.
Well, there’s no escaping the fact that Obama is to be sworn in today as 44th President of the United States and as you can see here, the BBC are worshipping at his feet. What a contrast with those occasions when a Republican was sworn into office! It appears in BBC parlance that only a Democrat can “unite” the nation (and planet) whereas Republicans only divide. I caught Justin Webb on Today earlier – revolting Obama sycophancy. I caught an item alleging how the US was literally falling apart because of lack of “investment” in infra-structure. It seems that no other President has considered these issues and so it will take The One to make it all right. Let us be be clear; today is one vast left wing love-in, with the BBC spending vast amounts of our money to ensure that they push the virtues of their man now in the White House. The smiling media faces, the sanitised coverage – get used to it – this is how it will be. Objectivity and critical analysis are out the window – fall at his feet and worship.
Hi Jason:
I was just telling how the bread came out. It’s heavy, as I said, but I was breaking it up to make croutons and low! One loaf made 2,566 of the little crunchy buggars, and I’ve got over half the loaf to go!
It’s going to be a long night of making croutons.
I think I’ll refrain from opening anything like a can of sardines.
mikewineliberal | 20.01.09 – 9:31 am |
Look, I know your side lost, but don’t you feel in your bones that this day is a little special?
I’m glad that black people in the US will now be allowed to believe that not all of us are racist and trying to keep them down. That’s good for society at large. Well, US society, anyway.
Which leads me to a question:
What possible difference could it make to your life personally, or to Britain, if a black man is elected President of the US? Why do you feel in your bones that something special is in the air? What could you possibly have invested in such an election result? How does the election of a black man in the US affect your life, and that of the British public?
It’s very, very strange to hear such a quasi-religious statement from a foreigner over such a thing.
OT: Could you please consider changing your alias back to “whitewineliberal”? I know how the “Mike…” thing got started, but it ruins your original point, and I think detracts from what you’re trying to accomplish here. Especially when people start shortening it to just “Mike”.
Abandon Ship! | 20.01.09 – 8:37 am |
It will not always be like this; we know the BBC loves Gordon, but the general public sees through the Beeboid worship easily.
You’re the one who needs to open his eyes this time. Only a small percentage see through it. The majority happily follow along.
Such will be the case for Obama – he cannot be all things to all men for ever, and in a few months the strain will begin to show, even if the BBC spend millions trying to paper over the cracks that appear.
I’m not so sure. Yes, a few of the extreme Leftoids will grumble when he hasn’t closed Gitmo by the weekend and withdrawn all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by Easter, but they won’t put up much of a fuss. They mustn’t rock the President Obamessiah boat, and they know it.
I’m starting to think that we’re about to see four years (at least) of sycophancy not seen since Stalin’s days, or what goes on in North Korea. We’ve got major pundits over here who think their job is to support their President at all costs (sound familiar?). Hollywood and the music industry (two sides of the same coin) have already pledged allegiance to their Dear Leader, as have so many others.
Worse, the BBC has already shown us the way forward with the way they cover Mr. Brown and the British economy: President Obamessiah’s policies make the economy go down the toilet? It was all Bush’s fault anyway! The Leftoids blamed Bush in 2001 for the mini-recession caused by the dot-com and Enron bubble burst – and that was Clinton’s doing. So I don’t expect anything different now.
Terrorist attack on US soil by a few thugs President Obamessiah freed from Gitmo? Bush’s fault for starting the whole thing! They weren’t doing anything before being tortured by Bush and his war criminals! Don’t like a given Obamessiah policy? Why won’t you work with us for the common good? Impure thoughts!
I’m not enthusiastic about what my media and all those suddenly patriotic fellow citizens are about to do. I’m not alone in noticing the very Che Guevara tone of some of them. I’m a student of history, and can see certain patterns forming. And we should all note that the allegiance being sworn is not to the country, but to the man. That alone should give rational people pause.
It’s funny how some people on here are quick to claim that it was Obama who screwed up the oath (when it was Justice Roberts). Shows that many are out to get Obama from the word go.
Remember that the election of Obama (left leaning, pragmatic) is more a reaction to the Bush years than anything else. Poeple got sick of the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush white house, so they decided to give the Dems a chance. And then in 4, or 8 years, it will be back to the Reps. It’s all a cycle.
Bush simply moved too far to the right of most people. America is a conservative nation, but Bush over-reached. Maybe Obama will reach too far the other way. But come on, give him a chance. People reacted hatefully to Bush from the word go in 2000 yes thats true, but thats because of the controversial way in which the election ended.
Also, and this is my final point, a lot of people here strike me as the types who have been moaning about anti-Americanism in the British press (wider world) for years now. So now the world is giving the US a fresh look, you still can’t be happy? The election of Obama (yes, partly cos of his skin colour) shows America’s limitless possibilties to the world. And yet a lot of you on the right can’t rejoice in that? You have to complain still. You were fed up with anti-US press, and now you’re fed up with pro-US press. The election of Obama will make it much harder for people to disguise their anti-Americanism as anti-Bush. Anti-Americanism as it will exist from now on will be exposed for what it is, and for this you should be grateful. There are no longer any excuses for the far left who just hate America full stop.
betyangelo:
“It’s going to be a long night of making croutons.
I think I’ll refrain from opening anything like a can of sardines.”
Yes; let Him provide in His mysterious way.
Can’t wait to see Him start His green diplomatic charm offensive – it’ll be a tour of Europe and the Middle East’s major capitals. On foot, of course.
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 11:17 am |
So now the world is giving the US a fresh look, you still can’t be happy?
we liked the old look better,and dont write opinion as though its fact.
Sean,
Most of the world did not like the old look better, or has the strength of anti-Americanism in the world escaped you? In fact Americans did not like the old look better, hence why they voted the Republicans out and Obama in.
Gus Haynes:
You have lost your way. Americanism is not a country, it the human need for liberty, free thought and speech, prosperity, and private ownership – but mostly, a very small government that does not interfere with citizen’s lives.
Obama is the opposite of all that, and his supporters will now refrain from anti-Americanism as they displayed under Bush, they will be openly socialist instead.
Obama supporters want this country on it’s knees and the will of the people to be American as described above bled out of them through taxation, and handouts. They want socialism to please global opinion, they want to strangle the US economy and refrain our inovative spirit, and Obama has both houses of congress to back him up.
Say goodbye to the people who invented the computer you are typing on.
betyangelo:
you see to misunderstand Obama’s message about responsibility. He talks about people helping themselves, about making things themselves. even ‘conservative’ pundits saw the speech as a call to these values, and many even think that the speech yesterday could have been made by a President of either party.
Obama’s tax plans clearly don’t hurt lower earners, and most will be better off. He is not a socialist, stop buying into the republican propaganda.
The US has had a big government intruding into peoples lives for years – the Bush years have been characterised by big government (new departments eg.Homeland security) federal laws and instructions , about gay marriage for example, and even now government nationalisations of banks and companies. The US is not at place of small government right now. Yes government will grow under Obama, but it is already big as it is.
Gus Haynes:
“Obama’s tax plans clearly don’t hurt lower earners, and most will be better off.”
Earners who earn less than 16,000 a year pay no income tax at all, and in fact get a bonus between 12k and 16k, that makes their anual earnings equal 16k – if they have children. This is created to boost the economic freedom for single parent families.
At my income, which is substantially higher, though we are not rich by any means, Obama maniacs would deem us wealthy, and Obama has promised to tax us to death. His tax plan is meant to tax us to pay for more bonuses to lower income workers. We already pay more than 20k a year in taxes, this is a substantial sum when our earnings are less than 100k.
Taxing hard working people, who have what they have because they have been working for thirty years, in order to “spread the wealth around” to some person who has just entered the work force is called socialism. The purpopse to equalize, but the equalizing is done with MY money, while I still pay taxes, and that worker pays NONE and is paid to remain a lower income worker.
Bush’s growth of government was due to 911, where have you been? Oh, safe.
The growth of the government is the doing of Democrats, pay better attention! This bank fiasco is a democrat baby, not a republican one – Clinton undid many Reaganisms.
We shrank government with a republican congress and prez, limited Clinton with a republican congress and dem prez, now we have the opposite – a democrat prez and congress, and it will become, as you insist I tow that line in this very post, very un-American to critisize Obama, his co-horts, his policy. As you describe, I believe propaganda. Rather than make my own observations. I must be a republican robot to so disagree with the Messiah.
As far as his message about responsibility – anything he had to say about such a foriegn concept to Democrats went out the window with his appointment of crooks, like himself.
Much like his spending of FOUR times the norm on his coronation.
Gus, surely as an adult you recognize words versus actions?
Gus Haynes | 21.01.09 – 2:49 pm | #
“Most of the world did not like the old look better, or has the strength of anti-Americanism in the world escaped you? In fact Americans did not like the old look better, hence why they voted the Republicans out and Obama in.”
I’ve never understood the tendency on the left to use the opinion of “other countries” as a yardstick for judging the value or non-value of America. In case it has escaped your attention, the “world” is largely composed of countries which have no democracy, no concept of human rights, which oppress their citizens horribly and which prohibit the basic freedoms that people need to prosper. Yet the left, for some reason, recoils in horror at the thought of such countries disapproving of America.
To me, when such countries express their hatred of America, given their own standard of morality it’s a sign that, if anything, America is doing something right.
The thought of America changing its ways to please religious fanatics, dictators, barbarians, communists and the like….horrifying! In fact the reason why America acts as it does is because of such countries. Have you ever wondered why capitalist democracies never, ever go to war with each other? Think about that one.
As for anti-Americanism in the West, well that’s overrated. Of course there is the incessant whining of the neosocialists of Europe who suffer from the disease of hating everything that Western culture has done for them (and of course America is the motherlode which bears most of the brunt) but when it comes down to it, the countries of Europe are not stupid enough to forget that America has been largely responsible for keeping the wolves from Europe’s door since the end of WWII. You will also find some of the strongest support for American in the countries of Eastern Europe who know just how evil communism is and who appreciate the role America played in freeing them from it.
As for the Americans who voted for Obama – first of all look at the result of the popular vote (hardly a landslide was it?) and secondly take a good long hard look at the American media which was almost unanimously in the tank for Obama to the point where they completely failed in their responsibility to inform the public so that they could make a rational choice.
Also, for the record, Bush may have had a low approval rating but it certainly wasn’t as low as that of the Democratic Congress.
Well said, Jason.
“you see to misunderstand Obama’s message about responsibility. He talks about people helping themselves, about making things themselves. even ‘conservative’ pundits saw the speech as a call to these values, and many even think that the speech yesterday could have been made by a President of either party.”
An inauguration speech is nothing more than a glitzy piece of verbal fluff written for the event. In no way did his call for people to “help themselves” reflect his ideological record so far in any way whatsoever. Obama may say these things to sound “presidential” but at the end of the day he’s a man firmly entrenched in the language and ideas of the left, a mindset which, outside of inauguration speeches, shuns individualism in every way. Obama was even careful to slam those who think that “selfishness” (which includes, of necessity, the tendency to help ones self) is a virtue during one of his campaign speeches. I’m sorry but someone who quite obviously thinks that the role of the state is to tax the productive in order to provide for the poor does NOT convince me when he says that people should help themselves.
The reason why “pundits” said that his speech could have been made by a member of either party is because such speeches are nearly always composed of non-specific cliches which are supposed to sound grand and inspirational.
“Obama’s tax plans clearly don’t hurt lower earners, and most will be better off. He is not a socialist, stop buying into the republican propaganda.”
Then you clearly know nothing of either Obama’s history, or the subject of economics. Obama is cut from socialist cloth, there is no doubt about that. He was once a member of the New Party of Chicago, a socialist organization. Statements, interviews and speeches that have surfaced from his past prove that he’s no free marketeer.
Tax cuts for low earners most certainly can hurt the poor if they’re not matched by a reduction in spending. Otherwise, they have to be paid for by taxing the less poor at a higher rate. Obama during his campaign expressed a desire for higher tax rates for big business – you know, those evil capitalists who utilize the economies of scale in order to provide mass produced everyday goods at a low price. These low prices account for a huge part of the relative prosperity of even low income earners in capitalist countries – and taxing big business at a higher rate will only lead to higher consumer prices, making everyone poorer and causing unemployment.
Lower taxes for ALL – not just for low earners. Obama himself admitted during his campaign that he thinks that wealth is something which can be “spread around” – i.e. that it’s a finite pie the distribution of which ought to be decided upon by the state. You can call this observation “Republican propaganda” until you’re blue in the face but the fact is that Obama himself said it, not Republicans.
“The US has had a big government intruding into peoples lives for years – the Bush years have been characterised by big government (new departments eg.Homeland security) federal laws and instructions , about gay marriage for example, and even now government nationalisations of banks and companies. The US is not at place of small government right now. Yes government will grow under Obama, but it is already big as it is.”
Ah, the old “we’re already half way to socialism so why not just accept it” argument. No takers here, I’ll wager!
There’s another beer we owe you.
Two more bits of OTT Obamessiah Love from the BBC:
First, a completely pointless piece about – get this – a child born on inauguration day. Is that value for your license fee or what?
More significantly, there’s a report about the suspension of trials for Guantanamo inmates.
Obama plea stops Guantanamo
The military trial of an inmate held at Guantanamo Bay has been suspended after a request by US President Barack Obama.
In one of his first acts as president, Mr Obama asked for a temporary halt to all tribunals to review the process.
The BBC must be overjoyed at this, because those tribunals were all started by the evil Bush Administration. It seems so:
The legal process has been widely criticised because the US military acts as jailer, judge and jury, says the BBC’s Jonathan Beale in Guantanamo.
And in his inaugural address on Tuesday, Mr Obama emphasised the idea of respect for justice and the rights of the individual, rejecting “as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”.
So a blow struck for Freedom and Human Rights! Um….wait a second….what happened to the screaming about how holding these people without trial was a violation of the Constitution and international law, etc.? And now President Obamessiah is postponing all trials for at least another four more months? Doh! Naturally, the BBC sweeps that right under the new rug in the Oval Office.