Galloway is back

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So, it's teh Muzlin you have a problem with?

No... it's those who believe in rounding up <INSERT_MINORITY_HERE> and killing them, that I have a problem with.

George Galloway openly supports such people.

 

[angrysoba]

No... it's those who believe in rounding up <INSERT_MINORITY_HERE> and killing them, that I have a problem with.

George Galloway openly supports such people.

Yes, Galloway supports dictators such as Assad, Ahmadinejad, the late Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro (rtd.), as well as Hamas and Hizbollah. Probably the Taliban too if he could. Bad business. Very bad business. And he should be ashamed. Of course, Galloway completely shameless so he won't be.

As far as I know he himself has never called for the death of homosexuals, apostates, Jews, Muslims or anyone else, though. That must count for something.

And at least he is opposed to Saudi Arabia's leaders, Bahrain's leaders, Yemen's leaders, Uzbekistan's leaders and a whole host of other miscreants. It would be worth while taking that leaf from his book if no other.

 

[trustbutverify]

Yes, I (partly) agree with you. That's why I said I think there is some truth in what you say. I also think he doesn't really care that much about the Palestinian cause but people usually adopt for political stances for non-political reasons. You suggest that anti-Americanism is his primary driving force. I don't particularly think so (I think your own propensity to see this from a US-centric viewpoint is what I mean by self-pitying). I think he's something of an egomaniac who loves being the centre of attention and he's quite successful at drawing the attention of those who loathe just as much as his fans.

I understand your point, but you've got me wrong.

First- I have no argument with the fact that GG is an egomaniac, desperate for attention and pathetically insecure.

My opinions about Galloway's character are not the result of being US-centric. I don't care about any of that. GG's "moral stance" is entirely based on his opposition to Western policies and power, represented primary by the US and her allies. Galloway and his ilk are not progressives, they are reactionaries. Again, if Israel and Iran had opposite relationships with the US and western Europe, GG would be the biggest anti-Iranian Zionist you ever saw, regardless of who he was dating.

Yes, Galloway supports dictators such as Assad, Ahmadinejad, the late Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro (rtd.), as well as Hamas and Hizbollah. Probably the Taliban too if he could. Bad business. Very bad business. And he should be ashamed. Of course, Galloway completely shameless so he won't be.

As far as I know he himself has never called for the death of homosexuals, apostates, Jews, Muslims or anyone else, though. That must count for something.

And at least he is opposed to Saudi Arabia's leaders, Bahrain's leaders, Yemen's leaders, Uzbekistan's leaders and a whole host of other miscreants. It would be worth while taking that leaf from his book if no other.

Sorry, no. Please notice that the first group has an anti-TheGreatSatan posture, while the second group (sadly) is generally pro-TGS. Galloway's opposition to the second group has nothing to do with morality or ethics.

When Saddam was an ally of the West GG demonized him. When Saddam became an enemy of the West GG lionized him. Saddam was a monster in both cases.

I am not saying that it is wrong to oppose the US or the West. Or that it is right to support same.

 

[JihadJane]

If Galloway thought that becoming a Mel Gibson style FUndy Catholic would get him elected, he would convert in a New York Minute......

Nice fantasy, but no, he wouldn't. One of the most appealing things about Galloway, in comparison with the rest of the sorry crowd of political "representatives" in Parliament, is that he believes what he says and has been consistently saying it for years. I wouldn't, for example, expect him to say, before the election, that the "NHS is safe is our hands" and, after the election, to start dismantling it.

That's in direct response to a post where I explain (as I have never shied away from) that I am autistic - I have Aspergers syndrome. Did you not read my response to whatshisface?

No, I didn't see this post explaining that you have Aspergers Syndrom and I've just been looking for it and still can't find it. In the post that elicited my request there is no indication that you have Asperger's Syndrome.

How can I be putting someone down by saying they are like me? I don't think it's offensive to say someone is autistic because I don't think it's offensive to be autistic...because I am.

People often put themselves down. I wouldn't, for example, call Aspergers Syndrome, a "disorder".

If I'd attached some negative connotation to that, maybe you'd have a point. But I wouldn't, would I?

The post your comparison appears is, understandably, generally derisive in tone. In this context, your autism remark can also easily be interpreted as derisive. Your own position on the spectrum doesn't alter this.

You think it's offensive to note that someone shows autistic patterns.

No, I don't.

Ergo, you think it is offensive to be autistic.

No, I don't

Funnily enough, as an autistic person, I find your remarks offensive. I look forward to your amusing attempts to dig your way out of that hole.

I've very rarely, if ever, seen people suggest someone has autistic characteristics as a way of complimenting them.

As an aside, I note that you appear to be assuming that I am not on the autism spectrum myself.

As another aside, I value your posts in this thread.

 

[Toontown]

Seems mundane and corny to me. I don't see the fascination some people seem to have with this gasbag.

Birds of a feather.

 

[Toontown]

Give the persecution complex a break, eh Toontown?

I have a better idea. You could program some chatbots to only respond in a manner of which you approve. You could then form your own private forum and argue with the chatbots all day.

Keeping the chatbots programmed to your satisfaction might be easier than trying to control me.

 

[jiggeryqua]

No, I didn't see this post explaining that you have Aspergers Syndrom and I've just been looking for it and still can't find it. In the post that elicited my request there is no indication that you have Asperger's Syndrome.

Really? In your post (#394 p.10) in which you said:

I called your point cheap because it takes very little intellectual effort to put someone down by comparing them to people on the autism spectrum.

You actually quote me, in your post, directly before that remark, saying this:

Well, being Aspergian I give myself a little more leeway in that regard.

So you knew where to find it once (#374 p.10). How odd that you can't find it again.

People often put themselves down. I wouldn't, for example, call Aspergers Syndrome, a "disorder".

The post your comparison appears is, understandably, generally derisive in tone. In this context, your autism remark can also easily be interpreted as derisive. Your own position on the spectrum doesn't alter this.

And lights in the sky can be 'easily' taken as aliens, if that's your inclination. I don't think people 'often' put themselves down at all, but of course you'll offer an unsubstantiated estimate of 'often' until a situation arises where an estimate of 'not very often' suits you.

No, I don't.
No, I don't

Yes you do, yes you do. If it is offensive to observe autistic traits in someone, that offense must surely arise from the implication that they may be on the spectrum. Why would it be offensive, unless you find autism offensive?

I've very rarely, if ever, seen people suggest someone has autistic characteristics as a way of complimenting them.

Yes, some people do think it's offensive to be autistic, and therefore use the lable offensively. (See above re unsubstantiated estimates to suit...)

As an aside, I note that you appear to be assuming that I am not on the autism spectrum myself.

Erm, yeh. Partly because you don't appear to be, but mostly because you think the diagnosis is an insult.

As another aside, I value your posts in this thread.

Thankyou. My own estimate (given two tiresomely familiar internet squabbles in this thread) is that most of them have had little to no value. I was quite pleased with my link to the caveat at TheyWorkForYou, but less pleased that I had to repeat it to a group who ought to have found it for themselves...

 

[Toontown]

Both of those remarks are out of the same side of my mouth. I simultaneously claim that nobody is blaming america for galloway's election - and you're welcome to cite evidence to the contrary - and I also suggest that the standards you hold so dear should be implemented in your own country before you demand they are implemented elsewhere.

By that false standard, you have no right to criticize my criticism of UK standards, until higher standards are implemented in the UK.

All this, simply because I had the temerity to ridicule funk de fino's OT tu quoque finger-pointing.

The finger-pointing thought cops are hard at it, as usual, citing thought-laws they cannot enforce.

 

[Toontown]

Oh, get over the self-pity. I would have thought most Americans would have thicker skins than this.

I didn't see any self-pity there.

Perhaps it is you who begins to feel the sting of the lash.

 

[zooterkin]

Is that pic for real?

Yes, completely real, from when Galloway was in Celebrity Big Brother, the last time he was an MP (and was therefore unavailable to his constituents for the duration).

And he likes extramarital sex, does he? That's got to be a one-way street. But then, who knows what blue-boy next to him might find attractive.

Um, what? I don't think that photo is evidence for any form of sexual activity.

 

[Pardalis]

Um, what? I don't think that photo is evidence for any form of sexual activity.

I think he's referring to him being married five times but divorced only twice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2012/apr/03/how-many-wives-does-george-galloway-have

 

[Pardalis]

Nice fantasy, but no, he wouldn't. One of the most appealing things about Galloway, in comparison with the rest of the sorry crowd of political "representatives" in Parliament, is that he believes what he says and has been consistently saying it for years.

His party is called "Respect", but given his support for brutal dictators and racists and terrorist organizations he obviously has no "respect" for the religious and ethnic minorities persecuted by Saddam Hussein, Qhaddafi, Ahmadinejad and Assad, and neither does he look to be interested in "peace" with Israel.

 

[Toontown]

Yes, completely real, from when Galloway was in Celebrity Big Brother, the last time he was an MP (and was therefore unavailable to his constituents for the duration).

Perhaps George has recently had stem cell injections. His later pics don't look nearly as cadaverous.

 

[Pardalis]

As far as I know he himself has never called for the death of homosexuals, apostates, Jews, Muslims or anyone else, though. That must count for something.

If you were giving money to the KKK, you would be just as guilty.

 

[stokes234]

By that false standard, you have no right to criticize my criticism of UK standards, until higher standards are implemented in the UK.

All this, simply because I had the temerity to ridicule funk de fino's OT tu quoque finger-pointing.

The finger-pointing thought cops are hard at it, as usual, citing thought-laws they cannot enforce.

I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to criticise us for electing george galloway. I'm saying that so long as you don't apply the same standards to your own country, there's no logical reason for anyone to give a damn about what you think. Your whingeing about thought police is bordering on the jihad-jane level of badly thought out rhetoric.

 

[Toontown]

I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to criticise us for electing george galloway. I'm saying that so long as you don't apply the same standards to your own country, there's no logical reason for anyone to give a damn about what you think. Your whingeing about thought police is bordering on the jihad-jane level of badly thought out rhetoric.

And I'm not saying that you are not allowed to conjure up all manner of convoluted rationales for not giving a damn what I think. I'm saying that so long as I apply the same convoluted rationale, then I likewise have no obligation to give a damn what you think. Or, I can simply choose to not give a damn what you think without bothering with the convoluted rationale - which frankly makes infinitely more sense than what you're doing.

And I am saying that if there is in fact no reason for you to give a damn what I think, then I find it somewhat mysterious that you continue to preach on it post after post.

 

[Toontown]

I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to criticise us for electing george galloway. I'm saying that so long as you don't apply the same standards to your own country, there's no logical reason for anyone to give a damn about what you think. Your whingeing about thought police is bordering on the jihad-jane level of badly thought out rhetoric.

And how, pray tell, should I go about applying the same standards to my own country, should I desire to impose upon you the obligation to give a damn what I think?

A declaration?

I hereby declare that any Americans (who may at any time have participated in the election of anyone who ever supported the IRA) are idiots, as are any Brits who likewise participated in the election of Galloway.

Will that do, or is more substantial action required?

 

[Toontown]

What do you like most about his platform? Is it his pro-Islamic terrorist stance or his commitment to blood-soaked sadists and tyrants?

That is unfair, Virus. Gorgeous George has no agenda of his own. He is simply committed to supporting the highest ideals of his constituents - those being the support of pro-Islamic terrorists and blood-soaked sadists and tyrants.

He owes it to his voters.

 

[stokes234]

And how, pray tell, should I go about applying the same standards to my own country, should I desire to impose upon you the obligation to give a damn what I think?

A declaration?

I hereby declare that any Americans (who may at any time have participated in the election of anyone who ever supported the IRA) are idiots, as are any Brits who likewise participated in the election of Galloway.

Will that do, or is more substantial action required?

Go make a thread. Declare that any american who ever funded the IRA is a terrorist sympathiser, any political party they were members of is complicit in terrorist sympathising, and any american who ever voted for these politicians or their political party is sponsoring terrorism. Then i'll be happy, and will join you in declaring outrage over anyone who voted for galloway.

Oooh, I want a well-researched list as well. Anyone who has ever been relevant in american politics, and has been suspected of funding the IRA. It's clearly important enough for you that you must have researched this before.

 

[dudalb]

George Galloway is the UK's answer to Marion Berry: A poltician who nobody outside their district can understand why the hell they keep getting relected with all the baggage they carry.