By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
When are the Brexiters going to be honest about the reason they want out? By any objective view business says stay in. Support from the IMF, CBI big businesses like BT vodaphone, Marks and Spencers, BAE, Easy Jet etc etc. World leader say stay in to protect our position as a world power, to hold the EU together, prevent conflict etc. Unions cite worker’s protection as a reason to stay in. All the main parties support in, the Treasury says in. There are warnings from EU leaders that if we are not part of the club we will have serious problems. I have not heard a single cogent reason, financially, to get out. Kate Hoey one of the Brexit leaders embarrassingly couldn’t site a single report saying why we would be better off. A few politicians led by Boris and Farage are for out. That’s it. There is no clear explanation of what happens next from them, they just don’t seem to know. Everything seems to point to the view that “remain” is right. So be honest, Brexiters, is it immigration?
Your question: " Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him [George W. Bush]? "
Honest to Heaven, I do not have the time or inclination. Just doing obama's horrible imitation of a president would wear me out.
The notion that George W. Bush was a bad president is pure propaganda used as the fundamental basis for obama's presidential campaigns. In his first campaign, a day did not go by that he did not blame something -- everything -- on Bush. And the media played all of it as if it were the truth. [Please remember that I was there through it all. Horror!]
Once you learn that obama lies consistently, you'll start to see it. Lies flow from his lips like bubbles in a stream -- pretty-sounding and innocent-looking, but lies nonetheless..
Your bias against Fox and dependence on the anti-GOP media will ever prevent you from seeing the truth about obama. I am not being insulting. Just objective. I genuinely wonder how often you have watched Fox on TV -- news, not "commentators." You and other British Fox-haters.
[p.s. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Fox website and found nothing to alarm me. A lot of silly space-fillers (as they all use), and a fairly even balance between a variety of viewpoints. Nothing untrue or shockingly biased.]
I have BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Telegraph on my Toolbar Bookmarks and check them virtually every day. I started reading The Guardian in the '60s, before there was an Internet, on that flimsy crackling toilet paper on that segmented wooden holder, in the library of the college where I was teaching. Between the four of them, I know what they're telling you about the U.S. It's usually inaccurate, and often insulting.
I asked Lisa 2 questions up thread, she either didn't see them, chose to ignore them or didn't want to answer them. So I will ask them again.
Let me ask you 2 simple questions and tell me honestly, ie without googling the answers, if you can answer them from what you have seen on the BBC or in the UK Newspapers. How much have the Obama family spent of Tax Payers money using Air Force One for Private purposes ie not presidential business? What do you know of the events surrounding the attack in 2012 on the Benghazi US Embassy?
I asked Lisa 2 questions up thread, she either didn't see them, chose to ignore them or didn't want to answer them. So I will ask them again.
Let me ask you 2 simple questions and tell me honestly, ie without googling the answers, if you can answer them from what you have seen on the BBC or in the UK Newspapers. How much have the Obama family spent of Tax Payers money using Air Force One for Private purposes ie not presidential business? What do you know of the events surrounding the attack in 2012 on the Benghazi US Embassy?
I didn't see them - sorry.
I have no idea about the use of Air Force One nor do I care.
I know about the same of Benghazi as I imagine that you do or anyone else unless you have a particular obsession with the republican party's spin on it.
Why does that matter? I've already said that I think he's been largely ineffectual and not a great president. But 'the worst in history'? What utter nonsense. Imagine the reaction of Fox News if he'd done a tenth of what Nixon did.
It's not necessarily trolling to point out that The Grauniad, Independent and the ilk are hardly fair and balanced news sources.
There's no such thing as unbiased news. Not even the Beeb, which is a bit biased but far less so than most. Best you can do it read a variety of sources and make your own mind up from there.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
Your question: " Could you tell me how Obama has done a worse job than him [George W. Bush]? "
Honest to Heaven, I do not have the time or inclination. Just doing obama's horrible imitation of a president would wear me out.
The notion that George W. Bush was a bad president is pure propaganda used as the fundamental basis for obama's presidential campaigns. In his first campaign, a day did not go by that he did not blame something -- everything -- on Bush. And the media played all of it as if it were the truth. [Please remember that I was there through it all. Horror!]
Once you learn that obama lies consistently, you'll start to see it. Lies flow from his lips like bubbles in a stream -- pretty-sounding and innocent-looking, but lies nonetheless..
Your bias against Fox and dependence on the anti-GOP media will ever prevent you from seeing the truth about obama. I am not being insulting. Just objective. I genuinely wonder how often you have watched Fox on TV -- news, not "commentators." You and other British Fox-haters.
[p.s. Out of curiosity, I just checked the Fox website and found nothing to alarm me. A lot of silly space-fillers (as they all use), and a fairly even balance between a variety of viewpoints. Nothing untrue or shockingly biased.]
I have BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Telegraph on my Toolbar Bookmarks and check them virtually every day. I started reading The Guardian in the '60s, before there was an Internet, on that flimsy crackling toilet paper on that segmented wooden holder, in the library of the college where I was teaching. Between the four of them, I know what they're telling you about the U.S. It's usually inaccurate, and often insulting.
Heh! Fair play. That's f*cking brilliant. I love you Dav.
The notion that George W. Bush was a bad president is pure propaganda used as the fundamental basis for obama's presidential campaigns
No Dav. I did not need oBUMa (FFS. At you're age?) to tell me GW BUsh was a disaster. I watched it happen. Way before I'd even heard of Obama.
He inherited a 1.9 trillion dollar surplus and left Obama a 1.2 trillion dollar defecit.
He invaded a country for absolutely no legitimate reason, leading to the death of thousands of American troops and far more coming home missing limbs and minds. And the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis of course. He legalized the use of torture.
He supported the Vietnam war whilst using his privilege of being very rich to avoid going anywhere near the f*cking place. Like everyone else in his administration. But attacked John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, on his war record. You couldn't make this shit up. A chickenhawk coward who used Daddy to skip the war then attacks a decorated veteran. And Republicans, who f*cking love a good war veteran lap this shit up.
When asked what was his favourite childhood book he said The Very Hungry Caterpillar, which was first published when he was 22. The man was a f*cking moron.
And he stole an election.
In Davworld, which is created by watching Fox News all day, all that is lies invented by the dictator oBUMa.
I do watch Fox News Dav.
I watched the other day when Obama was in the UK. Some empty headed women was ranting about how Obama didn't give a speech about about the Brussels terrorist attack "On the one month anniveresary of it happening!" Shock. Horror.
Of course the Foxbots holding the discussion didn's say "F*ck off you idiot. That's just desperate bullshit." No the just tutted and agreed. Apparently he must now give a speech about it every month.
And I sat there shaking my head. Whereas I imagine you were jumping around the room, frothing at the mouth screaming "The Mau Mau bastard hasn't mentioned Brussels! It's been a month! Has he no respect?"
Heyho. Each to their own.
Here's a few links for you Dav.
You'll love this Dav. Bill O'Reilly screams "SHUT UP!" a lot at a kid who lost his dad on 9/11. You'll love it. Little commie c*nt!
You might want to watch this one as well. A daughters story about her once nice normal dad changed into a hateful bigot by watching Fox News.
Enjoy. BTW the first link is a must watch documentary for anyone worried about Rupert Murdoch expanding his UK press interests, which the Tories seem desperate to help.
I will not bother to respond to anything you say in future, whenever someone resorts to abuse and no sensible responses they have already lost the argument. Bye.
Aaawww? Why?
Because I laughed at your very silly suggestions? BBC news is biased because they cheat at nature documentaries? And they virtually advertise Tesla cars, by which you mean they have reported the release of a new Tesla car? In your world reporting the release of a car is green madness gone mad?
And they report on climate change?
Aaaww. Bless. I wouldn't talk to me either. Because I will just take the piss.
This comment says it all about "the oracle" that you need to know. He is happy to accept anyone that agrees with his worldview, regardless of what sort of person they are and does not want discussion about their character and dependability While at the same time finding any ulterior motive possible to denigrate anyone supporting Brexit.
Of course none of this comes from someone the oracle is prepared to accept data from, just as he ignores everything said by posters on here that disagree with what he wants to hear.
I had time today to read these articles. Hilarious. Typical Mail and Express nonsense, A few no marks, a few unnamed sources and a professor brainstorm say it'll be great to be out. I am more surprised the Express hasn't linked the death of Diana with EU membership!
The typical Express or mail reader will sit there tut tutting blaming EU for everything but anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't even pick these rags up.
Because I laughed at your very silly suggestions? BBC news is biased because they cheat at nature documentaries? And they virtually advertise Tesla cars, by which you mean they have reported the release of a new Tesla car? In your world reporting the release of a car is green madness gone mad?
And they report on climate change?
Aaaww. Bless. I wouldn't talk to me either. Because I will just take the piss.
You need some practice ðŸ‘
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
I asked Lisa 2 questions up thread, she either didn't see them, chose to ignore them or didn't want to answer them. So I will ask them again.
Let me ask you 2 simple questions and tell me honestly, ie without googling the answers, if you can answer them from what you have seen on the BBC or in the UK Newspapers. How much have the Obama family spent of Tax Payers money using Air Force One for Private purposes ie not presidential business? What do you know of the events surrounding the attack in 2012 on the Benghazi US Embassy?
In fairness if he's on presidential business or not he's still the president, and should be afforded high levels of security considering everyone in that country is tanked up to the teeth with guns. Would you have him go on his holidays on Amtrak? You only need another Jodie Foster loving weirdo and you've got yourself a dead prez.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
EU standards on the environment and public health risk being undermined by compromises with the US, Greenpeace has warned, citing leaked documents.
The environmental group obtained 248 pages of classified documents from the TTIP trade talks, aimed at clinching a far-reaching EU-US free trade deal.
Secrecy surrounding the talks has fuelled fears that US corporations may erode Europe's consumer protections.
But the EU's top trade official denied any agenda to lower EU standards.
"I am simply not in the business of lowering standards," said EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem in her blog, after the Greenpeace leak was published.
TTIP's supporters say a deal would create many new business opportunities.
TTIP stands for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It would harmonise regulations across a huge range of business sectors, providing a boost to exporters on both sides of the Atlantic.
The 13th TTIP negotiating round took place last week and the European Commission says it hopes to achieve a deal later this year. That could avoid any political risk posed by the US presidential election in November.
The EU's chief negotiator, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, said some of Greenpeace's points were "flatly wrong", and stressed that the leaked text "is not a reflection of the outcome of the negotiation".
TTIP: Why the trade deal matters What is the future for UK-US trade? Food fights block EU—US trade deal
Mr Bercero said "it is not correct to say the US is pushing for lowering of the level of protection in the EU".
Greenpeace Netherlands says it obtained classified documents covering two-thirds of the areas discussed. Corporate muscle
"These leaked documents confirm what we have been saying for a long time: TTIP would put corporations at the centre of policy-making, to the detriment of environment and public health," said Greenpeace EU director Jorgo Riss.
"We have known that the EU position was bad, now we see the US position is even worse." Image copyright Reuters Image caption EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem is steering the TTIP talks, which began in 2013 Image copyright Reuters Image caption There have been many big demonstrations against TTIP in Germany
Greenpeace says the texts reveal that the US wants to replace the EU's "precautionary principle" for potentially harmful products with the less strict US approach, which aims to manage risks rather than avoid them altogether.
The precautionary principle can force a manufacturer to prove the absence of danger from a product.
It applies, for example, to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), whose possible risks to the ecosystem and the food chain are hotly debated.
The US permits cultivation of more than 170 GM plants, whereas only one type - a maize variety - is approved for commercial cultivation in the EU.
Mr Bercero denied any intention to weaken the precautionary principle.
Greenpeace says the TTIP texts do not refer to the global commitment to cut CO2 emissions, as agreed at the Paris Summit on global warming. Yet the European Commission had pledged to make environmental sustainability part of any TTIP deal. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Harvest in Iowa: US-style intensive farming methods could spread to Europe
There is also widespread concern in the EU about the role of commercial arbitration courts, independent of national courts, where firms can sue governments.
It is one of the thorniest issues in the TTIP talks.
There are fears that big US corporations could put excessive legal pressure on some EU states. The threat of being sued could have a "chilling" effect on legislators, forcing them to water down welfare protections, critics argue. Long way to go
The Commission and many politicians argue that TTIP would bring major benefits for the US and Europe.
Last week US President Barack Obama and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called jointly for a TTIP deal to be concluded this year. However, thousands of protesters turned out in Hanover in a rally against the deal.
A final TTIP text would require approval by all 28 EU governments and the European Parliament.
A study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) estimated the potential gains for the EU as up to €119bn (£94bn; $137bn) a year and €95bn for the US.
The EU's chief negotiator said the 13th round of talks covered 97% of current tariff barriers, which cost EU exporters more than €3.5bn annually.
But Mr Bercero added that "there is still a lot of work to be done".
They were very far from agreement on public procurement, he explained. The EU wants US authorities to give European companies much more market access to compete for public contracts.
Among other tough issues, he said, were: the beef market, the services sector and the EU's protected geographical labels, such as Champagne and Gorgonzola.
For those of you that don't know this is part of the EU version of UN Agenda 21 and UN Sustainable Development. If you have not yet read UN Agenda 21 then it I suggest you do.
As you have pointed I am a "nutter", but in fact I am a "Conspiracy Theorist", because the conspiracies are out there in plain view for everyone to read, they no longer bother to hide them.
For those of you that don't know this is part of the EU version of UN Agenda 21 and UN Sustainable Development. If you have not yet read UN Agenda 21 then it I suggest you do.
As you have pointed I am a "nutter", but in fact I am a "Conspiracy Theorist", because the conspiracies are out there in plain view for everyone to read, they no longer bother to hide them.
[Post edited 4 May 2016 11:13]
Whoa, Nellie!
1. I just read it, and my only reaction is "Run away!"
If you're not a glutton for punishment [as I sometimes am], read only Articles 32 and 34-37.
The ESM will be an absolute law unto itself.
2. The main effect of this treaty will be to drive debtor nations deeper into debt to the ESM [in essence a big central bank] -- and indirectly to the creditor nations, of course.
3. This is clearly another extension of certain protocols of The Protocols of Zion. [Yeah, I know that's the shortened title.]
Unless you have read them, please do not argue with me about #3.
1. I just read it, and my only reaction is "Run away!"
If you're not a glutton for punishment [as I sometimes am], read only Articles 32 and 34-37.
The ESM will be an absolute law unto itself.
2. The main effect of this treaty will be to drive debtor nations deeper into debt to the ESM [in essence a big central bank] -- and indirectly to the creditor nations, of course.
3. This is clearly another extension of certain protocols of The Protocols of Zion. [Yeah, I know that's the shortened title.]
Unless you have read them, please do not argue with me about #3.
[Post edited 4 May 2016 15:53]
The article that you are bothered by (Article 32) is a watered down version of the U.S. Patriot Act which extends virtually identical powers to any state dealing with US assets or currency.
The UK is not a member of the Eurozone and per the latest agreement cannot be asked for funds to help said zone.
The Protocols of Zion are a fake and are regarded as such by everyone with the exception of certain Arab States, Jew haters and tinfoil hat wearing nutters.
The article that you are bothered by (Article 32) is a watered down version of the U.S. Patriot Act which extends virtually identical powers to any state dealing with US assets or currency.
The UK is not a member of the Eurozone and per the latest agreement cannot be asked for funds to help said zone.
The Protocols of Zion are a fake and are regarded as such by everyone with the exception of certain Arab States, Jew haters and tinfoil hat wearing nutters.
Lisa, try reading article 27 clauses 2 & 3. Whatever they want to do cannot be prevented or overturned by courts or governments and they have complete immunity for everybody working there regardless of what they do, there will br no higher authority than the ESM. We are quite aware that the UK is not involved and it is a bl**dy good job too, but it shows just undemocratic the EU has become and it is getting worse.
Lisa, try reading article 27 clauses 2 & 3. Whatever they want to do cannot be prevented or overturned by courts or governments and they have complete immunity for everybody working there regardless of what they do, there will br no higher authority than the ESM. We are quite aware that the UK is not involved and it is a bl**dy good job too, but it shows just undemocratic the EU has become and it is getting worse.
I'm not arguing with that and I'm very grateful that we are not part of it, that we can't be called on to fund it when it collapses (which it will) and as I've said before I'm very undecided about the whole thing to be honest.
My point was that it draws on the Patriot Act quite heavily in terms of its imposition of powers and seeks to achieve some (and only some by the way) of what the U.S. tries to achieve through that.
And yet you don't hear much moaning from the American population about the ridiculous extension of power that the U.S. has tried to impose on the rest of the world.
I'm not arguing with that and I'm very grateful that we are not part of it, that we can't be called on to fund it when it collapses (which it will) and as I've said before I'm very undecided about the whole thing to be honest.
My point was that it draws on the Patriot Act quite heavily in terms of its imposition of powers and seeks to achieve some (and only some by the way) of what the U.S. tries to achieve through that.
And yet you don't hear much moaning from the American population about the ridiculous extension of power that the U.S. has tried to impose on the rest of the world.
Now let me see, you've read the Patriot Act, the ESM Treaty, and ]i]The Protocols of Zion, then.
And the "ridiculous extension of power that the U.S. has tried to impose on the rest of the world" is what?
Why am I wasting my time when I know you write about things you don't know about as if you did? Back to the ignore phase for me.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
