1. Unfortunately The Guardian is one of the biggest propaganda sheets for the EU, a ‘liberal newspaper’ which is neither.

    • It’s something of the norm that any media outlet
      that doesn’t go along with government handout
      press releases and explanations will either be
      labeled anarchists, extremists, or even communists.
      That in my opinion qualifies as propaganda, but
      the math is in related to TTIP and why support
      in both the Senate,House, and public is declining.
      People are more aware this time around after a
      couple of decades of Nafta and Gafta.
      I could have added multiple links to various
      economists who have done the math and are opposed,
      but I also have perhaps an unfounded belief that
      one link will suffice as an encouragement for
      the reader to take it upon themselves to scout
      around and do their own math.
      If exposing the truth of things as the Guardian
      has history of doing is propaganda then I’d
      say we need more of it.
      I don’t take anything I read as gospel and why
      I’ll devote some time to researching and advise
      others to do the same.
      Nor do I expect a single outlet to be one hundred
      accurate every time.
      An obvious question is are you in favor of TTIP,
      and if so why?

      • I am certainly NOT in favour of TTIP or the EU. The Guardian is however staunchly pro-EU and of course anti-Brexit. It is an establishment rag that pretends not to be.

      • Well then, if this is so then one has to admit
        The Guardian broke with tradition in the linked
        article and the work they’ve done related to
        Eric Snowden and domestic spying, and credit is
        due for having done so wouldn’t you agree?

      • No because Jones’ article talks about ‘protecting’ the EU from the US, when it is the EU which *wants* TTIP; he does not about protecting ordinary people *from* the EU, which is and always has been a corporatist project. It is typical of the Guardian going back-asswards, trying to imply that the EU ‘protects’ the citizens of all those countries from which it has stolen all democratic accountability. The EU *is* the problem, not the solution, but for Guardianistas such thoughts are blasphemy, they have a pseudo-religious belief in the ever-expanding continental empire. Guardian editorial policy is still in favour of Britain giving up *everything* to the EU, our currency, our separate legal system, based on English Common Law (like yours in the US) and our separate immigration controls as we are not and never have been in the Schengen Agreement.

        Oh, it is Edward, isn’t it, not Eric, Snowden?

      • Correct, Edward, and thanks for the correction – was thinking
        about something related to a friend by the name of Eric.
        I think a strong case can be made about “protecting” people
        and nations from the U.S.
        The debacle in the Middle East and the entire history of
        “nation building” speaks to that – a current example being
        the ongoing issues with Iran dating back to the U.S. sponsored
        installation pf the Shah and every despotic leader this country
        has propped up.
        The U.S has been the driving force behind TTIP, stands to reason
        though that “industrialized nations” whose focus is also apparently
        facilitating multi national corporations would join the push.
        U.S laws are by political rhetoric based upon the Constitution
        and “interpreted” by the Supreme Court, which in essence has become
        a political entity in itself – whatever basis English Common Law
        had has fallen by the wayside as have Constitutional considerations.
        That may on the surface appear abstract but in thinking about it
        I believe it becomes clear.
        It’s a corporate world where lobbyists and corporate influence
        direct the course of legislation and law.

        The Schengen agreement is the bastard child of the Amsterdam Treaty
        and a prime example of the goal to marginalize the sovereign status
        of member nations within the EU and yet another example of why TTIP
        should be opposed.
        Governments increasingly make decisions leaving what their citizens
        want out of the equation, the immigration issues in Germany are a
        classic example and Germany’s EU influence should be curbed as well
        as that of the EU.
        I’ve expressed the opinion that Merkel seems to want to establish a
        Fourth Reich with monetary and economic control being the weapons of
        choice this time around – the “allies” in this are the IMF, global
        banking and corporations.
        And what of Snowden – no props to the Guardian?

      • Snowden’s ‘leaks’ have not just been in the Guardian, but for the Guardian they fit in neatly with its anti-US, pro-EU agenda.

      • And yet it was The Guardian that broke the story and kept it in
        the headlines.
        Once a story like this surfaces the intent is for media outlets
        to pick it up and increase circulation, to enhance public awareness
        and apply pressure – the goal of a whistle blower. It’s news and
        a given other outlets will pursue it as such.
        What I’ve found interesting is the governments claims that it’s
        all good and yet when politicians discovered they were also targets
        Nancy Pelosi and her posse had a fit and demanded they should be
        exempted – apparently what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the
        gander and speaks to the abyss that exists between government and
        the citizenry.
        The current administration to date has prosecuted six whistle blowers
        while during the identical period of tenure the previous one prosecuted
        During the Bush administration there were something like 28 drone
        strikes, during the current administration the number is closer to
        a thousand.
        I’d say that could quite easily lead to other nations or people being
        Enough to to be suspicious of or even fearful of the U.S government,
        and if not suspicious or fearful then questioning.
        I as well as lot of other people feel as though Bush and Cheney should
        have been prosecuted for war crimes, Obama nipped that in the bud
        referring to doing so as moving on, a healing of some sort rather than
        getting mired down in the past.
        The truth of the matter is more obvious though – had Obama’s administration
        pursued such an indictment it would have set a precedent that not only
        would have removed the mantle of immunity from Bush and Cheney but himself
        as well as that of any future president. And yet in nation that boasts of
        being a nation of laws we find there are those above the law.
        Factor in that Obama has not only pursued the majority of the Bush administrations
        “security” programs but geometrically ramped them up and the course Obama chose
        becomes even more obvious.
        There’s something of a slogan that says “America love it leave it” – it’s meant
        to imply some sort unstinting patriotism, but I say the opposite is true – if
        a person wants to claim they are a patriot, that they love their country, they
        are obliged to address what is wrong rather than give the consent of silence
        when it comes to what is indefensible by it’s very nature.
        If some would refer to that as bashing or hating I submit that perhaps
        they do not understand the term patriot and are unfamiliar with the positions
        and words of the “founding fathers”, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.
        George Orwell said that “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary
        act” – I say it is more than that, it is an obligation and an act of “patriotism”
        to do so.
        If it is to be about “American exceptionalism” the foundation should be an
        exceptionalism in governance related to respect for those governed, the pursuit
        of their common welfare as the overriding priority – not domestic spying, an
        assault on privacy and personal liberties, or Kafkaesque secret courts that in
        2015 did not reject a single secret warrant request.
        In other words the transparency and change promised every election cycle that
        never occurs – the “representative” government by, for, and of the people
        that does not exist.
        As an example Viet Nam was a catastrophic misadventure for the U.S. that in
        the final analysis accomplished nothing other than the loss of thousands of
        lives and ultimately culminated in turning the country over to the very opponents
        the war had been waged against.
        It was people like Daniel Berrigan, events like Kent State, whistle blowers,
        every person who put themselves on the line taking it to the streets,and a
        growing national awareness that led to the withdrawal – a withdrawal that
        was not the result of a “peace with honor” or for that matter mission
        accomplished, it was the conscience of every day people and a growing global
        anti US sentiment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s