Happy Face

The bloggers are loving this too... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...dman/index.html

Bagsie being first to recommend it... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...amp;#entry67242

It's like appointing Mike Ashley to keep an eye on price fixing. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sec-...0,6370675.story

I don't think he was getting a screening room indoors or owt. He was just gonna project it on a wall, or play it on his iphone. Surely I think he'd been invited to show it at a private screening in the Lords like. Seems so... If i was in the lords I'd put on a screening of Up in the room next door at the same time.

Just because your were coked off your tits though.

Selfish bitches.

I don't think he was getting a screening room indoors or owt. He was just gonna project it on a wall, or play it on his iphone. Surely

He doing Question Time?

I don't think he blames Obama for the Latin American problems going back centuries. He's spot on to call him out on the Colombia thing though. South American countries are freeing theselves from IMF shackles and gaining independence like they've never had...and Obama's working with the largest dope peddler in the world and South America's worst human rights violator to increase their military presence over the entire continent. The problem with America is that the political landscape is already too narrow. The last thing it needs is the democratic party moving even further to the right. The majority they have is across the board. They don't need cross party consensus, they just need it within their own party. It's pretty clear from what's said publicly that Obama is a lot more talkative than "you're either with us, or with the terrorists". Behind closed doors, Obama has made concessions. So perhaps Chomsky shouldn't make a blanket claim about them being his lieutenants. But I think the way Gordon Brown has commited 500 more troops if Obama decides it's needed is demonstrative that Obama still has the lead on such matters. Naive to think it would be any other way.

It might be. The prisoners could be moved elsewhere, and he'll have rectified that failure, but there'll still be torture and rendition to a host of other locations. You seem to be diluting your point with each post though.... He deserves a nobel prize for what he's done, Pilgers article is plain wrong He deserves it for what he's inspired, Pilgers article distorts the truth Ignoring all the other stuff, he WANTS to close one torture facility, Pilgers article lacks clarity I agree 100% that he's changed the face of American politics, but like that other loony lefty wooly liberal Noam Chomsky said in the article I posted here.... Bush and his cohorts addressed the world as "our lieutenants." Thus, in announcing the invasion of Iraq, they informed the United Nations that it could follow U.S. orders or be "irrelevant." Such brazen arrogance naturally aroused hostility. Obama adopts a different course. He politely greets the leaders and people of the world as "partners," and only in private does he continue to treat them as "lieutenants." Foreign leaders much prefer this stance, and the public is also sometimes mesmerized by it. But it is wise to attend to deeds, not rhetoric and pleasant demeanor.

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them. No, the Pilger article tried to claim that Obama had somehow reneged on his promises about Guantanamo but failed to detail the Senate voting against his wishes, or his comments decrying their decision. It also is a static analysis of his administration, rather than a comparative dynamic analysis of what came before and which direction he is moving the US in now. You can poke holes in lots of US policies, always have been able to, their current economic position is under severe threat and they are trying to shore up their domestic economy. Same in the EU. I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world. It's still open. America does torture. Whether or not he's happy with that after almost a year in the job is irrelevant. I'm sure Graeme Souness wanted us to climb the league. He was still a cunt. Obama's still allowing rendition too and has made no attempt to put a stop it, never mind meeting resistance.

Yes, but that's not to say that Obama has any plans to curtail the money making schemes of the past for the sake of the environment. Destroying the environment while encoraging the public to invest heavily in saving it is a win win for industry. He's wrong too

Or none. Now that Chris has stopped using eco-pressure groups for baseless estimates, he's stepped up a gear and is using the same people that got Saddam's WMD stockpile so bang on right as "sources". I'd love to see those reports if you have them. Colin Powell got up in the UN took his dick out and said here's your evidence. ..and the media ate it up. And again where is the substantiated evidence for Israel having nukes? http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ or try the CIA sites, or several published books Just like it was "convinced" Saddam has WMDs. Strong parallels to the Saddam/WMD evidence there! In fact there's almost nothing on that webpage that isn't just conjecture. Mordechai Vanunu

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8310121.stm Attention seeking fuckers.

I can't be arsed with your shit today. Might indulge you next week though, if not over the weekend

This is what affirmative action leads to

I thought the article lucidly outlined the outcome of Obama administration policies. I don't see where (or why) good intentions comes into it whether or not he has them. Here's another good article, this time it's coming from the climate angle rather than the war.... http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/klein

In all seriousness, it really has. It's deflating.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter). It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it. In American culture, governments dont change or do anything, a Republican is someone who believes that the only role of government is defense. They have no role in healthcare ffs, widely recognised by the rest of the planet as a core function of government. The healthcare bill (the single biggest issue facing the US) is moving forward. Thats change. 'Sitting mutely' is just an absurd way to characterise Obama's first 10 months. I think you mis-read my post. He can't expect journalists with an once of integrity to sit mutely while his efforts bring no discernable change.

I'm starting to bore myself. Who stands up to wipe their arse but also turns around to have a look at their 'product' before covering it?

Rahm Emmanuel is his chief of staff. He's seen it all before with Clinton. If anyone knows the pitfalls in getting things done while in the White House it should be him.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

As far as I can tell it means the biggest UK bookies can offer better odds in other EU countries as a loss leader that pulls all their business, forcing local bookies from those countries out of business and creating themselves a European monopoly for themselves.....all in the name of avoiding a monopoly. Understandably some countries don't want to let that happen and would rather grow their own local gambling industry to the point they can compete on a level playing field. But i might be a cynic. So fuck, it still has nothing to do with us. Unless you sign up for it and they get what they want in which case it means "Bloody Brussels" dictating our laws. Or something.

I don't think anyone with an ounce of sense thinks Obama is evil and sits at his desk glorying in the destruction in his wake (or that Bush did for that matter). It would take an extraordinary individual to live up to the expectations on Obama's shoulders, but you can't run a campaign on the 'audacity of hope' with a slogan of "Yes we can" and play "Change is gonna come" when you win, then expect people to sit mutely when you have no discernable effect whatsoever, and get lauded for it.

It already has once. As Bush said "'I've Abandoned Free Market Principles to Save the Free Market"