This synthetic outrage over Jeremy Clarkson's "insult" to the Prime Minister is incredible. Think back to the 1980s and the terrible insults which were hurled Margaret Thatcher's way by various commentators and comedians on the BBC. Calling someone a "one eyed Scottish idiot" is tame by comparison.
I can't believe he's apologised.
121 comments:
Much more recently, the insults thrown at Heather Mills have been far harsher than this.
"Much more recently, the insults thrown at Heather Mills have been far harsher than this."
The money-grabbing b*tch deserved every word.
As does Gordon Brown.
yes and what about Woss's " did you jerk off over pictures of Margaret Thatcher whebn you were young?" to David Cameron? Ross should have been put down years ago. But people getting twisted and bitter about these things just shows how insecure they are. Mrs. T was strong enough to ignore it, which is what REALLY pissed off the BBC.
Yes, yes. But that was then - and this is now. We have a new regime and a new Glorious Leader. We didn't have the brave PC Thought Police then to protect us from evil thoughts, but we certainly do now. What a boon to us all.
We are not worthy.
Maybe Clarkson isn't so bad after all !
Good thing he didn't liken him to a gollywog, that'd be really bad.
Didn't Clarkson's Mum have something to do with Teddy Bears?
He has issued an apology saying on reflection he regretted saying something about the PMs 'appearance'.
(BBC 'breaking news') - a great line. I think I like the apology more than the insult.
It is of course OK for louche left wing so-called comedians and comediennes to say all manner of vulgar things about conservatives. Especially on the institutionally left wing BBC which is totally enclosed and insulated in its liberal cocoon.
There was no need to apologise.
On the plus side, however, Clarkson's comment will have been broadcast by the BBC numerous times - which is fantastic, because that will go some way to countering the usual BBC news agenda - namely broadcasting Brown's lies unchallenged 24x7.
OT - but how the hell can they spin Sarkozy calling Brown an idiot?
He doesn't seem to have apologized for calling Brown a liar though...nicely rubbed in.
The right sort of apology!
Clarkson has apologized for remarks he made about our beloved leader appearance.
He has not however apologized for calling him an idiot.
After wednesdays "Depression gaff" it clearly is the case than Gordon is an idiot!!!
“Think back to the 1980s and the terrible insults which were hurled Margaret Thatcher's way...”
Well I recall the comedy (notably ITV’s Spitting Image) but otherwise - no. Can you remind me?
Call a spade a spade, and be unapologetic for it.
AS I was saying to Commie Piper
I do not recall such delicacy of feeling when Margaret Thatcher was ritually abused in the most obtuse and infantile way on the BBC every day. Usually her gender was questioned
Bob said:
February 6, 2009 2:38 PM | permalink
I think you make a good point about Margaret Thatcher.
I have lost all respect for Jeremy Clarkson...
For apologising!!!
Check out the News Quiz tonight for confirmation.
Has Jeremy Hardon ever been funny?
Simon Gardner:
Try any number of appearances on the BBC by the annoyingly smug Ben Elton or, for that matter, most of the so called alternative comedians. Try listening to the BBC radio comedies with the celebrity panellists who snear at the Tories constantly. Try teh countless dramas peddled by the BBC with their anti thatcher bias.
But no. Don't bother. You are obviously trying to conveniently forget such comments. Alternatively you have lived on Gannymede or one of the other moons of Jupiter for the last 28 years.
It really is pathetic the way Labourites try to desperately blot out memories of the anti Tory slant of the BBC's ouput over the last 30 odd years in a desperate attempt save the face of their one-eyed-idiotof-a-party-leader and, proably, last Labour PM for the next 10/15 years.
I'm disappointed that Clarkson apologised. I'd like to have seen him really expose the hypocrisy of the BBC.
Jeremy Clarkson hasn't got the hang of the new BBC. He tried his best but what he should of said was that he'd f**ked Gordon's grandmother and fancied fat Sarah. The BBC would have considered that hilariously edgy and probably given him a pay rise.
I don't think anyone believes that Clarkson apologised of his own volition.
Notice, he apologised for making a remark about Brown's physical appearance... not for calling him an idiot! It was a back-handed apology.
I don't recall you being particularly amused when a poster referred to Attila the Hen's health issues recently.
Since when has an apology from Clarkson meant anything anyway?
In any case, he hasn't retracted the idiot bit or the stuff about the economy.
I've lost count at the number of times Americans and George Bush in particular were insulted on the BBC. How about Sarah Palin? She was called all sort of names by the BBC in various shows.
No apology there. Clarkson's description of Brown is accurate. He is Scottish, one eyed and an idiot. Clarkson could have added that Brown eats his own snot live on TV as well.
Who would I be offending if I said a Gollywogg would run the country better than this idiot?
They were showing it on Sky every half or so earlier on - and then more when he apologised.
Law of Unintended Consequences? Only a few know, now millions and their dog do.
"I can't believe he's apologised."
You might want to read his 'apology' again.. ;)
Clarkson has done the right thing. why risk a well paid job over a light hearted remark.
I can't believe (oh sorry I can in the Beeboid parallel universe) that this has been trumpeted on EVERY BBC news programme that I've come across (ooh err) today as NEWS - and I've been listening / watching since about 5am.
Someone clearly wanted to smear Mr Clarkeson and used such carpet-bombing coverage to achieve this.
My only surprise is that it didn't become the R5 phone-in. Today's was a p-poor attempt to create rivalry between fatty catties and hard-working families. The porky pussycats wisely did a Macavity instead.
Although greatly disappointed that Mr Clarkeson provided even such a back-handed apology, I think he made the right choice to pick a war he can win rather than getting sucked into Gollygate nonsense.
And yes I do recall the one-way bile that was spewed all over the Tories during the err 80s/90s and now in the 00s. I was a politically uninterested teenager when this all started and was struck by how one-sided and trendy it was to be a lefty.
On my very first work training course a colleague 'confessed' to once being a Tory but had now recovered and was roundly applauded. 20 yrs on this still makes me shudder at the 'right-on' tone.
The fact that there have been voters known as shy Tories and conversely phony Labourists just shows how much influence the Beeboids have on what ordinary folk feel is an acceptable way to think.
Bleugh. Rant over (for now)
At February 06, 2009 3:13 PM , Dick the Prick said...
OT - but how the hell can they spin Sarkozy calling Brown an idiot?
------------------
A sort of translation on my blog!
Jeremy Clarkson for that Middle England Seat Sheffield Hallam!
Before the US election the comedians on Mock the Week were making fun of John McCain for not being able to lift his arms above his shoulders - where was the national outrage then?
The BBC must now be one of the BNP's key recruiting agents. Are they so blind that they cannot see that every time they vent their fascist spleen another nail goes in their coffin, and yet more votes are earmarked for the BNP!!
And to the foolish people from the RNIB, try engaging brain before you speak. How refreshing it would have been if you had just said 'this is Mr Clarkson's description of the Prime Minister and quite obviously has no bearing on blind people in general'. Instead, you belittle the people you serve!!
Plato
I really like your picture which reminds me of another BBC crime. There's lots of snow and they haven't once shown us any pictures of stranded sheep or farmers out on tractors delivering feed. As far as they are concerned weather is an urban problem.
Ya see, I am not very tall. So I don't mind being called a shit, but I do mind being called a "little shit".
I might be able to stop being a shit, but I can do nothing about being little.
On the other hand, being called anything can be offensive. Some say I am good looking, but it embarrasses me when I am with my ugly friends. How do you think they feel? Rotten, I expect.
What about people who went to University but then only got a 2:2. Even though most of them are fairly easy to spot, it's easy to cause offense at parties by being clever in the heat of an argument.
I dare not mention "families" in case single people go and top themselves.
Where will it end?
What we have today will go down as one of the most socially repressive eras in history. We don't burn people at the stake anymore, but you can still be sacked for not thinking the right thing or speaking out of turn, and that to me, in this enlightened era, is barbaric.
I too was about to bemoan the fact that JC had apologized .... until I realised that he only retracted his comnment about the prime mentalist's appearance.
His 100% accurate comment that Broon is a lying idiot remain on record !
Can't help wondering if the Beeb and Clarkson rigged his "insults" as a way to deflect from the C Thatcher case?
Anyway, it would be fun to try to recall some of these ghastly insults hurled at your heroine Iain. What were they? I mainly recall polite ribbing in the House for example - the worst I recall was "Attila the Hen" which hardly seems severe by modern standards.
Let's have a competition - who can recall the worst ever thing said about OberGruppenfuhrer Thatchler.
@no longer anonymous:
Linky.
I seem to remember Ben Elton ranting on about Thatch, as he called her. His diatribes tended to be a bit embarrassing so I've blanked out the details.
Did I notice a slight flicker of suppressed humour when the news announcer on PM about 1710 read out that JC had, "apologised for calling the Prime Minister a one-eyed scottish idiot"?
I'm not sure, as I was in the car, but you know, I got the distinct impression of a grin behind the microphone as the phrase, "one-eyed scottish idiot" was repeated.
Can't think why.
After some of the recent postings here Iain, can I propose you run two blogs?
Blog #1 - for the wide variety of morons, BNP rejects, morally and spiritually degraded racist members of the KKK, ranting, blubbering "people" who are suffering from systematic multiple neuronic failures due to excessive reading of the Daily Mail, etc.
Blog #2 - for the intelligent reader actually interested in a serious political discourse with you.
Blog #1 will contain approximately 98.2% of all of your current postees.
You will be able to keep the readers of Blog 1 happy in a wierd, deluded, narcotic way, simply by emitting a randomly selected series of words, every 23 seconds, containing (but not limited to), (perm any five of) Thatcher, hate, gay, droop, Daily Mail, Carol, Mark, hysteria, dangerous immigrant invasion, Brown, duh where is the keyboard, suck, golly, wog, west ham, BNP, sex, bastard left wingers.
However, I predict you will feel considerable relief organising things this way, as you have nothing really in common with the readers of blog number 1. At least, you sometimes claim not to have.
I suspect you will spend all your time from now on in Blog Number 2.
I think it was right for him to apologise for the one eyed remark. And not to for the idiot bit. And nobody requires an apology for being called Scottish ;-)
And while some very OTT jokes were made about Thatcher (I'm thinking about Spitting Images having her using the male toilet) I don't think anybody made any real jokes about the menopause or any of these female things we men consider to be a bit like being disabled.
I have lost a lot of respect for Jeremy Clarkson because of this. He should not have apologised - he should have stood by his comments and told Mark Thompson to spin on it.
Grim - Clarkson has always been one for having it both ways. Behind that bluff, tabloid-reader winning exterior, lurks a self-serving business brain. You don't think he really believes half the guff he comes out with do you? I'll bet he actually quite likes foreigners. In fact, he showed that he does in that programme where he toured Europe, which, alas, only went to one episode (France) because he was too nice to people in it!
DespairingLiberal said "Clarkson has always been one for having it both ways. Behind that bluff, tabloid-reader winning exterior, lurks a self-serving business brain."
Yes. And?
He doesn't hate foreigners as such, he just normally hates their governments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Kh_iThbJ4
Black Scottish Cyclops from a v.pop PC game.....
I guess VALVE.corp should apologise huh?
Clarkson had no choice. In old negotiating terms its known as the bus ticket home, he needed to give the BBC enough to keep him.
The limitations of his apology are far more interesting.
You could argue that the injury that Gordon Brown receive as a young man is nothing to do with politics, however he himself sought to cash in on it at the Labour party conference.
Clarkson reflects the feelings of much of the country. I was at a open business meeting a while ago and at the mention of Brown's name the room erupted with anger and hostility and that was before the debt fuelled crash of the economy he's driven us to.
There is also the case that Brown is Scottish, signed the Scottish claim of right and mostly just rules over England where he hasn't been elected by anyone - not even the English Labour party members. There's a fair amount of hostility about that also.
And that's before you consider the debt slavery that he's sold us all and our children into for his half baked scheme to actually try to get elected once in England.
Frankly Clarkson's view are mild compared to most English people's opinion of Brown.
PS Dolly's just lost it. Best to ignore him.
Yes labour/BBC love to sling the insults against Tories but when the same happens to then they dont like it.
***After some of the recent postings here Iain, can I propose you run two blogs?***
Well said, Suicidal Liberal (I know that's not your name but I've assumed you'll have reached that stage by now).
Given that most of the foaming-at-the-mouth brigade believe that gayers should be tolerated but neither seen nor heard, I still can't work out why they aren't boycotting Iain's blog.
Is Clarkson the original Wollygog.
Dick the Prick said... “Has Jeremy Hardon ever been funny?”
I get the News Quiz on iPlayer, so I haven’t heard it yet but I’ve always found Jeremy Hardy laugh-out-loud hysterical.
Clarkson was being paid by the BBC at the time and took the piss out of someone's disability.
Whatever you think if Brown surely people paid by public funds shouldn't go around mocking peoples disabilities especially those doing it on our dime?
not an economist said... “Simon Gardner: ...It really is pathetic the way Labourites try...”
Oi. Just who are you accusing of being a “Labourite”. I am not nor have I ever been any sort of a “Labourite”, supporter of any version of Labour or a Labour party member. [rage off]
I now return you to normal broadcasting...
Simon - agreed, Jeremy Hardy is in a different league to Clarkson. Clarkson simply uses cheap appeals to Old Brit xenophobia, which he himself does not even subscribe to, since he is much more intelligent than he pretends. Hardy is a sophisticated satirist who sometimes approaches genius level and who retains integrity.
Despairing liberal?
Ooooh yeeees, you will be chum come election time as will all your po faced thin lipped miserable two faced leftist comrades!
The worm has turned comrade, your PC fascist mumbo jumbo mind control is now seen for what it really is, ooh yes very soon the voter is going pass judgement on you and your 'modern Britain' led a mental defective and destroyed by the British electorate.
PS ha ha ha,a party led by a loony with an incontinence problem and exploited by boot filling crooks and going in flames soon, real soon!
Poetic justice I calls it.
Three blogs Iain please...the third for that absolute anus... Depairing Libdum wherein he can whine to his heart's content.
The insulting liberal/left bilge that pours out of the BBC on a daily basis is of far greater concern to many than a Clarkson one-liner, and less funny.
Just try and get an apology for that.
Some hope.
Cassandra - blog #1.
Cato - blog #1.
Just keeping track for the coming and totally inevitable split.
Iain will by now already have registered a new subdomain for it - something like completeanduttermorons.mailfodder.dale.com or similar.
I agree Zeddy - do they not realise Iain is a gay? Possibly because it hasn't been spelt out loudly enough in a Daily Mail tone. They need something like GAY TORY BLOGGER SHOCK IN CHARGE OF LITTLE CHILDREN DISGUSTED COUNTRY GOES BERSEK IN MYLEEN KLAAS SHOCKER or similar.
@ Desperate Lib
It'd be altogether easier, cheaper and much simpler if Iain simply banned you.
He's too well-mannered to do that, of course - but he'll be pondering it, even so.
Or you could simply start your own.
Martin said... “...George Bush in particular were insulted on the BBC. How about Sarah Palin? She was called all sort of names by the BBC in various shows. No apology there.”
And quite right too. Bush was the worst president the US has ever had (even vast numbers of Americans now think so - see his exit ratings). And of course the Bush/Cheney regime was widely loathed by populations throughout Europe (except by Tony Blair). Sarah Palin was and remains an embarrassing joke (even in the US*). That Katie Couric interview alone should have sent her slinking back to Alaska for good.
*SNL had her down pat.
Mr D. Liberal
Methinks you are recommending the Douglas Adams model of social engineering:
- the A Ark full of people you think are valuable, interesting and like you.
- and the B Ark with everyone else such as hairdressers - probably one of the most recession proof occupations after funeral directors.
May I suggest that you try an alternative programme to *smug mode*?
Just a thought. This is Iain's blog and we are his guests.
I think that's the nub of the problem plato - you only think you are his guests. Iain allows you to think this because having more people posting - no matter what tripe they come out with or how nuts they are - boosts his position as "leading Tory blogger".
Don't be fooled - he regards you with the same icy contempt that many others feel for these rambling idiocies.
As indeed do the Tory High Command for most of their sad supporters.
One is the mirror of the other.
Despairing Liberal,
Im gay and proud of it comrade, care to make fun of me, is it acceptable to make fun of gay right wingers now? I have no problem with people having a good joke at my expense, im secure enough to take it in good part, the leftists are the thin skinned ones arent they?
Yeah OK comrade keep sneering, your time of real despair is coming courtesy of the electorate, lets see if you still feel like laughing when Labour ends up with less than 100 MPs after the general election, lets see if you are still sneering when your MEP total could have its meetings in a telephone kiosk!
The thing about the sneering lefties is they can dish it out but they cannot take it!
Desperate Dan said... “I seem to remember Ben Elton ranting on about Thatch, as he called her. His diatribes tended to be a bit embarrassing...”
Pretty embarrassing for him too, since he is now a Tory fellow-traveller. He claims it was all an entertainment act anyway. Maybe it was?
Why, DespairingLiberal, it almost seems you want some kind of...oooh, I don't know...apartheid system? ;)
You must feel very insecure about your views, if you'd prefer them to never, ever be subjected to any kind of challenge.
Perhaps Draper's little blog would suit you better?
Unsworth - I wonder if you are perhaps Iain's alter ego in some strange form or other?
The more I think about it, the more this theory seems plausible. For example, you are often not around when he isn't.
If not, then I think it's just wishful thinking on your part - you after all were the one claiming Iain would never apologise to me. Only to turn out to look as foolish as blog attendee can be!
I feel genuinely moved by your plight.
"..keep sneering, your time of real despair is coming courtesy of the electorate.."
Oh, they know that. They know that only too well.
And you might ask why DesperateLiberal doesn't simply start his OWN blog. It's pretty easy, you know. Anyone can do it.
"I agree Zeddy - do they not realise Iain is a gay? "
'A' gay...?
Jesus, and you have the nerve to ponificate about others choice of words!
How very unedifying, when the mask slips. Hand back the name 'Liberal', chum. You aren't fit to use it...
"Bush was the worst president the US has ever had.."
*cough* Carter *cough* Nixon *cough
A note to Iain,
Isnt it odd how you get sneering socialists who constantly snipe at and critisise your blog? You would think that they would be more at home at lieborelist or liborehome rambling on about the glorious leader and his rekord traktor stats, then again those blogs are so tedious, mind numbing and boring, they have the effect of putting visitors to sleep or into a coma, no wonder the comrades keep coming back to the right wing blogs!
What is it about lefties and boring blogs that nobody wants to visit?
You would have thought these lefty refugees would be grateful to be allowed on a free blog, try the lefty blogs and see if you can post freely on their tedious sites, if a comment fails to extoll the revolutionary workers paradise it gets cut(typical reds) if the comrades dont like what you say they censor it.
JuliaM said... “"Bush was the worst president the US has ever had.." *cough* Carter *cough* Nixon *cough”
Oh far worse. Absolutely no comparison.
Learned people have gone back through 42 presidents and not found one as bad.
"Learned people have gone back through 42 presidents and not found one as bad."
'Learned people' = Simple Simon and anyone in his immediate social circle. Probably DeperateLiberal, asuming they aren't actually one and the same.
I've told you before - simply stating something does not make it so.
Now carry on denying reality. Because reality is shortly to be smacking you in the fce with a cluebat... ;)
Talking of BBC Labour bias, a couple of years ago the politics show run a piece about how Newham council's Labour Mayor had started his own police force (Community Constabulary) and showed a clip of one of its officers dressed in full police uniform (helmet included) arresting someone on the streets of Stratford. All illegal.
I called the politics show and informed them of this - pointing them in the direction of the independent enquiry that was taking place at the time regarding the issue. Basically, I was told to fuck off as it was "inconceivable that a respected local politician who do anything like I suggested"!
ITV's London Tonight's Glen Goodman did an excellent slot about what was going on. He interviewed me (I was then a Tory councillor in Newham and I had pushed for the enquiry). When I told him about the BBC's attitude he looked at me like I was a total fuckwit because I was surprised by it.
The funny thing about socialists is they cannot stand free debate and open dialogue, the leftists the world over simply hate the ideals of democratic freedom, an old man beaten up at their conference and persecuted as a terrorist just for speaking out. Enemies of socialism are persecuted without mercy and smeared whenever possible. Wherever there is free debate the leftists either try and hijack and control it or they try and shut it down, their blogs typify their real creed and their creed typifies their lack of political maturity.
@ Desperate Lib
"you after all were the one claiming Iain would never apologise to me"
Show me exactly where this was said.
Or am I lying?
JuliaM / Cassandra - the time is not yet ripe to "start my own blog" - I have been Sent to this blog to oppress and harass you with various liberal statements. I gain satisfaction from your reactions, which serve the Deep Purposes of the dangerous socialists and liberals in another dimension (outside Daily Mailiverse! If you can imagine that!) who think of little else.
When I have devastated this blog with a range of political thoughts and gloriously aggressive analagies and metaphors, I may go on to use hyperbole Somewhere Else. Until then, alas for you (!), you have me.
By the way, "a gay" was meant as a humourous satirical reference to Little Britain and the average BNP/sub-Tory's worldview. But such humour has little merit here, where most, especially Unsworth, usually don't get the joke.
I have reported this to my Masters but despite my longing to escape, they Keep Me Here.
JuliaM said... “"Learned people have gone back through 42 presidents and not found one as bad."”
Are you really that incapable of using a search engine - idiot? Yes, I guess you probably are.
Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4
Reference 5
Reference 6
More DespairingLiberals please. That's what we need.
Desperate'Liberal':"the time is not yet ripe to "start my own blog"..."
Translation: 'I haven't a clue how to set up a blog where I can be sure no-one will ever challenge my assumptions or threaten my view of the world..'
You could always ask Draper for advice.
"When I have devastated this blog with a range of political thoughts..."
Cool! Let us know when you plan to start. The signs aren't good so far, are they...?
"By the way, "a gay" was meant as a humourous satirical reference to Little Britain..."
Of course it was, dear boy, of course it was...
"I have reported this to my Masters but despite my longing to escape, they Keep Me Here."
Perhaps if you ever start earning your keep for them, and providing an argument a little better than 'Shut up! Stoopid Tories! You smell of wee!', they might elease you...?
"analagies"
Anal, certainly, totally.
Oh, and have you found where I 'claimed Iain would never apologise', yet?
Simon Gardener.
"I get the News Quiz on iPlayer, so I haven’t heard it yet but I’ve always found Jeremy Hardy laugh-out-loud hysterical.
February 06, 2009 7:17 PM"
Not only is he hysterical, he's a f*****g joke.
BTW, I'd pay good money to see Clarkson kick the c**p out him.
Simple Simon:"Are you really that incapable of using a search engine - idiot? Yes, I guess you probably are."
Getting rattled...? ;)
Boy, those are some 'learned' people you have there, yes sirree!
I'd never have thought those great minds at the 'Guardian', 'Rolling Stone' and the 'Washington Post' might regard Bush as the devil incarnate. What a shocker!
Just listened to the News Quiz podcast from last Friday - it seems its ok for people on there to call Boris the "idiot Mayor".
Why no BBC inquiry or mock outrage?!
Absolutely
Jules said... “Just listened to the News Quiz podcast...”
Whoops my mistake, I just realised I listen to it as a podcast (not iPlayer) and it’s sitting there waiting for me after I’ve listened to the Rachel Maddow show (just finished) and Dr Karl.
What concerns me most is not that Gordon Brown has one eye, but rather that the BBC has only one eye - the left one. The right one has become inactive through underuse. Everything is looked at through the left eye ... Hopefully, the day of reckoning for this nest of lefties is close at hand.
Oh what timing. From QI tonight....
'It was great, actually when she became Lady Thatcher because then she sounded like a device for removing pubic hair.'
So who made this remark?
Jo Brand.
You couldn't make it up.
As TelBoy says about QI couldn't agree more but there were more remarks that were all mocking Thatcher based on her sexuality. If a 'librul' said those things about any woman other than Thatcher there would be outrage.
So perhaps now is the moment to complain to the BBC about Ms Brand's deeply offensive remarks?
My e-mail will go in tomorrow.
unsworth -
and dont forget the remark about the "arabian shoplifters" she was very careful not to use the word "muslim"
I have no doubt it was brand behind the "leak" the chance to bring down a Thatcher must have been to good to resist.
Mostly Ordinary said... hatever you think if Brown surely people paid by public funds shouldn't go around mocking peoples disabilities especially those doing it on our dime?
Let's see what the BBC do about Jo Brand mocking limbless, mutilated disabled Saudi's on the BBC tonight.
oops
Joe Brand is rather older than she claims to be by the way .There were a couple of letters from bemused ex class mates in the Telegraph a while ago. I think looking around she senses her time is past and may have wanted to move on to being a lefty icon of some sort.
What else is she going to do ,model ?
Bush was rather a good President .Took Americas global responsibilities seriously and was a free trader . Judging by the pounds plummet, he made a far better fist if the economy than Brown did here. I am not exactly sure why the protectionist Obama appeals so much to Liberals here unless its guilt about their all white all bourgeois Party. Why his slithering into isolationism under the feeble cover of sanctimonious humbug appeals is equally mysterious .
Let us hope he does not screw up the legacy of a safe world bequeathed by Americas the first MBA President with a higher grade average than John Kerry .
Here is an insight to Bush the man
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/01/14/bush-doesnt-care-about-black-people/
Liberals are always telling us that Conservatives are Daily Mail Readers ( by which chortlesomely contorted mew they mean from a lower social class….eeooo ). That delicate antennae for nuance is somewhat lacking when it comes their pantomimic view of the world.
TelBoy said... “'It was great, actually when she became Lady Thatcher because then she sounded like a device for removing pubic hair.'”
Guffaw! Very funny.
History News Network
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency. Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”
One historian indicated that his reason for rating Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”
“It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”
“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians. “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches. His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”
Four years ago I rated George W. Bush’s presidency as the second worst, a bit above that of James Buchanan. Now, however, like so many other professional historians, I see the administration of the second Bush as clearly the worst in our history. My reasons are similar to those cited by other historians: In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed enormous support around the world. President Bush squandered that goodwill by taking the country into an unnecessary war of choice and misleading the American people to gain support for that war. And he failed utterly to have a plan to deal with Iraq after the invasion. He further undermined the international reputation of the United States by justifying torture.
Mr. Bush inherited a sizable budget surplus and a thriving economy. By pushing through huge tax cuts for the rich while increasing federal spending at a rapid rate, Bush transformed the surplus into a massive deficit. The tax cuts and other policies accelerated the concentration of wealth and income among the very richest Americans. These policies combined with unwavering opposition to necessary government regulations have produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Then there is the incredible shrinking dollar, the appointment of incompetent cronies, the totally inexcusable failure to react properly to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the blatant disregard for the Constitution—and on and on.
Like a majority of other historians who participated in this poll, my conclusion is that the preponderance of the evidence now indicates that, while this nation has had at least its share of failed presidencies, no previous presidency was as large a failure in so many areas as the current one.
"Kinglear said:
what about Woss's " did you jerk off over pictures of Margaret Thatcher whebn you were young?" to David Cameron?"
It always puzzled me whey Cameron didn't walk out there and then. Maybe he was just too desperate about appealing to the demographic instead of discovering a set of moral principles.
Simon when Bush is history then we might ask historians . Currently you are wasting your child like and limited ability to cut and paste .Until 9.11 violent jihadists enjoyed support across the word , Morocco and Indonesia appeased militants at home and encouraged them abroad . Saudi and UAE funded militant preachers . The Saudis financed extremist schools in many countries . UAE leaders are reported to have handed over sack loads if cash to Osama when they met at Kandahar airport . UAE and Saudi recognised the Taliban , with Pakistan . Sudan Syria and Yemen offered safe havens. In fact apart from Algeria nd Egypt ever Muslim state was on a spectrum of sympathy with al Quaeda and local outfits loosely associated with it . Pakistan went a good deal further , the ISI funded trained and armed the Taliban in Afghanistan and thousands of jihdists dedicated to killing Indians , in Kashmir and beyond.
What you have all perhaps forgotten was that 9.11 was applauded by young Muslims all over the world as a call to arms . There was a very real danger of things getting far far worse . ( Have you forgotten the pictures of sophisticated wine drinking Tunisians celebrating with tears in their eyes ?).In fact active Islamisists suffered a catastrophic loss of status as the war machine wound up and it was stopped in its tracks .
Bush understood the imperative for decisive action clear choices thus far it seems Obama does not . You were either with him or you were an enemy . He did not think that the world was good and evil you have misunderstood totally he knew it was not that’s the point .With so many shades of opinion the evil had to be isolated as much as possible . After and initial period of denial the Saudi began to admit their responsibility for spreading Islamic insanity . The Saudi king convened an interfaith conference between Muslims Christians and Jews . They began to actively hunt down terrorists over 1000 of whom have been arrested . Indonesia stood with Bush and The changes in Pakistan have been perhaps more dramatic still.
Would Obamah have been up to it or would he just fanny around creating ‘good will’ .Well lets hope he has more about him than I detect. Iran listened to European creating “good will” on Nuclear weapons and laughed , when America added “ or else” it was a different matter . Other achievements include good progress on denuclearisation his support for the surge .
Take WMDs . In common with Saddams own Generals the French, Chinese ,Israeli Russian intelligence agencies , the SIS and CIA he assumed a dictator does not destroy a WMD arsenal he used against his own people and then expel the UN inspectorate looking for proof of it (in 98 and 2001) He expected to find them as well as mass graves torture chambers and abuse of the food for oil programme . They found all but the WMDs. He was part of the mainstream of informed opinion. On the other side is the funny fat man Michael Moore snickering and the hot house plants of the Liberal West liker Simple Simon who have supported Fascism condoned genocide and encouraged slaughter just to be against America. Once again they will be proved to be invertebrate appeasers and when in fifty year historians have some history to look at then we will see how wrong the ignornat Liberals have been again.
simon gardener,,
Guffaw Very funny.
What's this,shreiking and wailing over some blokes hair being called likened to a gollywog,yet an obscene"joke"from odious brand and its very funny.Ah,of course its a Thatcher.Just imagine the reaction if it had been a black woman named,what a pompous hypocrite.
I notice your and your pal zeddy complain about the tone of comments on this blog.Please notice it has gotten worse since you both turned up.Were you ordered to attack Iains blog to tarnish its reputation?
Everyone,please ignore them.
'Historians', eh? What do they know? Isn't the first task of the politician to ensure that history is sympathetically written? How much history is taught today, anyway?
As Chairman Mao, when asked what was the impact of the French Revolution, 'It's too soon to tell'.
The rush to judgment by some 'historians' is simply journalistic jumping on the bandwagon. History will judge if they've got it right, but none of them is infallible.
Unsworth said... “'Historians', eh? What do they know?”
So far - more than you and JuliaM, clearly.
Simon Gardner
I cannot speak for JuliaM. No doubt she'll make her own decisions.
Is it your intention to completely destroy this blog by constant personal vilification and gross inanity? Or are you just a prat? Is Jo Brand your mother, or something? Or perhaps you too, regard yourself as a 'historian'.
You seriously believe the piece you cut and pasted has any real insight? How come? Apart from a large part of it being statements of the bleeding obvious, note that the article you posted studiously avoids naming sources. Why is that? Is it possible that much of what is (apparently) written by this unnamed author is simply made up? Such things have been observed all too frequently. The headline itself is entirely unconvincing. 61%? So what? Margin of error? Sample size? etc etc. Just because an unverified 61% of a self-selecting group say they 'think' something, it doesn't actually prove the point.
And just what is a 'professional historian', apart from a hired hack, that is? Have you read - and understood - Orwell? Put it on the table, tell us.
Unsworth said... “Is it your intention to completely destroy this blog...”
What an exceedingly silly person you are with even more exceedingly silly ideas. Now enough with the ad hominems already.
(a) I happen to like Iain Dale (though the inexplicable Nadine Dorries thing is dead creepy - ref private correspondence).
(b) I was a very long-term Usenet political newsgroup participator (Usenet long predates the web).
(c) What on earth is the point of going somewhere where I agree with everything - can’t see the point and can’t see the fun?
(d) Why on earth is anything to do with your egocentric self going to destroy anything? Good grief again.
He only apologised for the one-eyed bit...
Now then unsworth stop antagonising superior simon,we do not want him falling off his high horse now do we hmm.
Did you notice the pathetic little aside in a,in the 11am post.I'm in with the in crowd da da dada.
@ Simon Gardner
Well with this vast experience of Usenet etc - have you actually learned anything? You see, just because you've been doing something for a very long time it doesn't mean that you're any good at it, does it?
Anyway, now that we've got that clear, do you want to answer the questions about your cut n' paste exercise?
Just tell us about the historians, eh? That was, after all, the burden of my comment. Or is that entirely beyond you?
@ dmc
Yes, I had noticed....
I do so enjoy a good wind-up. Mind you, that wasn't a particularly good wind-up. I'm sure I could do better with a little more effort and application.
3/10. Must try harder.
I think Jo Brand mentions Margaret Thatcher every time she appeared as on Qi last night. Often making very tasteless unfunny "jokes" about Dennis Thatcher.
This morning Iain Martin also points out that Phil Jupitus called Margaret Thatcher a witch. Will be asking for an apology from Jupitus? Of course not.
In this article from the Birmingham Evening Mail LINK Adrian Chiles says "I don't seem to have any close friends who don't have the same colour of skin as me" and "More of us live next door to other cultures than ever before, but that's not making us friends."
Making friends is a question of personal choice. Consciously or unconsciously Adrian Chiles declines to make friends with people of different ethnicities to him. Surely that is one of the definitions of a racist.
Unsworth said... [snip]
Follow the link. [hint] That’s what it was put there for. Duh.
Simon Gardner
Did you say "I was a very long-term Usenet political newsgroup participator (Usenet long predates the web)."?
If so, why - with all this vast experience - do you cut'n paste part of an article? Why not give us all a break and just put up your link like any sensible person would do and stop wasting space here?
Oh, and 'historians', remember? The questions still stand - despite your 'link'.
That Scottish model of financial propriety Lord Foulkes of the Public Purse, and Brown crony, is "outraged" at Clarksons comments.
Good.
Unsworth said... [snip yet more whibble]
Still - follow the link. [hint] That’s what it was put there for. Duh.
Simon, I think the purpose of the Unsworth is to drive anyone he doesn't precisely agree with (eg, racist, xenophobe, to the right of Hitler, etc) off the blog.
Shame really, as I'm sure it's not what Iain wants, despite Unsworth's many pathetic attempts to claim it is.
A more humorless and plainly illogical "contributor" I have rarely if ever come across on blogs. What is particularly laughable about "it" is it's hilarious attempts to prove it's points through logic, the bases of which are usually grossly flawed.
He/it also spends a lot of time nitpicking over minor spelling issues - another sure and certain symptom of extensive Usenet troll experience.
Watch Unsworth come back now and say I can't spell "basis", the Unsworth never having heard of bases being used in that way.
Oh dear. I used to enjoy political discussions based on difference with Iain but the blog is bordering on being neutralised as useful by Unsworth and one or two others.
@ Desparate
"I think the purpose of the Unsworth is to drive anyone he doesn't precisely agree with (eg, racist, xenophobe, to the right of Hitler, etc) off the blog.
Shame really, as I'm sure it's not what Iain wants, despite Unsworth's many pathetic attempts to claim it is"
That is a lie, and you are a liar.
Now, I'll be very happy to receive your writ any time you choose to issue it.
@ Simon Gardner
We've done this all before, haven't we? This is Groundhog Day.
Yes it is clear that you put a link up, we can see that. As I commented before, why did you have to cut 'n paste half of the article, then? If you want people to read the article either give them the link or the article in full, rather than your version of it.
As a matter of fact the article itself casts no further light whatsoever.
And of course you're still unable to respond to the questions about these 'historians'? Of course not.
wv andsoles. How apt.
Sorry Unsworth, yes, I forgot the last two aspects of your trolling behaviour - legal threats and threats of violence. These always being the final refuges of the Usenet Goon.
One thing you should be aware of though, in case you aren't already, is that unlike Usenet, where for a long time it was hard to trace people, on a blog you always leave an IP trail.
This can be traced back on legal demand and your real identity be revealed. If so, your public and written threats of physical violence will become fully relevant.
As an aside, I was astonished Iain did not ban you when you issued those. Perhaps he will next time you do it. I will be watching and waiting for that to happen, as I feel sure it will - I know the signs.
@ Despairing Liberal
You are a Desperate Liar - and I await your Writ.
You seem to think that I might give a shit about your 'surprise'. It's quite clear that nobody else does, either.
'Troll', eh? Whose blog is this - yours?
So, once again - and for the benefit of your legal advisers, you are a gutless liar.
Now, let's hear from the solicitors, eh? Put up, sunshine.
Post a Comment