Well said.
To me there's not a huge amount of difference between the killings of innocents by terrorists in the UK and what the US does with drones.

The disgrace that is Guantanamo Bay looks like it's moving to a slow resolvement, at long last, after the Presidents early promises.
Better late than never?

[urlhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/obama-to-name-d-c-lawyer-to-lead-guantanamo-bay-closure/[/url

Of course it is simplistic to suggest there is a direct link between his administration and rising US poverty. It would be like saying the global financial crisis of 2008 never happened and made no contribution to this and increasing poverty was all down to deliberate policies similar to those being enacted by the UK government now that you could realistically argue will push people into poverty.

Perhaps I'm just disillusioned by leaders of all political persuasions, in what are meant to be leaders of the richest countries in the world, in the 21st century, still unable to make basic provisions for the poorest in their respective societies.

You can maybe excuse that Dave, perhaps you are a Foodbank contributor?

I can't!

And if you think it's only the t0ssers cutting benefits (you know, the ones with the least) in this country, think again.

[urlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/poverty-in-the-u-s-a-nearly-50-million-americans-on-food-stamps/5328986[/url


Shocking.

[urlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/six-million-in-the-us-with-no-income-but-food-stamps/16853[/url

I don't disagree with that at all but I think that is a slightly different issue to linking the increase in poverty to one particular administration. I'll be simplistic now and suggest in the USA the increased incidence of poverty has more to do with the consequences of the financial crash and world recessions than it does here where things like bedroom taxes and benefit caps are a direct assault on the poor.

I don't really know if benefits have been cut under Obama in a similar way but if they have I'd bet my house it was down to Republican's wringing concessions out of the Democrats to get [iany[/i legislation through.

Regardless of that there is still a problem as you say the richest countries in the world still have leaders who say we can't afford to make basic provisions.

The problem is people believe them. The propaganda works

And also we can't vote for a government that will change tack anyway and change priority. There is no credible alternative and the right have won the argument re benefits cheats and so on.

With growing numbers of UK citizens turning to foodbanks, it really does take a special kind of stupid to tweet this:

[iDavid Cameron ‏@David_Cameron

This is the menu for the #G8UK dinner. I’ll chair a discussion on tax, trade, transparency and Syria at 830 tonight [/i

Has anyone on twitter pointed this out to him?

It should read [ibrazen[/i shin of beef.

I hope Cameron chokes on his food and everyone else leaves him to.

CallmeDave took Sam out to Pizza Express before meeting Putin.
He left a 50 quid tip.
That's about 110% of his bill.

You could say it's generous.
But, if he thinks staff are underpaid, why doesn't he increase the minimum wage?

So, because we have a few unfortunates who somehow have slipped through the Social Security safety net, we all should head down to Aldis? And what exactly is the problem with this menu? It's a perfectly adequate, if slightly mundane choice for the Great and the Good.

Would the Comrades be happier to see something microwaveable from Tesco's Value line being dished up?

Come the revolution we may all have to eat mushy peas, but until then, I for one will still enjoy a bit of culinary satisfaction.

Looks like our pub menu. I'm sure the French can share another joke about awful British food. Honestly, an apple f*****g crumble or cheese and buscuits? Did they eat at a Harvester?

I honestly think he did it to show how "austere" the menu was

It's not the scope of the menu, more why he thought it necessary to tweet it at all.

It appears the dumb fook is being advised by even dumber fookers (if that were possible)

PM's shouldn't tweet. It's a no win situation. A bit like trying to end the violence in Syria by sending everyone more guns.

You didn't really miss the point that much did you?

It left a vapour trail above his head.

I'd love to see a vapour trail behind Cameron.

Most politicians shouldn't tweet but they do give some genuine LOL (as in not Cameron's interpretation) moments. It's extremely doubtful whether the likes of Cameron, Osborne and Miliband are actually tweeting themselves but whoever is doing it on their behalf are idiots. Ed Balls deffo writes his own tweets, his kids would be embarassed. I also think Porky Pickles and Grant Shapps author their own tweets too.

You can add my MP to that - he's never off the bloody thing, at least I know where he is at any given minute of any given day though.

Speaking of which, and this is probably the wrong thread, but as the parliamentary chair (or something) of a committee that is investigating the brewery tie system of pub leases, he highlighted this blog post the other day, its a true story (with names & facts known to him) and is typical of several other such stories he hears EVERY DAY - this story is the answer to why so many local pubs are closing with the buildings being sold at auction for other uses.

[urlhttp://pubaliciouspubs.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/my-name-is-angelique-this-is-my-story/[/url


Read the comments from other pub landlords at the bottom of the post, the last one is from a pub local to me and I know our MP is taking an interest in their story.

But we wouldn't have had Ed Balls Day without him doing his own tweets.

Don't be soft, it's the smoking ban

I'm confused. Did Obama create this menu?

Is he the chef?

How can it be a fraud when there's no prices?

It's senseless to think that Obama could ever hope to deliver on the kinds of extravagant expectations which were bandied about pre-election.

Much was made of the fact that he is America's first black President and it was theorised that he would attempt to push through sweeping reforms aimed at tackling the colossal problems of inequality and racism. This mirrored similar (dashed) expectations in Britain by campaigners for women's rights following Margaret Thatcher's election victory. But whilst both were genuine novelties it was less about gender or the colour of Obama's skin than the [iclass[/i whose interests they served.

Unlike genuine reformers such as John F. Kennedy and FDR, Obama never arrived in office with the degree of independence great wealth and/or the connections and influence of a patrician family provided. In order to raise the vast sums of money necessary to conduct an effective campaign he was forced to cut deals with the major Wall Street banks and investment firms as well as the big media and technology conglomerates. Affiliation with the former dashed any hopes the American electorate had of long overdue banking reforms in the wake of the sub-prime collapse - not to mention a thorough investigation into how it occurred. Worse still, these ties doubtlessly played a role in securing not just bailouts (literally forced through in a secret, highly-undemocratic and possibly illegal fashion) but the titanic economic stimulus packages the major part of which was gleefully divvied up among his benefactors. And let's not forget that it was Wall Street which neutered Obama's medical reforms just days before submission by publicly threatening to switch allegiance to the Republican Party in the Wall Street Journal.

If Obama needed to slice some of the fat off spending to invest in social reforms (or just attempt to balance the books) the logical choice would be the trillion-dollar post-Cold War money pit which is the military. With over 1,100 bases worldwide (not including those with less than a hundred staff or the numerous and rapidly growing centres for covert operations) it shouldn't be difficult to find savings. But when George W. Bush tried to phase out a handful of effectively redundant domestic bases he quickly realised his error when a coalition of former five star generals wrote a series of politically damaging articles in the major press.

Obama isn't the most powerful man in the world. He's not even the most powerful man in America. It's laughable to think that when his chums from the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, Citibank etc. are invited to the White House they dutifully nod their heads in submission and then ask him to autograph their napkins.

I think you will find our boys have had the coordinates uploaded to the on board computers for some time and we are well practiced and ready to go should UN/Nato decide. There is always a risk for aircrews as its part and parcel of the job.