Moderated Views on George Galloway.

Darat said:
with no regard to consistency, ethics, morals, shame or anything else that makes most of us incapable of behaving the way he does.
Click to expand...



Do you have evidence of this inconsistency or unethical behaviour ? Or is this just a generalisation ?
 
Zeuzzz said:
As does any politician. It's part of their job to stay popular with the people by expanding their public profile and retaining their seat.
Click to expand...

But he would disappear off elsewhere on speaking tours, to appear on TV celebrity shows and as shown was not great at turning up at parliament and doing the job he was elected for. In Glasgow Kelvin he tried to get round that by employing various assistants and they would do his constituency work instead. I know as I knew one of them.
 
Toontown said:
Galloway's political success has got me thinking...

If a loudmouth like that can achieve financial and political success by supporting scum like Iraq's Ba'ath family business and the Soviet Union, then the game is truly wide open. Loosey goosie indeed.

Let me in the game, boys. All I need is a seat, a buck, and a truck.
Click to expand...

he has never supported the ba'ath party.

he may be vain, he may even be arrogant, he may even like dressing up in leotards and pretending to be a cat, but he's rarely wrong IMO. Even his points regarding Assange, whom he admits he has never met, were misrepresented, to my mind. I don't think he at all condoned rape.
 
Garrison said:
He's a self publicizing egotist who'll back any third world despot willing to fork out a few dollars an put him up in a nice hotel, he could care less about the people of the Arab world, or the poor unfortunates who put him back in parliament. He is one of the worst examples of a self serving politician you are going to find at Westminster and that's quite an achievement in itself given he has some pretty stiff competition.
Click to expand...

what despots did he back and how did he back them?
 
funk de fino said:
He is a two faced liar and a bully. He is a flip flopper on pretty much everything. Pretty much a total scumbag. To try and paint people who hate him as birthers is pathetic.
Click to expand...

And yet, following your post is almost a page of lies and fantasy given as reasons to hate him. Evidence-free spewing of fiction and hatred is just what the birthers and troofers do. Pathetic is indeed an appropriate word but you have applied it in the wrong direction.

As I have said before, he has done enough to disgust me without the need to repeat lies about his relationship with Iraq, bribes, etc. Lies that are now being repeated here despite them having already been debunked earlier in the same thread.
 
The way he phrased his greeting of Sadam, the way he phrased his comments about the Soviet Union and what Assange is supposed to have done is designed to attract publicity. He appears to specialise in denials.
 
wishface said:
Even his points regarding Assange, whom he admits he has never met, were misrepresented, to my mind. I don't think he at all condoned rape.
Click to expand...


I agree, his points about Assange and rape were totally legitimate.

The fact the press had a field day and a witch hunt about the rape issue whilst totally ignoring the reason why he had brought up the rape charges at all reeked of hypocrisy.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Or rather, in Galloways case, a sackable act.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So your main problem is his phrasing?
Click to expand...

No my main problem is his desire to attract publicity rather than represent his constituents when he is an MP. If he wants to be a peace campaigner or charity fundraiser, so be it. But don't do that as a full or even part time job when you are an MP.

The phrasing issue is more to do with wanting to be taken seriously. Many see him as a self publicising buffoon because of the way he says things. I think that does him a disservice since when he speaks normally, as he would do when he was writing articles for the free newspaper delivered to my door when I lived in Glasgow Kelvin, he made a lot of sense.
 
Croydon Bob said:
And yet, following your post is almost a page of lies and fantasy given as reasons to hate him. Evidence-free spewing of fiction and hatred is just what the birthers and troofers do. Pathetic is indeed an appropriate word but you have applied it in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

This just shows you failed to watch celebrity Big brother where he was found out. His treatment of Barrymore and some of the younger ones was terrible and disgusting.

You defend him at all costs while castigating others with insults shows who truly has no idea. I have watched his career and his MO longer and more closely than you it seems.

He is a pathetic turd of man

As I have said before, he has done enough to disgust me without the need to repeat lies about his relationship with Iraq, bribes, etc. Lies that are now being repeated here despite them having already been debunked earlier in the same thread.
Click to expand...

Show me what lies I have told? Watch that reflex, you might choke.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Israel does NOT itentionally target civilians.

Hitler was elected in 1933. Does that mean that he had to defend Germany from that Sole Polish Soldier.

"Israeli Aggression" - Explain all the missiles fired by Hamas.

Hamas are legally proscribed as terrorists by the EU and the US.
Click to expand...

and, just a reminder, are clear war criminals of the basis of the Geneva Conventions and several other long accepted rules of war/warfare*.

*No clear uniform.

Fire from civilian area/hide with civilians.

Endanger civilians by same.
 
Nessie said:
No my main problem is his desire to attract publicity rather than represent his constituents when he is an MP. If he wants to be a peace campaigner or charity fundraiser, so be it. But don't do that as a full or even part time job when you are an MP.

The phrasing issue is more to do with wanting to be taken seriously. Many see him as a self publicising buffoon because of the way he says things. I think that does him a disservice since when he speaks normally, as he would do when he was writing articles for the free newspaper delivered to my door when I lived in Glasgow Kelvin, he made a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

And even when he is not doing his job as MP, he is not a "peace campaigner or charity fundraiser" either.

He fully supports war, just for the sides that he supports in the wars.
 
Amazing how you can say one of the most anti war British politicians supports war.

Evidence?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Amazing how you can say one of the most anti war British politicians supports war.

Evidence?
Click to expand...

Well, there's the photo of him handing wads of cash to the leader of the genocidal Hamas cult... not enough? There's also his speeches lauding the Iraq insurgency (bravely struggling to replace the fledgling Iraqi democracy with a religious totalitarian theocracy).
 
Giz said:
Well, there's the photo of him handing wads of cash to the leader of the genocidal Hamas cult... not enough? There's also his speeches lauding the Iraq insurgency (bravely struggling to replace the fledgling Iraqi democracy with a religious totalitarian theocracy).
Click to expand...


Charity collected from the British people when the war was going on to help them rebuild and give food to.

Charity money in times of war tends to go to the democratically elected Government so they can help their people. Which is what happened here.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I agree, his points about Assange and rape were totally legitimate.
.
Click to expand...

So if a woman you have slept with falls asleep, it's perfectly ok to start screwing her again while she's asleep?

Wow. Just...jesus.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So if a woman you have slept with falls asleep, it's perfectly ok to start screwing her again while she's asleep?
Click to expand...


No, it's not perfectly ok. Which is the point George agreed with anyway, he was pointing out the devaluing of a words meaning by calling Assange a rapist. You know why?

The whole point George even brought it up was to point out that out of all the women Assange had slept with the two girls that have accused him were the only two with political ties so are unlikely to be telling the truth anyway, plus the judge and police said there is no evidence for a prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom