Galloway is back

[trustbutverify]

Is it off topic to also hate Galloway for marrying his new Dutch bride (his fourth and who's younger than his daughter) - just four months after his last wife had a baby?

Wealthy and famous narcissist convinces multiple attractive young women to marry him. Stop the presses.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Don't be silly.

I'm not remotely concerned about Galloway's election. I am responding to those who are worried about this election as if it heralds the coming of the Third Reich.

Oh really? Well if you say so. I guess that explains why you think most of the voters of Bradford (especially those who defected from Labour in droves) are "juvenile and paranoid". Actually, no, it doesn't, you just ignored that bit again.

 

[angrysoba]

Oh really? Well if you say so. I guess that explains why you think most of the voters of Bradford (especially those who defected from Labour in droves) are "juvenile and paranoid". Actually, no, it doesn't, you just ignored that bit again.

Look, this is getting very, very tedious. If you can't see that I was ridiculing the idea that people voted for Galloway because they were juvenile then I can't do very much to illuminate it for you. But I will try just one more time.

You said: Galloway voters are paranoid and juvenile.

No, I didn't. Let's see, in a minute, what I did say. Are you ready for that?

You said 56% of the Bradford voters are paranoid and juvenile, and that a great many labour voters are paranoid and juvenile.

I didn't say this at all.

You said: something juvenile and paranoid about 'crapping oneself'

I notice you have no exact quote. If you did then maybe you would see what the purpose of me using the words "juvenile" and "paranoid" was.

I said: something in kind, suggesting that your rush to tar 56% of the voters as 'paranoid and juvenile' may be an indication that Galloway's victory frightens the crap out of you.

It is a stronger indication of your inability to understand what I wrote.

(As an aside, the number of posters here who appeal to an audience that they fondly hope haven't followed the exchange and won't scroll back is disappointing.)

Yeah, well here it comes:

Look, Galloway is a ****, right? He certainly supports terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah. He supports dictators such as Assad and the Castros. He loves Ahmadinejad and is a declared supporter of the guy. He likes just about anyone who is against US and UK foreign and domestic policy. The latter wouldn't be so bad if it were principled as I am against a lot of UK and US foreign policy and think the people in charge of it are - at best - total clowns. But Galloway isn't even a principled opponent of US and UK foreign policy. He's someone who knows how to make himself some cash by being funded by all sorts of unsavoury regimes.

He is also someone who, like it or not, is very charismatic and knows a lot of stuff. He regularly makes mainstream politicians and media look like fools, not because he has "juvenile fans" flying from the mainstream to the fringes but quite obviously because the mainstream often is populated by know-nothing idiots and fools. Just look at people like Ed Miliband who is supposed to be the opposition to the ConDem government. When you have a hapless spastic like him trying to take on an obviously insincere bunch of tossers like the Conservative Party (read Charles Moore's "Even I... op.ed) and the Lib Dems (a party whose electoral platform was all based on opposing cuts etc...) then you can see why mainstream voters have nobody to vote for.

But before everyone starts crapping their pants (or demanding that others do), the UK is not going to go Nazi. Only people who are even more paranoid and juvenile than Galloway voters can think so.

Now, do you see the bit I highlighted?

Do you notice that the word "juvenile" is in quotation marks?

Do you notice the word "not"?

The reason why I used the word "juvenile" in quotation marks is because I was referring to Giz's claim that "democracy falls when juvenile" people abandon the mainstream and start voting for fringe candidates. Then there was a lot of talk about this being like the Weimar Republic and how this is the kind of thing that let the Nazis in. I suggested this was paranoid. I also explicitly said that many of those voting for Galloway were probably simply voting on bread-and-butter issues.

The point about it being far more juvenile and paranoid than those who voted for Galloway was not to say that obviously 56% of the electorate in Bradford was juvenile and paranoid, obviously!

My point is very clear to all, I think, but you. Does anyone else have comprehension problems similar to those of jiggeryqua?

 

[andyandy]

Does anyone remember this?

This was a funny interview where George Galloway starts off trying to sound reasonable and then suddenly goes mental accusing a documentary-maker of persecuting Muslims by filming radical imams calling for the stoning of homosexuals and apostates.

At the end of his interview he starts yelling that he's the interviewer and he will ask the questions and that his "hooligan" guest will have to be thrown out!

Very funny!

That was fantastic TV - George couldn't handle being Paxman-ed very well

 

[geni]

I had no idea. BTW, I was being sarcastic when I said it's all the Americans' fault. Perhaps you are insufficiently versed in ingrained European habits. To them, everything is America's fault.

Lumping the UK in with europe in a cultural sense suggests that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Tricky]

This thread has drifted considerably and now seems to be heading toward Israeli-Palestine oblivion. Please confine it to topics relating to the thread title. I hate to throw away post that people have spent a lot of time making, but there is a thread for Israeli-Palestine discussions. If your post is not related to Galloway, please make it in the correct thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[richardm]

This is apparently a flyer from George Galloway posted out before the election. Interesting that he starts out criticising the opposition for running a sectarian campaign, then a couple of paragraphs later starts wonking on about.. well. I'll let you read it yourself.

I guess he knows what his target audience is; at any rate it'll be fuel for the BNP and EDL's fire I should imagine.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Why make assumptions? The nominal reasons are public domain. For example there are a couple on the UK list for glorifying terrorism rather than taking part in acts of terrorism. Equaly such lists are far from complete if only because who can really keep track of all the groups in the DRC (to take a topical example the LRA tends not to be listed)?

Simple concept for me really. Same holds true for such straight forward listings such a 'List of Nobel laureates' or a list of 'Academy award winners'. If you're on it, then there's a reason to be on it. This is bloody straightforward.

As for the UK list, I don't know of the one's you're referring to who are on this list simply for "glorifying terrorism". Or this just your interpretation of it?

One thing I can tell you though, the UK list already has a problem because Hamas is not on it. So I do agree with you that this particular list is incomplete. Doesn't negate the whole argument, just that some nations befuddle the whole argument of who is a terrorist and is a 'freedom fighter', pushing it into even more ridiculous grounds when one includes politics, namely that of this muppet Galloway.

 

[bigjelmapro]

FTFY, also the use of phosphorus in areas contaiing civilians isn't 'minimizing non-combatant deaths'.

Urban combat and the usage of airburst phosphorus shells is not illegal if used correctly. ICRC confirmed this and please point to a civilian killed by felt-dipped airburst phophorus shells please. There's a thread about this, but its obvious you haven't visited that general thread.

As for the rest, just stay on topic.

 

[bigjelmapro]

This is apparently a flyer from George Galloway posted out before the election. Interesting that he starts out criticising the opposition for running a sectarian campaign, then a couple of paragraphs later starts wonking on about.. well. I'll let you read it yourself.

A Scot who doesn't drink, or has ever!

So when is Galloway changing a Given name?

 

[richardm]

A Scot who doesn't drink, or has ever!

Not uncommon; around here there are a good number of wee frees who are strict abstentionists.

At least, they are when they are at home where they can be observed. Some of them aren't always so determined to stick to the Temperance Inns when they're at a safe distance, I have found.

Not that I'm suggesting that Galloway is a secret drinker or anything.

 

[theprestige]

Galloway supports Hamas.

Whether or not Hamas are on the UK terrorist list speaks to whether or not Galloway can be arrested under UK law for supporting terrorists.

Whether or not Hamas are terrorists speaks to whether or not Galloway is a terrorist-supporting douchebag.

Whether or not Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas are terrorists (but it does speak to whether or not the people of Gaza are terrorist-supporting douchebags).

Whether or not other organizations or entities are terrorists (or are portrayed as terrorists via some hackneyed attempt at moral relativism) has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas are terrorists.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Look, this is getting very, very tedious. If you can't see that I was ridiculing the idea that people voted for Galloway because they were juvenile then I can't do very much to illuminate it for you. But I will try just one more time.

Nothing you have so far drawn my attention to even attempts to do what you claim here

No, I didn't. Let's see, in a minute, what I did say. Are you ready for that?

Oh yes. I was ready when I replied to it.

I didn't say this at all.

Forgotten what you're referring to here, but if I said you said it, you said it.

I notice you have no exact quote. If you did then maybe you would see what the purpose of me using the words "juvenile" and "paranoid" was.

Oh I have the exact quote, I just didn't feel the need to keep quoting it in an exchange you too have noticed is becoming tedious.

It is a stronger indication of your inability to understand what I wrote.

Blah blah. Your need to be discourteous is a strong indicator too, eh?

Yeah, well here it comes:

Here, dear reader, angrysoba quotes some other post than that which started this tedious exchange.

Now, do you see the bit I highlighted?

Yes, but I don't care (see above).

Do you notice that the word "juvenile" is in quotation marks?

Do you notice the word "not"?

The reason why I used the word "juvenile" in quotation marks is because I was referring to Giz's claim that "democracy falls when juvenile" people abandon the mainstream and start voting for fringe candidates. Then there was a lot of talk about this being like the Weimar Republic and how this is the kind of thing that let the Nazis in. I suggested this was paranoid. I also explicitly said that many of those voting for Galloway were probably simply voting on bread-and-butter issues.

See above. What i actually responded to was this:

But before everyone starts crapping their pants (or demanding that others do), the UK is not going to go Nazi. Only people who are even more paranoid and juvenile than Galloway voters can think so.

If you don't want people to imagine you mean that 56% of Bradford voters are paranoid and juvenile, you'd be best advised not to say so.

My point is very clear to all, I think, but you. Does anyone else have comprehension problems similar to those of jiggeryqua?

Seriously? That might just be letter of the law round here but it's hardly spirit, is it? Nobody can take issue with anything you say because you may have said something else, somewhere else at some other time? Here's what you said again:

But before everyone starts crapping their pants (or demanding that others do), the UK is not going to go Nazi. Only people who are even more paranoid and juvenile than Galloway voters can think so.

Does anyone else have problems expressing themselves clearly similar to angrysoba?

 

[JihadJane]

Galloway supports Hamas.

Whether or not Hamas are on the UK terrorist list speaks to whether or not Galloway can be arrested under UK law for supporting terrorists.

Whether or not Hamas are terrorists speaks to whether or not Galloway is a terrorist-supporting douchebag.

Whether or not Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas are terrorists (but it does speak to whether or not the people of Gaza are terrorist-supporting douchebags).

Whether or not other organizations or entities are terrorists (or are portrayed as terrorists via some hackneyed attempt at moral relativism) has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas are terrorists.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Whether or not the US has napalmed babies has nothing to do with whether or not they're terrorists douchebags

 

[Undesired Walrus]

And didn't that lead directly to the Good Friday Agreement a few years later?

No.

 

[Nogbad]

LOL Gorgeous George strikes again. I'm not a particular fan of his politics and as a supporter of Scottish independence I am not entirely unhappy George is off to create mischief in Westminster.

However, I do admire his eloquence and debating abilities. I can see why Virus feels alienated by him...he will be used to Australian politicians

 

[WildCat]

No.

Yes. That's when Clinton sent Mitchell to negotiate.

 

[Virus]

You support Hamas don't you Jane?

If you don't answer that means yes.

 

[stokes234]

I see.

Out of one side of your mouth, you say no one is blaming Americans for Brits electing Galloway:



Out of the other side of your mouth, you suggest that unless there is a witchhunt against IRA supporters in the U.S., Brits should not be expected to refrain from electing tyrant/terrorist sycophants:

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.

So, in this case Americans aren't being blamed, exactly. They are simply being used as an excuse to justify electing Galloway. Which, if you only had the honor to admit it, amounts to consciousness of guilt.

No, no and no. No blame, no excuse, no guilt. See above.

Oh, the semantic pedantry of it all. Not to mention the sheer hypocrisy, after obsessively criticizing Americans for electing Bush for half a decade. It is as if you are channeling Galloway.

Oh the grumble grumble kids get off my lawn raargh etc.

On a brighter note, my final thought on this particular squirming contest is this: if Brits need to be shamed into refraining from electing people of Galloway's ilk, all I can say is I'm doing the best I can.

Brits need a viable mainstream party, so that they don't have to turn to fringe candidates like galloway to express their dissatisfaction.