Curious that only a few weeks ago the BBC was pillorying the Republicans for trying to delay Obamacare for a year.
The Republicans have been accused of having Tea Party tantrums, they’ve been compared to people who want to burn the house down, suicide bombers, hostage takers and teenage drivers repeatedly taking a blind curve in the rain.
All these images of blackmail and mayhem come about because their strategy has brought the government to the brink of shutdown. What may happen at midnight on Monday is short of Armageddon, but it is not pretty.
Tea Party-backed members decided it would be a great idea to couple the vote to pay the government’s bills with one to gut President Obama’s healthcare legislation. Now it is linked to a similar idea that would delay “Obamacare” for a year.
They hoped that the Democrats would either blink or get the blame. It has never looked like a winning strategy.
Maybe they lost the battle…but could they win the war?
Now Mark Mardell tells us that:
‘Obamacare’ is in trouble – Obama is in trouble”
Mr Obama has been under fire in recent weeks as insurance companies cancelled millions of Americans’ medical insurance policies because they did not meet the stricter conditions of the healthcare overhaul.
That was despite the Democratic president’s promise that people would be able to keep their existing plans.
It has been a pretty dreadful week for President Barack Obama. Flapping around his head are a whole flock of chickens coming home to roost.
This is all about his greatest achievement – the law for which he will be remembered – the programme nicknamed for him, Obamacare.
Now his one historic achievement, the one big law he got through before he lost the House, is in grave danger. With it his whole reputation, his legacy.
Obama will have exactly the legacy he deserves, remarkably similar to T Bliar’s legacy. Liar, crap at his job, disrespected by his peers, hated by his people. Achieved nothing except the mass deaths of people in the Middle East.
Yes, and a huge income courtesy of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and all the other too big to fail leaches on the economy.
Obama has his good points, and inherited a dire economy and 2 unpopular wars. However, the racist BBC in it’s fawning and uncritical coverage of his has built him up so much that his inevitable failings, which are now apparent over Obamacare, will seem exaggerated. I think he’s a flawed person doing a difficult job the best he can. The BBC think he’s the Messiah.
The BBC, and Obama’s supporters in general, have obviously never heard of ‘tough love’. Obama had a hell of a mess to clean up but the way they’re talking about him you’d think he was the second coming. He’s made loads of mistakes and shown political naivety, not to mention he’s also backtracked on a lot of his election pledges. I support the US gaining greater healthcare access but I don’t believe Obama is the man to follow through with it, his plan looks far too convoluted and his tactics in forcing it through were at best questionable. But his media supporters, including the BBC but especially MSNBC, would rather pretend anyone who criticises him is ‘racist’ than actually accept that he’s not as perfect as they want him to be. Same went for Blair over here, a liar and corporate sympathiser who proved himself to be no less of a warmonger than anyone before him yet was treated like a saint due to the colour of his banner. Of course, Cameron was left to pick up the pieces of Blair and Brown’s failure and is getting slammed for it – again, based purely on party allegiance.
He did get the Nobel Peace Prize Though – but to be frank I had done more for world peace than President Obama when he was awarded it.
Yup. Won it for being coloured. How does that work?
Don’t blame Obama. Blame the racist and rabidly anti-Bush Nobel Peace Prize committee.
Discussion of this on the open thread is here.
Is every post on this blog written by staunch conservatives and Republicans? I came here looking for BBC bias, but every post seems to be about whatever pro-government, pro-Israel, anti-Obama, anti-Labour, climate change conspiracy claptrap that you people want to espouse. It’s as if you read the “How to be a right-wing nutjob” handbook and are just reeling off the cliches one by one with some vague connection to something the BBC said on some obscure radio show, or a correspondent’s blog. I actually agree that the BBC is biased, but nothing I’ve seen on this blog represents my reasons for holding that view. By the way, I don’t care about Obama either. I just picked the most recent post to express my views about this blog. If you want to criticise the BBC for bias, take a look in the mirror first, because if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s hypocrisy. Get some balance before criticising the BBC of being unbalanced.
Missing the point, aren’t you Tom? Unable to debate the issues?
It’s best to read a comment before replying to it David. To answer your unrelated questions, no and no.
You see if you can remember the 30’s and the German “Der Stumer ” you can see what happens when a biased media oulet gets away with it drip by drip. Just like the bbc does now on Israel. It could be you next..
Are you using ‘NO’ in the BBC newspeak sense?
The BBC is a terribly biased news organisation. I already said that didn’t I? So I won’t be imitating them anytime soon. I know it’s difficult to understand that someone who thinks this way about the BBC would want to criticise this blog, but every post I’ve seen here carries the same right-wing bias. I criticise all bias, not just the bias I don’t like.
So let’s see you criticize an example of BBC bias, Tom. Show us how it’s done. Just saying the BBC is biased, full stop, is meaningless. And you’re not criticizing the bias, really. You’re just pointing a finger a shouting, “Bias!” There’s no substance to your argument beyond that.
This blog can always use a new reasonable voice, so show us how to do it properly.
I saw ‘I came here looking for BBC bias…’ and thought of… well, so many previous debuts* that have kicked off the same way before.
Not perhaps the best template to use as an intro?
Early days, though. Can’t wait to see shared the results of an exchange with the BBC on matters of bias that are claimed to frustrate so much the first thought is to head to a site discussing it and scatter the ad homs around.
*That rather suggests one new to the blog. Tone and content already indicate that may be unlikely. At least we’re spared a German Borg Box handle this time.
Oh, you want substance do you? Very well. Here’s a blog that wasn’t written by the Ann Coulter fan club: http://bbcnewsbias.blogspot.co.uk/
As we suspected, then. No wonder you’re unhappy with everything here.
Yep I’m guessing they don’t read much Ann Coulter down at the Islington branch of the SWP
VD and Al Beeb’s warmongering in general had already been noted .
But it wasn’t on behalf of Cameron
As Jeremy Bowen.
“The BBC tows the government line on every foreign policy issue from Russia to Argentina”
On the strength of quotation marks?
But running a false story about a tory or ignoring Labour corruption not so much of a problem for you?
Victoria Derbyshire is notoriously left-wing as many of you will know. The blog also criticises Hillary Clinton (a democrat). Everyone’s fair game. As for what you’ve quoted, you’ve conveniently cut off the next 3 words haven’t you! I expect nothing less, do you write here too?
Fair point – see it didn’t hurt – but what 3 words” (see earlier post).”?
I aint buying the BBC shilling for tory foreign policy stick – buy your leave
Tom, thanks for your contribution. Have you read the ‘Montague’ thread? http://biasedbbc.tv/blog/2013/11/16/israel-persecutes-christians-says-sarah-montague-update/
I think that’s a reasoned and valid identification of BBC bias and denial.
‘Oh, you want substance do you? Very well. Here’s…
For some reason the end scene of ‘A Few Good Men’ came to mind.
Thank you for the link to another blog; It looks interesting enough to check out. Who knows, some may even bookmark it and engage.
Though running at a current one or two responses so far, clearly early days. Not surprising at five posts to date, since May, plus a mission statement. The BBC has rather provided more warranting concern in this time, one might suggest.
Once it gets a standing Staffel of Flokkers, even at weekends, is usually a sign the BBC is rattled.
Now, are your efforts here so far on this other blog’s behalf (possibly yours – presuming the Mr. Swan T., is you? Also an overseas base, at least by spelling and image sourcing?) truly in the spirit of promoting a complementing effort, or more divisively well-poisoning in nature?
Can’t think why.
Craig and Sue’s respected blog sits most easily with this one and serves well.
Why you should seek to introduce your effort in such a manner appears almost deliberately designed to self-defeat. A pity, as the articles penned so far seem reasonable enough. I share the distain for ‘accuracy won’t fit’ news via “quotes”.
It will be interesting to see how you react if and when your blog attracts the attention of those who will test the often tricky balance between free speech and censorship that all owners/authors/mods face eventually.
As a small tip, lashing out seldom serves to win anyone over, home or away.
Are you Tom Swan, Tom?
Give him a moment until he decides which posting name he is going under.
That would be good to see clarified, as there seems confusion here; possibly deliberately inspired.
And then on top there’s the schizophrenic nature of posts launching into ad homs like this one minute – ‘I’ll send a copy to the nearest nuthouse. I’m sure it’ll find its way to you’ – but claiming to be the sole of polite discourse the next.
Are there two Toms here?
If so, my sat nav is in poor company.
What makes you think I didn’t read your rant, Tom? It’s best to understand your subject before ranting about it. The BBC has a remit for impartiality. We don’t. If this was an official news blog with a claim of impartiality, then you could call us hypocrites. But that’s not reality. The BBC is biased to the Left, so of course most complaints about it will be from a different perspective.
The exception would be, of course, those who believe the BBC is pro-Tory and a Zionist outlet. If that’s the kind of bias you were looking for, I can understand your disappointment.
Do you similarly claim people like James Delingpole or Ed West or Tim Stanely or Norman Tebbit or Robin Shepard or Rod Liddle are hypocrites? Think carefully, now.
You fail to grasp even the most basic concepts.
What makes me think you didn’t read my “rant”? The absent-minded reply from an overly defensive contributor who’s weapon of choice is condescension and personal insults. Someone who claimed to have read my comment, but who is only now replying to the points I raised after being prompted to read it. When someone of such diminished intellectual standing tells me what I can’t grasp or understand, and asks me to “think carefully now”, all I can do is write replies like this before giving myself a jolly good pat on the back for being such an impeccable judge of character.
In other words, Tom, you have no grasp of basic concepts at all, and didn’t understand my statement about missing the point. Even after I’ve explained it to you. Nor do you seem to understand that you appear unable to debate the actual issues at hand.
So now you’re resorting to personal insults, which is a dead giveaway.
“Basic concepts”? Good lord…
Yes, Tom. Basic concepts like a remit for impartiality, and what hypocrisy actually means.
“overly defensive contributor”
LMAO what were you expecting, as a reply to “How to be a right-wing nutjob”?
We word go “Wow Tom. Your amazing ,you’ve saved a wretch like me”?
No you thought you would get a blizzard of ‘likes’ from like minded Guardianisters who were reading but did have your rhetorical skill
I bet you hold the floor down at the local wine bar
Oh and those ‘likes’ they’ll come after the pub throws out
Why would I expect “likes” for the kind of comment I made? You’re not making any sense. I don’t read the Guardian either… but can I exchange the “likes” I get for a subscription? 😉
If not for the adoration of the fellow faithful what was the point of you post at all?
As for exchange your likes for subscription , well they are desperate for readers
Like everyone else who posts here, if I see something biased, I try to take a stand against it.
One mans biased is another mans self obvious truth on this open site
The BBC is another matter
If you just want to make a stand against swivel eyed right loons get your self over to the BT/yahoo news comment page ,a completely a-political site that makes this look like ‘comment is free’
You “actually agree that the BBC is biased” but you don’t “see” the connection with how it reports news:
anti-Conservative/government
anti-Israel
pro-Obama
pro-Labour
push climate change
and the comments here, which are just “right wing nut job type stuff”
(refer opposite above)
You are not confused as you pretend, but full marks for trolling an original approach.
You have made the point I was going to make: Tom says “I came here looking for BBC bias, but every post seems to be about whatever pro-government, pro-Israel, anti-Obama, anti-Labour, climate change…”
…errm…you happen to have hit on every major BBC super bias issue except the EU!
Dear Tom,
I have read your comment and I think I can help.
1. This article is about Mark Mardell, who works for the BBC in the USA.
2. Despite the trouble that Mr Obama’s Affordable Health Care is in, it has for months been denied by Mr Mardell, who works for the BBC.
3. At last long, Mr Mardell, who works for the BBC, has now admitted that Mr Obama and his Health Care act is in trouble. That is now even agreed by Mr Obama’s own Democrats.
4. Therefore, Mr Mardell, who works for the BBC, has been considered to be biased by a lot of people, not only by the thinking folks on this blog.
5. As Mr Mardell works for the BBC it is logical to think the BBC agrees with him and is also therefore biased.
Name calling does you no credit Tom when a little research would have helped you not to make fool of yourself. If there are any other posts that I could help you with, please do let me know.
Yours,
OT
Old Timer, I’ve actually written a blog post about Mardell’s bias. So I completely agree with you. My comment was about the political bias on this blog as a whole. I didn’t know where to leave that comment, so I just picked the latest post.
Best leave it there I think Tom.
The hole is getting deeper.
The political bias you speak of is conservative of course, not necessarily Conservative.
Forthright, generally honest, brutally realistic and usually comes with age.
Even Old Beasts in the Labour party see sense in their dotage.
The other thing you may have noticed is that conservatives bite back, eventually.
Good luck my boy.
Old Timer, you chose to call me a fool without understanding the purpose of my post, or my position on the matter. I didn’t respond to your insult, but I did explain how you misunderstood my post in as polite a way as possible. Perhaps age isn’t a sign of maturity. Best of luck to you too.
And where did the insults start?
“climate change conspiracy claptrap”
“How to be a right-wing nutjob”
Etc, etc.
You reap what you sow.
That’s the impression I got from this blog. It wasn’t directed at any particular person. I’m sorry you took it personally and responded that way. If you’re insecure enough to think you’re a nutjob, I really do wish you the best of luck.
‘…climate change conspiracy claptrap’.
Your absence from the many global warming debates on here doesn’t help your case, Tom, so start making it now or take as dignified an exit as you can whilst you’re credibility is still only at minus several thousand.
Could you provide a link to your blog post, Tom? It would be helpful.
I’ll help Tom out, at least this seems genuine:
http://bbcnewsbias.blogspot.co.uk/2013_05_01_archive.html
Cheers. Like I say, everyone’s fair game.
This is a put on, right, Tom?
BBC Propaganda Technique #2: Burying a Story
I went to Google to see if there had ever been a BBC report about the scandal. I found a 4 day old blog entry from North America editor, Mark Mardell, that may have briefly appeared in the headlines before being quickly buried. In the post, Mardell begrudgingly acknowledges that new evidence means he was wrong to dismiss the scandal when it first appeared months ago. One must wonder what the motivation for this initial dismissal was.
Except Mardell states very, very explicitly why he dismissed the whole Benghazi thing. It was discussed here at the time.
Mardell admits Benghazi was ignored: too complicated, only Obama-is-a-Muslim websites interested
The trouble is from the very get-go the President’s critics eagerly build on uncertain evidential sands a tottering tower of such baroque design that anyone simply looking for the facts is a bit put off. The websites making much of Benghazi usually stress the president’s middle name – Barack HUSSEIN Obama – and hint he is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In other words, Mardell dismissed the entire scandal because the only people talking about it were what he considered to be right-wing nutjobs. Just like you dismiss this blog. What a shame you didn’t read his post fully before commenting on it. You’ll really have to explain how you missed this or how it doesn’t spell out why Mardell ignored the scandal before anyone can even think about taking you seriously.
Looks like I was right to say you were disappointed with this blog because you were looking for BBC bias from the other side. And you’re intellectually dishonest, as you claimed to “criticise all bias, not just the bias I don’t like”. It turns out you’re just criticizing people whose positions you don’t like.
See we were complaining that the BBC censored all news of the Benghazi scandal, after dismissing it for the reason Mardell lays out, because of their reflexive support of the President and His Administration, as well as for their darling Hillary Clinton. You, on the other hand, believe that the BBC was suppressing the scandal because they’re warmongers. It’s very, very amusing. You’re exactly the kind of example the BBC uses to prove their impartiality by holding your kind of gripe as evidence that they get complaints from both sides.
Having said all that, I seriously give you full respect for noticing that the BBC was in fact censoring news, just like we claim they do. It really is the kind of support for our argument we need.
PS: You still haven’t answered whether or not you call Delingpole, West, Tebbitt, and Liddle hypocrites, either.
Seriously? Look at the date of my blog post. Then look at the date of Mardell’s admission. If I could travel four days into the future I’d be a lottery winner by now. So no, it’s not a “put on”, it’s you being so desperate to win your pathetic vendetta with me that you’re losing the ability to “think carefully now” (your words, not mine). Try harder next time Sherlock.
Tom
Have to assume time travel is possible for you….as you seem to be Tom, aged 22, whereas Tom Swan from the website has been at university for 9 years…..maybe you’re just a blooming genius and went to uni aged 13.
I could be wrong of course….but you don’t seem to have the level of maturity I would expect from someone who has traveled the world and studied to great depth both physics and psychology of one kind or another.
Certain you can explain to me what the challenges are to understanding the decay rates from high-spin isomers in deformed nuclei.
You’re dissembling, Tom. You said you had no idea why the BBC ignored the scandal, and posted a link to a blog post where Mardell clearly explained why he and they ignored it. Of course you couldn’t have predicted that in your previous post, but that’s not what I said. You read Mardell’s post that you found afterwards, and claim still not to know why the scandal was ignored. You mention only half the truth about Mardell’s begrudging admission, when the full truth is the answer to your question. He not only admits that he and the BBC ignored the scandal, but why he did. Very, very clearly. And it echoes your dismissal of this blog. Combine that with your clear position that the BBC is pro-war, and we get clear evidence that your own bias caused you to miss it.
I’m 22 am I? That’s news to me. I’d love to be that age again. I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond to someone who’s only interested in attacking me on a very personal level, but I’m kind of curious about what your obsessive ego has dug up, and from where.
David, it’s time to admit you were wrong. I can’t have read something that didn’t exist when I wrote my blog post. Simple as that. I’ll keep this reply free of insults in the hope that you realise that without becoming defensive.
Sure thing. It was about Mardell’s support of Hillary Clinton and how the BBC was burying the Benghazi story: http://bbcnewsbias.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/bbc-propaganda-technique-2-burying-story.html
Hopefully, it’s right-wing enough for you too. She’s a democrat ya know! 😉
Tom
Logically therefore your comment makes you a left winger…because you are criticising us for being right wing…why are we right wing? Because we criticise the BBC for being Left wing.
Ipso facto and all that.
That’s fair enough. Wonder how many Muslims would feel that this blog was doing a useful public service, though. The number is probably close to zero, given that the principal author believes there’s no such thing as moderate Islam, the Establishment are resigned to dhimmitude, and likes to compare Muslims to Nazis. Thus ensuring this blog is a nasty little backwater ignored by the mainstream rather than playing a useful part in public discourse as it should. Way to go, Alan.
Conspiracy Theory Central, if you recall, your posting name in this thread is Tom.
Can you demonstrate the bits of the Koran that make people moderate ?
Haha, well said CTC. I didn’t know about the Muslim hate, but I couldn’t be less surprised. This blog seems to be a cacophony of right-wing cliches. Honestly though, there must be a handbook out there, right? Are there some posts here about gun control too? That’s always a touchy subject for these folks. Oh, and religion too. I bet the BBC is a rampant atheist loving cauldron of Godless bile, right?
Do tell us more about this “moderate Islam” CTC will you?
There ARE moderate Muslims..but you`re not going to please any mullah by saying that Islam is anything other that what it is…and moderate it ain`t.
You`d be on the end of a crane if you said there was…there is Islam…and Islam as yet to be enacted…in no way can you call it moderate.
File under dhimmi…if not apostate just yet!
CTC
Maybe you should ask Baroness Warsi, a Muslim, why she says there is no such thing as a moderate or an extremist Muslim.
Way to go…yes you have.
‘Haha, well said CTC’
—
Well, if nothing else has come of this little misdirection venture, you have at least found each other.
Baroness Warsi? Are you having a laugh? The pin-up girl for self-hating Muslims.
Tom You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Warsi hates Islam about as much as Mehdi Hasan, the Islamist preacher, hates Islam.
Logically my comment makes me a left winger? There are more than two types of people in the world ya know.
Tom, dear chap, there are in fact 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary numbers
And those who don’t.
Explanations available if required.
and yet everyone here is right wing according to you Tom.
I see you finally let the mask slip….couldn’t control the bile any longer…..I assume you are not ‘Tom Swan’ just someone trying to pass themselves off as such.
If you are Swan…..odd mate, very odd…..and considering he is a student of cognitive psychology I suggest you have a good talk to yourself if he is indeed you…if you see what I mean.
Well, that got awfully personal! 🙂
Avoiding an answer…starting to look and sound suspiciously like a troll Tom.
As for personal…..check out your own posts.
What argument am I avoiding? Your obsession with my personal details? And you’re calling me a troll? Get a grip Sherlock. I was critical of the tone of this blog, but you’re taking things to a whole new level.
Tom
Nothing personal about your comments…or is there…let’s have a look at some of your replies to people here:
‘…it’s you being so desperate to win your pathetic vendetta with me.
This blog seems to be a cacophony of right-wing cliches. Honestly though, there must be a handbook out there, right? Are there some posts here about gun control too? That’s always a touchy subject for these folks.
If you’re insecure enough to think you’re a nutjob, I really do wish you the best of luck.
Perhaps age isn’t a sign of maturity. Best of luck to you too.
Oh, you want substance do you? Very well. Here’s a blog that wasn’t written by the Ann Coulter fan club:
Is every post on this blog written by staunch conservatives and Republicans? I came here looking for BBC bias, but every post seems to be about whatever pro-government, pro-Israel, anti-Obama, anti-Labour, climate change conspiracy claptrap that you people want to espouse. It’s as if you read the “How to be a right-wing nutjob” handbook.
I actually agree that the BBC is biased, but nothing I’ve seen on this blog represents my reasons for holding that view.
The last two comments reveal you to be either blind, naive or a troll.
Care to suggest which one?
And perhaps confirm you are Tom Swan…or just someone posing as him…..for instance….he thinks the BBC is ‘pro-government’…..so how can you denounce this blog for claiming the BBC is ‘pro-government’?
A claim which also proves you have never read this blog.
This Tom character, as well as flinging insults around like confetti, sounds as narcissistic as that website. Just another attention-seeker ?
Better to ignore him ?
Why do you care about my name, age, and what I studied at university? You’re a complete lunatic, but I’ll tell you what; when I write my autobiography, I’ll send a copy to the nearest nuthouse. I’m sure it’ll find its way to you.
Tom
A somewhat less than convincing rebuttal of the belief you are a troll/fraud.
“How to be a right-wing nutjob”
I thinks very highly of you to governor .But your not forced to pay for my opinions and your allowed to parade your right on credentials on this site with out qualification
If the BBC’s biased was other than it its ( i.e. the sickening deification of the Kenyan) then the traffic would be the other way
As it stands every foaming at the mouth Trotskyite organisation, and parsimonious bourgeois liberal in the land supports the BBC and its pol tax
“Is every post on this blog written by staunch conservatives and Republicans”
No. But guess what, in a democracy (and contrary to the BBC’s world view ) even if they were, its allowed.
Not every one reads the Guardian (in fact very few do) get used to it
You aren’t forced to pay for this website like you are the “impartial” bbc……
And this week on the nolan show on radio Ulster we have the tubby one changing slightly from his usual anti protestant,anti british agenda to rigging his show to get the beebs anti tory message across.
Seems that instead of caller after caller telling us how flag protesters are killing the local economy, now we have dubious sounding callers telling story of how they cant live on their free money followed by various dial a lefties banging on about the so called living wage and how come the “english” tory government are dictating to our local assembly members on making decisions or they start cutting their budget.
Maybe he’s so busy jetting back and forth to salford that he is confused and thinks that he is actually doing that 5 live effort instead of his usual protestant bashing show .
woops…wrong thread.
“With it his whole reputation, his legacy.”
What fucking legacy? The Arab Spring? Benghazi? The NSA? Obamacare? IRS targetting?
That legacy?
What legacy? How about saving the economy after Boooooooooosh and the baaaaaaaanksters destroyed it by saving the banks? Oh, wait, TARP began under Bush and his financial team was more or less left intact for a while. How about saving the economy with the largest spending bill ever in the history of the world? Oh, wait, that didn’t really pan out. What about closing Guantanamo? Nope, still open. How about improving our standing and esteem in the rest of the world after the grim years of the Bush Administration? Um, no, they still hate us, more than ever in some places. The rest wasn’t His fault, you see.
I suppose you could say He ended Bush’s wars by surrendering in Iraq and Afghanistan and pulling out the troops, but He’s certainly expanded Bush’s drone wars exponentially into more countries than the Zionist neocons could ever have hoped for in their wildest dreams. And we’ve certainly seen F all in oil results. Then there’s expanding abuse of Bush’s Patriot Act, expansion of domestic spying, expanding Bush’s debt, and ramping up Bush’s use of executive orders to bypass Congress and the law. Plus Goldman Sachs and Wall St. are doing very, very well. Not quite the legacy we were promised, though.
His legacy will be only about being the first black President, which is something, anyway. Unfortunately, He’s not the first good one. That will have to wait until another day.
“His legacy will be only about being the first black President, which is something, anyway.”
Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but he is not Black, he is mixed race. So he does not even get that. Although the White Liberal Left like to patronize black people with that little sop.
Sorry, but the PC Left-wing crowd insist on the one-drop rule.
Usually it is better not to feed trolls. The constant name changing eventually is laid bare when they resort to their usual style of bile and personal insult, and begin to forget under which name they should be posting.
It’s not always easy to ignore them tho’.
Oh dear. Even the News Quiz – that anti Tory propaganda show – now has Obama as a target. Criticising him for playing more golf than any other President and saying that Obamacare isn’t working. Nice to see the bias shifted for a change.