Just watching Newsnight bigging it up for the Obama = Lincoln spin. Sickening. The nauseating panel invited to discuss this ludicrous notion hadn’t a clue – with Michael Gove being disappointingly weak-kneed.
OBAMA = LINCOLN
Bookmark the permalink.
Did Lincoln try to appoint a bunch of corrupt crooks as well then?
wasn’t old Lincoln used for target practice by some geezer called Booth at the theatre –perhaps it’s not the best omen to compare Obama with a murdered president.
It seems to me that the Tories will say anything they think will be popular with the Beeboids – they seem to be turning into two-faced Lib Dems. If they really are to be taken at face value – then the next election will be pointless.
If they really are to be taken at face value – then the next election will be pointless.
I completely agree. However “EVENTS my boy EVENTS” can and in politics especially always do change EVERYTHING.
The proof of the pudding is in its eating. While at least we will find out where we stand.
Which is far as I can tell.
Is at the bottom of the deepest unused coal mining shaft in darkest Yorkshire.
Did they mention that Lincoln was a Republican? And that the Democrats have been historically the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation? Just asking.
From Lincoln’s debates with Stephen Douglas:
“I am not , nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races…….I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.”
Funny how Obama doesn’t seem to be aware of this, no ?
David, its only sickening for people who made up their minds years ago that they intensely dislike Obama (or any non-Repulican conservative politician for that matter), and therefore oppose anything he says or does. Most people don’t find it sickening at all. Most people aren’t on a crusade like you are.
**********Newsflash**********
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realise How Empty Their Lives are:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive
Yorrick | 14.02.09 – 12:42 am |
Alas poor Yorrick – it is not Obama, it is socialism. I had made my mind up years ago that socialism does not work it always leads to failure. And “modern” socialism is the worst of all worlds
Yorrick – change ‘dislike’ for ‘like’ in your ever-so predictable sentence.
Why not come back when you have an original thought?
Is he still doing the Lincoln schtick, then? Christ, I would have thought it’s painfully obvious by now to even the most starry-eyed disciple the he’s no Abe Lincoln.
I would have thought it’s painfully obvious by now to even the most starry-eyed disciple the he’s no Abe Lincoln.
Sam Duncan | 14.02.09 – 2:03 am
As Emperor Zog (All Hail Zog !) | 14.02.09 – 12:39 am so ably pointed out neither was Abe Lincoln in the beginning.
I wonder what history would have said about old Abe if he had said, “I will not subject the United States to four years of war. I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. If the South want to exercise their rights as states that’s fine with me.”
The American mythology about the Civil War are legion and bound to be bought by Blairlite Obama – a consummate actor with all the managerial experience of a local government, low level official.
Some facts. Lincoln was a Republican, who kept slaves. Robert E Lee was a brave Union officer, who fought relunctantly for the South, who hated slavery. The “North” fought the “South” because the powerful industrial barons of Chicago and New York were being undercut by a no-wage Southern economy and they funded the Union war machine. Southern slavery was in decline for both moral and economic reasons. A no-wage economy created a static economy. The Civil War was all about competing economic juggernauts.
Do the BBC dimwits even know that the American Civil War did not start over slavery ?
Ricky Martin 9:58 has it just about right.
Yorrick 12:42
It is not a question of “disliking” Obama. He seems a nice guy, but he is weak, naive, inexperienced and corrupt as he has already demonstrated in a few long weeks.
I look forward to the BBC “Have your say ” heading:-
” Will Obama be an even more useless President than Carter ? “
Ricky Martin has it about right.
If the beeboids bothered to delve into American intellectual historiography, if they even know what that is, they would understand that saying things in the contexts of the mid 19th century is by no means measurable by today’s norms.
Jefferson, an 18th century man, owned slaves and even had children by a slave woman, must now be read understanding where and when he lived.
The best part of this story is Obama calling Lincoln “bi-partisan”! It must be true that history is lies agreed upon.
Ricky Martin | 14.02.09 – 9:58 am
Some facts. Lincoln was a Republican, who kept slaves.
That just isn’t true, Ricky. (The bit about Abe keeping slaves, not the bit about being a Republican).
John Bosworth | 14.02.09 – 2:17 pm |
Well, Lincoln was the first “bi-partisan” President because there was only one party until 1864.
“The (Republican) party was created in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Their first official party meeting was held on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. Besides opposition to the expansion of slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States — emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers.”
Since both Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams agreed last night I guess I can say Obama’s stimulus bill shows he’s not actually serious about “bi-partisanship”. Yet another buzzword by the Messiah that was uttered when it suited him.
Correction: That should have read 1854!
Never mind why the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression was fought. The only question worth asking here is: Why is Newsnight even bothering with this at all?
I can’t imagine that the British Public give a damn about this any more than they enjoyed the deluge of Democrat Primaries coverage. The Obamessiah is President now. The racial history bit is over. Everything he does now is political, nothing to do with the color of his skin. Unless… perhaps a few people at the BBC might be under the impression that he will somehow govern differently because of his race. But that wouldn’t be racist at all, would it?
Why is the BBC still obsessed with the light shining out of his ass?
Numbers in the News
MATHEMATICIANS DISCOVER LARGEST NUMBER
PALO ALTO, CA – An international mathematics research team announced today that they had discovered a new integer that surpasses any previously known value “by a totally mindblowing shitload.” Project director Yujin Xiao of Stanford University said the theoretical number, dubbed a “stimulus,” could lead to breakthroughs in fields as diverse as astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and Chicago asphalt contracting.
“Unlike previous large numbers like the Googleplex or the Bazillionty, the Stimulus has no static numerical definition,” said Xiao. “It keeps growing and growing, compounding factorially, eating up all zeros in its path. It moves freely across Cartesian dimensions and has the power to make any other number irrational.”
More here..
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/02/numbers-in-the-news.html
Obama is a socialist? Wasn’t it Bush who bailed out the banks, and the companys like Fannie, AIG? Isn’t that a tad socialist? Isn’t socialism about big government? Bush presided over the biggest surge in government reach/spending/size in recent times.
I don’t see you calling Bush a socialist, despite this evidence.
“wasn’t old Lincoln used for target practice by some geezer called Booth at the theatre –perhaps it’s not the best omen to compare Obama with a murdered president.”
I guess this means Cherie’s dad won’t be getting a visa for the USA anytime soon.
It’ll be interesting to see if Obama suspends habeas corpus, as Lincoln did at the start of the Civil War. Would it be too much to then expect to hear calls for Obama’s impeachment from the BBC and other inhabitants of the whacked out left – exactly as they have been screaming at Bush for the past eight years?
Just wondering.
Yorrick,
Fannie/Freddie was kept on life support not by Bush but by Barney Franks and Chris Dodd. Both are Democrats – and Franks chaired the House Finance Committee. The whole boondoggle of sub-prime housing loans was kicked off by Jimmy Carter. Efforts by the Republicans to rein in this doomed lending program were repeatedly voted down by Democrats.
Hope this clarifies your confusion.
John W,
so, the republicans have spent the years since carter trying to stop the lending program? show me the evidence of this please.
Yorick
The evidence has been posted at this site many many times – including the continual blocking by the Dems of attempts to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Like this :
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/figures-dems-blocked-fannie-mae-and.html
Just try googling “Fannie Mae Bill blocked”. It is all there.
Except that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
so, when the Reps controlled Congress in the 90s,and early 00s,they just forgot about it? why didnt they do it then? bush was in his prime 2002 – 2006. he had senate and house majs. he couldve passed any damn thing he wanted, yet he didnt try to limit fannie or freddie. oh, peculiar.
care to respond to that?
Yorrick,
No – he couldn’t just pass anything he wanted! He was blocked time and again by liberal lawmakers (ever heard of them?) who were financed by rich lobbyists (Soros et al) and, ultimately, by the House Finance Committee. Franks and Dodd were at the helm of this shipwreck and who ran the whole caper as their personal fiefdoms. Add to that the fact that Hank Paulson was scared stiff of passing any measures against the-free-for-all out of fear of it “looking political”. There’s the paralysis in a nutshell.
Suggest you do some research on this subject, as this is one real-life Inconvenient Truth that the left does not want published.
I guess this means Cherie’s dad won’t be getting a visa for the USA anytime soon.
In fact Cherie Blair is related through her father to John Wilkes Booth. See:
http://www.genealogytoday.com/uk/columns/westwood/021025.html
Well, Lincoln was the first “bi-partisan” President because there was only one party until 1864.
No, the US had always been multi-party. The Whigs were a major party until the 1850s.
John W,
thats nonsense, pure crap. So when Bush had a congress majority he was hamstrung by those nasty liberals? and yet now obama has a majority, he’s free to do what he wants? a socialist super majority? tosh.
Bush didnt want to deal with home ownership and the like, niether did clinton, nor reagan, nor any of them. they all did the same as gordon did here; allowed a housing bubble to grow, cos they saw no end in sight. they allowed an artifical bubble based on nothing to swell. all these leaders (brown, bush, clinton, tory or lab, dem or rep) are all so happy to go along with completely unregulated capitalism that they thought the market itself was untouchable. this has clearly been proved to be nonsense. don’t blame a specific individual or party – none of them can think beyond ‘the market it our god, bubbles are good, we won’t ever have another crash again’.
Yorrick,
From JohnA’s link above:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
This one’s a beauty. I suggest you cut it out and frame it:
“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”
The markets should be allowed to rule. Delinquent loans should be called in and the real estate auctioned off. Prices will crash and revert to the mean in short order. This is what is needed – not endless bailouts and featherbedding the nests of those that caused the problem in the first place.
Remember Reagan? Yeah that’s the one; out of his posterior the sun shone for Maggie T. Anyway, he solved the economic problems of more unemployed etc. than today by slashing taxes 25%. This fueled a boom over the next quarter century. Obama has indeed not learned from the past and has “screwed up”. As far as British tinkering with interest rates as some kind of magic key, well, it will never work in a high price, high tax, low wage country like ours. So, in an anti-beeboid way –CUT TAXES and stop fueling socialist crap.
The ins and outs of filling in a US tax return mean sod all to the average brit, but the beeb gives us a fascinating article on it
could this just be to put the message over that “its ok to not file your returns like most of obama’s nominees cos its just too hard”.
erm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7888444.stm
Yorrick,
While you’re digesting that rather unpalatable Inconvenient Truth, I’d be interested to hear your views on Obama’s judgement in making Jeffrey Immelt as a member of his economics advisory panel. Yes, that’s right – the very same Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General electric, who who have been busting sanctions by trading (through a European subsidiary) with IRAN in supplying armaments to that renegade nation. This is even more amazing when you consider that, despite enjoying this uninterrupted lucrative trade with the Mad Mullahs, Immelt has somehow managed to preside over the complete trashing of GE’s share price over the past seven and a half years from over $42 to just $11 today. Some economic guru, eh? I guess if you want someone to preside over a crash, Immelt’s your man!
Compared to GE’s stellar performance under its former CEO Jack Welch, this is what you could really call “Change You Can Believe In”