web analytics


By David Vance On May 21st, 2011

I see that the narcissist-in-chief has used the “I” word 35 times whilst praising the work of the CIA in bringing Obama to justice. I’m surprised. 35 mentions of himself in a speech seems positively frugal! Has there ever been a President more wrapped up in his own imagined greatness?

24 Responses to “IT’S ALL ABOUT ME!”

  1. Errrmmmmmmmmmm…..

  2. I smell typo

  3. Yes and in 2 lines David actually used “I” more than Obama did in any two lines throughout.

  4. “I am not a neo-con! I am uncompromising though! ”

    One tweet!

  5. Are you quite sure that he has faced justice?

  6. David – it would seem you used the word twice in three lines when being critical of him. That might be a higher ratio.

  7. Is there any truth to this?


    Seventy-one rounds of ammo were unloaded in seven second on Jose Guerena, an ex-Marine who served two tours of Iraq.
    The gunfire wasn’t unleashed by insurgents from opposing military forces, however. The 60 bullets that entered Guerena’s body were fired by an Arizona SWAT team as Guerena’s wife Vanessa and their four-year-old son Juan hid in a closet at around 9:30 am on a Thursday morning. It happened only earlier this month in their Tuscon, Arizona-area home.
    According to police, the Guerena residence was targeted in an investigation surrounding home invasions and drug rip-offs. Police says their house was among those “identified as locations where these activities were being carried out from.” What hard evidence they have for this has not been disclosed.
    What we do know, more or less, is that Vanessa heard noises and saw a man outside their window on the morning of May 5. She woke her husband up, who then grabbed a rifle and walked toward the kitchen. There he was shot dozens of times within the mere moments after. Guerena’s possession of the AR-15 was completely legal and it was never fired.
    What followed immediately was a poorly-handed 911 call dialed by Mrs. Guerena as she watched her husband grunt on the ground in front of his family, gasping his last breaths of life. She pled with the emergency operators to send help for five minutes while they deemed her “hysterical.” Once they did arrive, it was an hour and 14 minutes before EMTs were allowed access to the wounded Guerena; the SWAT team wouldn’t allow them near.

  8. Allan

    You sure love ” Russia Today ” as a news source.

    See this


  9. or this:- http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_a978c23a-a40f-5d0a-a203-76b88ac67e86.html?mode=story

  10. all the repors seem similar, – so what’s with the sarky remark to Allan?

  11. How about this one: –


    Now thats the way to run a city! – Chicago style….

  12. Ernest

    RT is not a legitimate news site. When covering the US, they seek to present the country in the worst possible light. When reporting on Russia, they stay away from anything that might cast Putin or Medvedev in a bad light.

    So, let’s just say it’s bad form to present as news anything that comes from a propaganda site.

    The RT piece here seeks to show that the SWAT team did something wrong – and here they do so by leaving out a highly essential bit of detail found in your own link

    Attorney Michael Storie said authorities found rifles, handguns, body armor and a portion of a law-enforcement uniform inside the house where Jose Guerena was shot by officers serving a search warrant May 5

    Propaganda sites mislead not only by printing falsehoods – watch what they leave out, too. Be very skeptical about any stories on the US that appear in a Putin / Oligarch controlled news syndicate.

  13. Phantom –

    RT is not a legitimate news site. When covering the US, they seek to present the country in the worst possible light.

    So it’s like the BBC then. At least when there’s a Republican in the White House.

    Of course RT is a legitimate news operation. The important thing is that viewers know it’s funded by the Russian government. I’m not sure why that fact alone renders it dubious when state funding of the BBC is a (apparently) a good thing.

    In fact from what I’ve seen RT is in way as biased as the BBC. Likewise all those corporate-owned American news channels.

    Isn’t it General Electric which owns NBC? If so, would NBC viewers have received impartial coverage of (say) the various corporate bailouts since General Electric trousered $140billion of taxpayer loot.

    I suspect that opposition to RT comes, in part, because it often provides a platform to those who are almost always barred from the Western newsrooms because their ideas pose a threat to entrenched interests. Think of Max Keiser and the like. His ideas are dangerous to Western governments and their crony chums.

  14. The BBC is not perfect, but I believe that they will produce stories that could embarrass the British government, while RT will never do coverage that will embarrass the Russian government.

    They suppress stories that might embarrass Russia, and play up to the hilt anything that is against the US or even against smaller countries that Russia does not like ( ie Georgia )

    They can’t possibly be mentioned in the same breath as the BBC. It’s similar to Pravda in the bad old days – pity, since RT could be a legitimate outfit if they chose to be.

    GE has sold a majority interest in NBC – now, Comcast, a big cable company, owns 51%, while GE owns 49%. Which is still a lot, and yes it is noted that they tend to underplay what would embarrass GE ( such as the recent report that they were paying no federal tax – reported on the front page everywhere else, but not so much by NBC )

  15. Phantom – I posted a link and asked if there was any truth to the report. The link which you posted presumably to refute mine simply backs up what I asked about. This makes your comment about RT somewhat misplaced. I don’t use RT to read on Russia for obvious reasons any more than I would trust anything that the corporate US/UK mainstream media emit.

    A few days ago in the cafe where I was having my lunch, there was The Times sitting nearby so I had a scan through it. An article on OBL’s ‘demise’ was written by someone whose title was ‘the Pentagon reporter’. The item had phrases such as “it was revealed…”, “it was disclosed that…” and it became evident that this ‘reporter’ had been handed copy from the Pentagon which was taken as Gospel and printed in The Times without question. The media are not just too close to the political class: they are one and the same, and both owned by the same corporate clique.

    Although there is no checking done by the ‘mainstream’ media and its lackeys, there is one check that is done by sensible people and that is the self-check: one simply asks oneself whether what one is reading is credible.

  16. The incident you speak of was widely reported in the local Arizona media.

    Who included relevant comment that RT left out.

  17. RT is not a legitimate news site. When covering the US, they seek to present the country in the worst possible light. So it’s like the BBC then. At least when there’s a Republican in the White House.


    I know Arsenal have had a bad two months. But the idea that the BBC is remotely comparable to a Putin propaganda outlet in despotic Russia is total rubbish.

    Try a darkened room for 24 hours.

  18. RT does have a well produced website,and their TV feed is available in many places. They give the signal away for free, since no one would ever pay for it.

    The BBC is the gold standard, despite any flaws. They do try to get it right, and they usually do. Many millions throughout the world listen to them, to get accurate reporting that is not available in their local radio stations.

  19. Phantom –

    The BBC is the gold standard, despite any flaws. They do try to get it right, and they usually do.

    I’m sorry, that’s just not true.

    In reporting EU matters, promoting anti-British propaganda and supressing conservative, (classical) liberal and free market views it is an outright biased organisation.

    Don’t take my opinion, go to biased-bbc and read the views of BBC stakhanovites on the front page.

  20. In the UK, those who have a TV are forced to pay for the BBC whether they watch its output or not, since no-one would ever pay for it. The BBC pushes leftist garbage and is far from the ‘gold standard’ that it may once have been.

    However, the BBC does have powers of supernatural prediction as is seen here:


  21. Hey Pete

    It’s just as well that we have “fair and balanced” Fox to get the truth from! Or maybe Murdoch is really a commie stooge?


  22. Allan

    Please remind us of your view of 9/11. A CIA plot?

  23. Please explain the BBC’s powers of prediction. I mean, that really was supernatural, was it not?

  24. Peter – neither the BBC nor Fox, nor any corporate media outlet can possibly be impartial because they have owners whose interests are to be protected (and those of the other corporations), and the ‘reporters’ are drawn from the same toxic well of leftist indoctrination that now pases for ‘journalism’. On the BC, its pro-EU views are well documented by the likes of Peter Sissons who could only report the fact after retirement because the utterance of any contrarian opinion in the BBC would stifle career prospects.

    We know that RT cannot possibly be trusted on events in Russia but, as rightly mentioned by Pete Moore, Max Keiser and his guests, who would never be allowed on the BBC, are given air-time on RT to explain how Wall Street and its banks destroy the finances of ordinary people everywhere – Greece, Ireland, the UK and especially the US. Several times I have linked to a Keiser Report, quoted Keiser or Stacy Herbert (both American, btw) and challenged the Wall Street trolls to explain why Keiser is wrong only to be met by the usual invective – which simply shows that Keiser is right. There was one absolute beauty put on by Phantom and it was that, by allowing Keiser air-time, RT is “anti-western”: as though JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank etc are pro-western!! These banks have destroyed the finances of the western world and it will not be reported by the corporate media.