I love the British media....

...they're just so.....English!

Published on January 18, 2009 By Rightwinger In US Domestic

Posted by Chuck58, on the Gathering of Eagles forum, the Eagles Nest:

Thanks to Colonel Harry Riley, for the find.

London Daily Mail editorial 1/6/2009

Obama's Victory--A British view

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the US mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult.

A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros, Moore, and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative.

Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America !

Comments

ThinkAloud

on Jan 18, 2009

Obama's Victory--A British view

Sometimes, I just wonder whom do these people, those who wrote that editorial, represent !!!!

They have loud voluminous voice like that of a lost elephant ....

What they say Obama's victory for IS the whole world ..... didnt they realize that when they wrote it?

who else is there left unmentioned in their sorry piece of drivel? .... only them I guess..... what a waste of public resources and printing ink !!!!

cactoblasta

on Jan 19, 2009

Daily Mail - the same reputable newspaper that brings you page three girls and front page articles with wild speculation about pop singers and royalty.

Classy find there, Rightwinger. You've managed to put yourself in some very good company.

Basmas

on Jan 19, 2009

The british paper with page 3 girls is the Sun. The daily mail is famous for small c conservativism, rabble rousing anti-muslim and immigration leaders and science stories that are dividing the world into two camps 'things that cause cancer' or 'things that cure cancer'.

Rightwinger

on Jan 19, 2009

Sometimes, I just wonder whom do these people, those who wrote that editorial, represent !!!!

They have loud voluminous voice like that of a lost elephant ....

What they say Obama's victory for IS the whole world ..... didnt they realize that when they wrote it?

who else is there left unmentioned in their sorry piece of drivel? .... only them I guess..... what a waste of public resources and printing ink !!!!

Daily Mail - the same reputable newspaper that brings you page three girls and front page articles with wild speculation about pop singers and royalty.

Classy find there, Rightwinger. You've managed to put yourself in some very good company.

....and so, all this disallows their editorial staff, as far as having an opinion? You've pretty much just described the entire American mainstream media here, but in the other direction.

Well, the words must be close enough to the target, as I've stirred up the ire of the libs (dusts off hands). My work is done.

GO STEELERS!

Dr Guy

on Jan 19, 2009

He makes some good points - so he has to be attacked and denigrated.

And note for Cacto. This is one man's opinion. As such, it could be posted in the national enquirer or Time (but then I repeat myself), and it would not be any less valid. As it is an OPINION piece and not news.

Attack the OPINION if you want, but dont try slight of hand with your voodoo. I see a lot of what he says in your postings as well. Yes, Man is probably the only animal that will bite the hand that feeds him. And I see a lot of teeth marks.

cactoblasta

on Jan 19, 2009

Well, the words must be close enough to the target, as I've stirred up the ire of the libs (dusts off hands). My work is done.

I'm not much of a liberal, but I'll do anything to please a man who writes to newspapers. And reads something with the ludicrous name of 'the Gathering of Eagles'. Anything.

Actually a newspaper editorial is a statement of the newspaper's opinion. In most news outlets it's a position which reflects the majority position of the board and the editors. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider what else the newspaper thinks is important before ascribing too much integrity to the unsupported statements made in the editorial. Weighing up the source is just as important as considering the content.

Attack the OPINION if you want, but dont try slight of hand with your voodoo.

I'll keep that in mind, secret master.

Rightwinger

on Jan 19, 2009

Hey....IS THIS JOE BIDEN?

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2009

Actually a newspaper editorial is a statement of the newspaper's opinion. In

No, it is just one man's opinion. Newspapers go out of their way to emphasize that.

Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider what else the newspaper thinks is important before ascribing too much integrity to the unsupported statements made in the editorial.

As this is an opinion piece, you might want to point out the unsupported statements, and then show where they were used as facts. But then anyone that cant stand opposing opinions voiced is probably not concerned about facts in any case.

Hey....IS THIS JOE BIDEN?

While we suffer through the next 4 years, the small solace we can find will be in seeing the liberals turn into blithering idiots trying to define, defend and support this train wreck. I dont think Cacto is Biden, nor do I think he is that stupid. But trying to defend it, he does start to sound like the blithering idiot.

Rightwinger

on Jan 20, 2009

And reads something with the ludicrous name of 'the Gathering of Eagles'. Anything.

--Cacto

It's a group of people who consider American patriotism, individual liberties, American soverignty and the advancement of American ideals and interests, and support of the Constitution--as written--rather than its distortion, to be very important.

You wouldn't understand.

I dont think Cacto is Biden, nor do I think he is that stupid. But trying to defend it, he does start to sound like the blithering idiot.

I was referring to the "impenetrable thicket of words" thing. Made my head hurt.

Know what I've noticed? This post has been here for what, 2 days? Yet, none of its erstwhile detractors have bothered to challenge any of the points it made, only complaining about and dismissing the existence and protocol of the article itself. Why is that?

JamesWilson

on Jan 24, 2009

This is a FAKE!!!! Whatever it may be, it is not an expression by a British source!

First: look at the supposed date: 1/6/2009 - That's an AMERICAN style, if this originated in Britain it would be 6/1/2009.

A dead give-away that it's not right.

What's more:

There is NO LONDON Daily Mail. Try googling it: "London Daily Mail", you'll get nothing but links to this fraud. Takes all of 3 seconds (I went back and timed it), maybe....

There is a DAILY MAIL, and it is a very conservative newspaper and its coverage of the election has been generally pro-McCain though they have little liking for Mr. Bush (and even less for Mrs. Palin); but their columnists haven't been all that critical of Mr. Obama. Yet.

And this is the sort of thing they MIGHT have published.

BUT they did not.

Searching its own website with the words "Obama Oprah hysterical":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?pageOffset=&pageSize=&orderBy=relevDesc&searchPhrase=Obama+hysterical+Oprah+&_channelshortname=on&_channelshortname=on&_channelshortname=on&_channelshortname=on&_channelshortname=on&button=%3CSPAN+class%3Darrow-small-r%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3EClear+all&_contenttype=on&_contenttype=on&button=%3CSPAN+class%3Darrow-small-r%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3EClear+all&dateupdated=&dateFrom=&dateTo=&_personnames=on&_personnames=on&_personnames=on&button=%3CSPAN+class%3Darrow-small-r%3E%3C%2FSPAN%3EClear+all

Yields a "No results found": so the Daily Mail did not publish this. That search too takes all of 4 seconds.

Google the first part of it:

"A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright"

And all you get are links to sites repeating emails and/or sites with these contents. That too takes all of 2 seconds. Plus the time to troll through the returns looking for anything like a www.londondailymail.co.uk Address as a real paper with that name would most likely have as its website (try that too, in 2 seconds or less it'll tell you there's no such thing).

Nowhere do the actual contents appear from ANY LINK to an ORIGINAL British source.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any British newspaper published this.

Or, indeed, that it originates from any newspaper at all.

It's pure unadulterated Rubbish.

Why do people SO EASILY BELIEVE THIS BS? It can be shown to be utter nonsense in seconds (less than 15!), if anyone could be bothered to look.

Someone's pulling a fast one. Send a response to anyone that believes this:

SUCKERS!!!

Plainly, the author of this BS is unwilling to take the responsibility for it.

Even more plainly, they think passing it off as "British" will give it more interest than if it were the rabid frothing of another right wing nut opposed to Obama!

Challenge the points it makes- why bother, it's a lie, pure and simple.

And it's apparently taken in lots of GULLIBLE Americans= maybe that's the point the British liberals are trying to make: conservative Americans get suckered in by any old nonsense and don't bother either thinking or checking any of it.

Do they?

Rightwinger

on Jan 24, 2009

Dude, calm down; exclamation points and caps only make you look crazy.

Even if it wasn't published by the Daily-Mail, someone had those opinions and wrote it. If I posted something that's not what it claims, sorry; it happens sometimes, especially on the net. The source I got it from has never let me down, before.

Even if it wasn't written for/by a staffer for an established publication, or is just someone's blog, is irrelevent. They're still good, valid points.

And they still have yet to be challenged by anyone.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!