has used race to his advantage in getting admitted to schools and in getting financial aid in education.
Post University, he has done NOTHING. He has only been a national Senator for 3 years, and has been absent whilst running for higher office that entire time.
He is the quintessential EMPTY SUIT.
But he is black and he promised more of the DOLE to each and every group that has it’s hand out and feels disaffected.
It’s scary. Very scary. It’s like he is on a T.V. reality show.
He himself is very racist and his own words in his own books say so.
His Pastor is a RAVING LUNATIC, and his BAG MAN, POLITICO PAL, was just convicted of 16 felonies.
He is suckering liberals who are DESPERATE to ABSOLVE themselves of racism, by voting for a black man.
He is half black. He isn’t half qualified.
Joel. BBC is VERY biased. I’m not an expert on British politics, but even a blind man can see the BBC is completely liberal.
The problem with liberals and the liberal media, is that they can no longer be objective. They are ALL liberal, there are NO dissenting opinions.
In other words, they can no longer smell their own stench.
They’re all used to it.
gharqad tree, I’ve only posted to this board on one previous day, and I noticed your views.
I agree with you.
The ONION, which was founded in my hometown, is funny, but one nuance you missed in the OBAMA LOWEST PAID PRESIDENT, is that OBAMA is indeed lacking in POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, but more to the point. Obama has ZERO EXPERIENCE at ANYTHING.
Obama has ZERO RECORD of any substance.
Obama has ZERO RECORD of any achievement in private life, business or a record of being any sort of leader.
Obama has not met a payroll, he has not been IN CHARGE of anything other than is family, and he has NEVER EVER been in Business or Commerce.
His only attribute is his race.
And that has paid him off in…..(OOOOOOPS) SPADES.
No offense to the lightweight nobody, but Obama has done NOTHING with his life.
You’ve probably got a better track record.
Rob, nice one! Clearly in the BBC, only white racists can be terrorists. Joel, any comment?
“Obama has narrative and charm on his side”
Beg pardon? What ‘narrative’? That he has never done anything of any consequence? (Other than associating with racist scum, of course; and NOT voting against the Iraq war).
NOTHING with his life.
You’ve probably got a better track record.
gus | 06.06.08 – 3:28 am |
Gus – I’m quite prepared to accept every word you say about Obama, but unfortunately my own track record is one of profound waste and enjoyable self-abuse, and long may it continue.
One thing you Obama-haters are all overlooking is the fact that he intends to put in place policies such as “hope” and “change”; why on earth would you object to that manifesto? Heck, if taxes have to rise in order to pay for them, I’d happily shell out. And at least we know exactly what he stands for, he doesn’t just bombard us with facts and figures.
After the “change” has happened, what exactly will we still need the “hope” for? I’d like that spelled out more exactly. Then I’ll support him. I don’t know if the “hope” is just a provisional measure to be discarded once the “change” is firmly in place. I think we should be told.
One of Obama’s phrases the other night was something like “This is the time when the oceans levels begin to fall.” I had a vision of Obama standing like King Canute at the water’s edge and commanding it to fall. I know that the left think he is the messiah but…………
Canute never actually thought that he can command the sea to do ought – that’s a misconception!!!!!!!!!!!!!
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
But Obambi probably does.
GT: I am sure that ‘hope’ is the strategy whereas ‘change’ is the tactics. Or maybe t’other way round.
NOxf – I remain convinced they are concrete strategies. You underestimate Obama. The only way McCain can trump him now is to decide on policies of “happiness” and “attractiveness” for all.
But will he have the guts to do this?
There is still a lot to go wrong for Obama
1. He has to say exactly how he’s going to get out of Iraq without another Vietman style shambles, especially as the violence is on the slope down.
2. Obama still has a lot of unknowns about him. 3 years in the Senate isn’t a long time. There are things that could surface that might seriously dent his chances. Rumour has it that’s why Hillary is not going to throw in the towel, just press the pause button. She’s hoping something might happen that weakens Obama before the crown is given to him by the Dems.
3. Hillary. Call me a cynic, but she does not want him to win. If he wins in Novemeber that’s 8 years she’d have to wait to be President. She’s not going to want that.
I think Hillary will simply sit back and let her underlings dig the dirt on Obama. If McCain wins, he’s probably not going to do 2 terms anyway and she can have another go in 2012.
Not sure where you get 8 years from. Why can’t Obama – shudder – win now and lose next time round?
Nearly Oxfordian | 06.06.08 – 9:18 pm |
Not sure where you get 8 years from. Why can’t Obama – shudder – win now and lose next time round?
It’s practically unheard of for the incumbent not be the candidate next time round, certainly in modern times. Unless Obama gets impeached and convicted or, as Hillary suggested, assassinated, he will automatically run again once elected the first time.
So Hillary either has to wait another eight years, or try to run against an incumbent McCain in four. Unless Obama wins but gets murdered, in which case she might be able to take the candidacy away from whoever was VP and took over. And even then it’s a stretch.
That’s why I have a hard time believing that Obama would pick Hillary as Vice President. He’d have to get a food taster and check under his car more often than a Medici prince who was also a member of the Ulster Constabulary.
NO: Yep what I mean is if Obama wins in November he will (as DP points out) be the nominee next time around.
That menas she’d have to wait 8 years for another go.
“as Hillary suggested, assassinated”
In my last post, I tried very hard and managed not to mention this possibility, much as I wanted to 😉
One small thing has been worrying me all the way through this Obama business.
If his Mother was white and his Father was black,why is he always referred to as a black person?
Can someone please tell me why.
Because black trumps white.
However, in the old South Africa mixed-race people resulting from the union of black and white were called ‘coloured’ – different, I believe, from the American use of the term. The term ‘coloured’ has persisted even in the hyper-sensitive New South Africa, where you are considered worse than a mass-murderer if, for example, you use a negative old South African term for ‘black’.
Senator Obama refers to himself as black.
He’s a member of America’s Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.
What would the beed do if there was a black Republican candidate against a white Democrat.
Would it be like an old star trek episode where Kirk tricks the evil computer into blowing itself up.
The BBC wouldn’t know what to do. Hell, it would probably get itself into such a state that it would end up reporting impartially for the first time ever on an election.
Get that pompous little prat Joel: ‘Senator’ Obama refers to himself …
I didn’t mean to sound pompous, it was actually a cut and paste job.