Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Especially interesting as he, if I'm not mistaken, was a blatant communist back in 1917.

That said, the Balfour decleration (Foreign Secretary Balfour promising the jews a homeland in Palestine) was after all an attempt to appeace Lev Trotskij, so he might get Russia back in the war. After all, he was a jew, so a jewish homeland should mean a lot for him. It didn't. He was an internationalist, not a zionist.

One thing you need to understand about british intelligence and foreign policy of that era is that it employed the best minds the British nation had to throw at such matters. But we're still talking about very conservative imperialists, and they didn't really understand the underlying causes of communism, so it was a lot easier to understand it as zionism, something that was easy to analyze, it was about terretories and resources.

Wouldn't suprice me if they tought they had some good reason to pay Mussolini. Kaiser Willhelm did send Lenin on a train to Russia as well. Willhelm was a blithering idiot, that's true, but still.
Not in my history book - it was the quid pro quo for the finance offered by Jewish Bankers to allow Britain to fight the war (WWI) and was a result of near bankruptancy caused by same war - which I may add, we should never have gotten involved in. We should (from a nationalistic point of view) stayed the well out of it - Like the EU I might add - no good has ever come to this country thanks to Europeans - the all hate us and are jealous.

Obviously I am talking at the political level not the personal.
 
Last edited:
And how is that different from how the previous administration treated almost the entire media?

They treated the whole media one way, not just certain agencies.
 
Joe Biden: the worrying rise of Barack Obama?s Mr Wrong
Vice-President Joe Biden has been on the wrong side of history on all the big questions, argues Toby Harnden
By Toby Harnden
Published: 4:17PM BST 17 Oct 2009

Want to know how to deal with a momentous issue of war or grand strategy? You could do a lot worse than check out what Vice-President Joe Biden thinks ? and plump for the opposite.

Mr Biden was chosen as Barack Obama's running mate last August because he was old, white and supposedly knew a lot about foreign policy. I say "supposedly" because really Mr Biden's overseas expertise amounted to having spent a long time as chairman of the Senate foreign affairs committee, knowing the names of lots of world leaders, and being able to josh around amiably with them during congressional junkets across the globe.

What Mr Obama overlooked was that Mr Biden, who served as a senator for tiny Delaware for 36 years, had never run anything in his life, or taken decisions rather than talking about things, at legendary length. Even in the United States Senate, that august body which each week produces enough hot air to transport 1,000 six-year-olds across America, Mr Biden ? who sports hair plugs and a set of porcelain-enhanced gnashers that would blind a polar bear ? is renowned for his wordiness.

His speech is littered with the word "literally" and he glories in meandering anecdotes about his family and Irish ancestry. When Obama aides tried to muzzle him during the campaign, Mr Biden agreed but would then muse on the stump: "I try to cut this stuff down, not dumb it down, just get down to the quick of the matter, the essence of the matter."

Making fun of Joe Biden is a bipartisan affair. A quip about Biden being a windbag is guaranteed to bring a Democrat and Republican together in Washington.

Mr Obama himself even dabbled in it in February when he responded to a question about yet another Biden gaffe by saying, "I don't know what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly", prompting stifled sniggers from White House staffers at the back of the room.

A miffed Mr Biden used his weekly lunch with the President to ask him not to "diss" him in public. Mr Obama agreed, scheduling a photo op of the pair eating hamburgers together to demonstrate they were still buddies. The real difficulty with Mr Biden, however, is his judgement.

On all the big questions, he has been ? to put it politely ? on the wrong side of history. In 1990, he voted against American forces expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and advocated splitting it into three states along ethnic lines. He opposed the Iraq troop surge of 2007 that pacified the country and rescued the US from the jaws of defeat.

Now, Mr Biden is pushing a policy of what he terms "counter-terrorism plus" ? a scheme which involves a much smaller military presence in Afghanistan, with al-Qaeda elements being targeted at long range by military drones and smart missiles.

This runs entirely against the counter-insurgency doctrine convincingly outlined by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who wants an extra 40,000 troops to enable Nato forces to protect and influence the people while mentoring the Afghan army and police, and gathering intelligence on the ground.

The problem is that Mr Obama may now be listening to Mr Biden. Having supposedly already settled on an Afghan strategy in March, he is giving a very public impression of Hamlet as he wrings his hands and conducts endless White House debates ? with details leaked to the press ? about what to do. These Afghanistan policy seminars are principally designed to demonstrate that Mr Obama is not the hot-headed "decider" President George W Bush. But the dithering is projecting a dangerous uncertainty about the West's intentions to an Afghan people craving assurance that Nato is fully committed, and in for the long haul. More seriously, Mr Obama's inclination on troop levels seems to be to seek a middle way ? a "splitting the baby" option that could be the worst of all possible worlds.

The Left, sensing that Mr Obama is wavering and beginning to rethink his campaign contention that Afghanistan was the "good war" as opposed to Mr Bush's evil Iraq adventure, is throwing its lot in with Mr Biden. There's a solidifying conventional wisdom in Washington that Mr Biden's star is in the ascendant. This week's Newsweek front cover sporting the vice-president's steely visage beside the headline "Why Joe is No Joke" is no doubt already framed in the Biden downstairs loo. If Mr Obama really believes that's true then we could all be in big trouble.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-worrying-rise-of-Barack-Obamas-Mr-Wrong.html

And in addition to the Fox News thing we have Biden running around spouting off ignorant statements and proposing unintelligent plans. This bit here especially:

Now, Mr Biden is pushing a policy of what he terms "counter-terrorism plus" ? a scheme which involves a much smaller military presence in Afghanistan, with al-Qaeda elements being targeted at long range by military drones and smart missiles.

That has to be one if the most absurd plans I've ever heard. So basically he wants to use the Clinton approach that, I remind you, failed completely. We are not only looking to kill individual leaders, we want to take down the entire organization. You can't do that with drones, cruise missiles, and special forces. Clinton thought you could and it did not work. You may kill a few leaders but there will always be those ready to take their place. To finish this the whole organization needs to be taken down or made irrelevant.
 
I agree Biden is a bit of a dumbass- but as I've said before, what is the reasonable alternative? I can respect McCain but he is old and would likely die.

The rest of the "conservative" leaders and politicians are either stupid- Palin- or insane- right-wing pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity. And the in-between, the public which considers itself truly "conservative", is out rallying against bullshit issues (gay marriage, legalising marajuana, etc) or making things up (birthers, fascist/socialist, and many more).

Now, do I think Obama is a great president? No. Do I think he's bad? Can't say yet. But I will defend him as I would anyone when irrelevant/made-up crap is thrown against him. I did the same for Bush when the super-lefties had the Bush-as-Hitler signs as well, and I did not like him as a US president.

The main point is, what is the alternative? Palin? The pundit nutjobs? Moderate parties who will never and have never received even a modicum of the vote? If there is no real alternative the best thing to do for those who are legitimately irritated at the administration is to debate and to reason- not to commit what is basically indoctrination and fearmongering.

Again, just my two pence. :wink:
 
...Sheppard Smith for example seems like a stand up real news man ...
When I saw that clip of Shep vehemently arguing for a public option ... and realized he was talking about it while on air ... I nearly shit myself.

This just in: Joe Biden says, "Hurr durr"
My God, you mean Biden is a windbag politician who has consistently voted with popular opinion to keep his old ass in office? I never knew.

Personally I would've liked to have seen what would've happened if we waged a covert war in Afghanistan. CIA run, special forces and precision bombing, etc etc. Like what we're doing in Pakistan. But of course no politician (definitely no Republican) is going to turn down a chance at a supposedly quick and easy war. Nevermind Afghanistan's lengthy reputation for defeating powerful armies.
 
So lets see. Faux news continually criticise Obama. They call him racist. They call his wife, what was it, a "baby momma". They insuinate a "terrorist fist bump". They give legitimate air time to the birthers movement. They give 8 minutes of air time to an empty patch of grass and only 3 to his speech on healthcare.

They give airtime to his critics, they give a job to Karl Rove and then, when the administration gives them two fingers they start whining about how totally unfair it is, before stamping their feet and crying to get their way.

You know, for a company that seems to keep protecting Americas Rights, I notice that they seem to want to block Obamas right to free speech - they want to stop him saying what he wants, to who he wants.
 
Last edited:
They treated the whole media one way, not just certain agencies.

Are you implying that Fox News is part of the left wing media conspiracy?:blink:
 
So lets see.
Just to head off the inevitable "they're just doing what everyone did to GWB!"...

The only thing that can even come close to the near-slanderous remarks that the right-wing media has made against Obama, with regards to Bush, was the whole "he didn't serve in the Texas National Guard" thing... and that was retracted and apologized for profusely.

I honestly can't think of any outrageous statement made on the "major left-wing media outlets" (see: the rest of the mainstream media, I guess) about Bush that equals the downright vitriolic remarks that I've heard coming from the right-wing hate pot. And yes, that's a gauntlet.
 
Last edited:
Just to head off the inevitable "they're just doing what everyone did to GWB!"...

The only thing that can even come close to the near-slanderous remarks that the right-wing media has made against Obama, with regards to Bush, was the whole "he didn't serve in the Texas National Guard" thing... and that was retracted and apologized for profusely.

I honestly can't think of any outrageous statement made on the "major left-wing media outlets" (see: the rest of the mainstream media, I guess) about Bush that equals the downright vitriolic remarks that I've heard coming from the right-wing hate pot. And yes, that's a gauntlet.

Even if that is so, do you agree with the approach the administration is taking? From what I seen it seems to be having the exact opposite effect they were going for. Going toe to toe with one particular organization is a recipe for failure. It doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
I went to the mall today and there is a new store that sells a bunch of off the wall, unique stuff, like life-sized pirates and fortune telling machines. Anyway, one thing I saw was a Obama poster that had this poem on it. It started off with "Obama, Lord of America." I almost went into Hulk smash mode.
 
From what I seen it seems to be having the exact opposite effect they were going for. Going toe to toe with one particular organization is a recipe for failure. It doesn't work.
Very true. Especially when said organization has been trying to position themselves as some sort of underdog, activist news outlet. Now they really do look like the underdog. It just legitimizes their bullshit. They're spinning this to say that the administration is trying to bully them (and send a message to the other networks). Granted I don't see the administration actually doing anything to Fox other than denying interviews or press passes and not sending them releases.

I was listening to Glenn Beck a little bit tonight and he was having a field day with this. He was trying to spin Dunn's Mao comment, Rahm's involvement and Obama's stance on net neutrality into some huge conspiracy theory. Which I'm sure I could've followed if I was as batshit insane as he is. Or if he even understood the concept of net neutrality.
 
Last edited:
Even if that is so, do you agree with the approach the administration is taking? From what I seen it seems to be having the exact opposite effect they were going for. Going toe to toe with one particular organization is a recipe for failure. It doesn't work.

Normally I would agree with you, but that is when you are dealing with a rational opponent. Every politican plays favourites with the press and some don't like it, but they play the game too.

However, Fox Noise is such a screeching, braying mess of hate that whatever the administration do, they will do what they can to destroy it. So why bother?

There would be a cold day in hell before Fox gave Obama some good press on a major issue. Hell, even if there was another terrible event on US soil, they would be front and centre blaming him.

So why bother? So Fox don't get a press release. At least it saves a few trees.

Basically, if a guy at work calls you an asshole every day of the week and twice on Sundays, then you aren't going to invite him to your birthday party. Yes Fox will whine and scream and give more negative press... but what changes from what they have they been doing so far?

(Actually, you could spin this as a smart play. Fox is the home of idiots and lunatics, and by whipping them up like this into yet more fear and ignorance, the administration can say "look at the lunatics there, you know, the crazy wing of the Republican Party"...)
 
Or if he even understood the concept of net neutrality.
Oh man, I've heard his definition of "net neutrality". It's "series of tubes" wrong. :lol:
 
Just read up some things about the BNP I would rather I didn't know. These people are the most disgusting degenerate apes I have ever heard of and I hope they never ever ever ever ever come to power... or I'm fucking off.

Truly horrible and awful people.
 
Just read up some things about the BNP I would rather I didn't know. These people are the most disgusting degenerate apes I have ever heard of and I hope they never ever ever ever ever come to power... or I'm fucking off.

Truly horrible and awful people.

Correct.

Thursday's Question Time (if it gets the go-ahead) will be interesting to watch. And not in a good way.
 
Ayiiieeeeee is it this thursday? Didn't realise it was so soon... check out the Guardian for 20 questions they would ask the BNP, good article, I wish they could ask them :(
 
Not in my history book - it was the quid pro quo for the finance offered by Jewish Bankers to allow Britain to fight the war (WWI) and was a result of near bankruptancy caused by same war - which I may add, we should never have gotten involved in. We should (from a nationalistic point of view) stayed the well out of it - Like the EU I might add - no good has ever come to this country thanks to Europeans - the all hate us and are jealous.

Obviously I am talking at the political level not the personal.

It's micro history, it's not really well known, in the same way that few people know of the fact that Finish Radio bugged Hitler back in 1943, and that Hitler talked about the fact he'd lose the war even then. This type of history is rarely discussed, as it's only curiosa.

But as curiosa, it's interesting, and the foreign office did think it would get Trotskji on their side. :)
 
Oh man, I've heard his definition of "net neutrality". It's "series of tubes" wrong. :lol:
All tubes are born equal, but some tubes are born more equal than others?
:lmao: Oh God, I could see him saying that. Glenn Beck's conception of the internet is a communist, maoist, socialist, fascist series of mind-controlling tubes.

No actually I haven't, to be honest I try not to pay too much attention to news outlets, etc.
Well then by all means don't look into it. Really, shit like that makes me lose faith in humanity.
 
Top