Galloway is back

[Darat]

For our non-UK folk, the Telegraph's nickname is often "Torygraph" because of its influence with and support of the Tories.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

So you have not accepted that he supported dictators and have moved on to whether he 'liked' them?

Ziggurat said he liked them, and so do I.

Where's the evidence that Galloway has supported dictators?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Darat

For our non-UK folk, the Telegraph's nickname is often "Torygraph" because of its influence with and support of the Tories.

It's said that it was the Telegraph which encouraged Johann Lamont, the Labour Party leader in Scotland, to lodge an official complaint about the First Minister's behaviour.

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index...omplaint-story

It's hard to know just how true this is, but NNS does have some rudimentary journalistic standards. The thesis is that the Telegraph wanted to run with a story about the SNP leader entertaining a major party donors to cover up the Tory "cash for access" scandal. Labour initially regarded the Weir story as "too petty" to pursue, but were persuaded by the Tory-supporting broadsheet.

The difference is that the Tories were charging businessmen £250,000 for an meeting with the PM, with heavy hints that they would be able to use the meeting to influence policy to favour their business interests. The Weirs, who were invited to tea at Bute House, were long-standing SNP members and activists who had won the lottery. There was no question of them being solicited for a donation in order to influence policy to suit their business interests. Bute House is Alex Salmond's home, as FM. He is allowed to invite people to tea, even longstanding party members, even if they have just become eye-poppingly rich.

It's the concept that the Labour party actually went along with this idea, apparently preferring to assist the Torygraph in burying bad news for the Tories by smearing the SNP, than to allow the "cash for access" story to run unopposed.

Rolfe.

[jiggeryqua]

George Galloway egged in Bradford by protestor

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Ziggurat said he liked them, and so do I.

Where's the evidence that Galloway has supported dictators?

His support for Assad and the Soviet Union. His words have been posted in this thread.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by andyandy

Easy answer - I don't support him. I do support the widening of the political sphere to allow anti-war,

Galloway is not anti-war, he's just against the side the UK is on.

He is pro-war when it comes to any power that wants to fight the west. You have been completely duped if you think he is anti-war.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

"id·i·ot /ˈidēət/
Noun:
A stupid person.
A mentally handicapped person."

Yes, these are the people Galloway's heroic freedon fighters strap bombs to and send into crowded markets.

[jiggeryqua]

I heard Galloway was the actual cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs, not to mention the mastermind behind the Great Train Robbery, the inventor of root canal surgery and the guy who sold Mount Doom to Sauron. The disappearance of all those children in Hamlyn has his fingerprints all over it too.

Some people are so evil it should be illegal even to think about them.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Ziggurat said he liked them, and so do I.

Where's the evidence that Galloway has supported dictators?

Did you watch the highlight video?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

George Galloway egged in Bradford by protestor

Galloway's got a posse.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Galloway is not anti-war, he's just against the side the UK is on.

He is pro-war when it comes to any power that wants to fight the west. You have been completely duped if you think he is anti-war.

If you think that was what andyandy was posting then you have totally
misunderstood his posts.

andyandy has been describing the platform that Galloway and his "party" campaigned on.

[Toontown]

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

And saying so appears to excuse you listening to, let alone hearing, analysing or competently commentating on the words that trip from his wide flapping mouth.

How dare he speak

What demonstrates a talent for governing competently? Other than the obvious ''choosing the policies I would choose'? I've always held that those who desire power least deserve it, but stepping into your world for a moment, why should George desire to govern? He appears to desire to oppose government. Opposition is an essential part of democratic government, is it not? Actually, stepping into your world for a moment, no it isn't. The opposition should shut their wide flapping mouths.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

I merely provided it as an example of typical GG rhetoric.

I was however a bit scared at how much of Charles Moore's post* regarding the coaltion's flaws yesterday in the Telegraph I found not to be completely objectionable.

* - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-anything.html

That's a really good article, actually. I think he gets it right when he shows that Call me Dave's affected casualness may have seemed friendly and down-to-Earth in opposition but when he's lounging about with all the security surrounding him it just makes him look arrogant.

I don't know why this coalition hasn't fallen yet, but...

Originally Posted by Toontown

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

I'm not sure if this is another invitation for everyone to soil their undies or if you are cackling with glee but the sky has not fallen.

Indeed he is a wide flapping mouth and "nothing more" is pretty much correct. He's not one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[Virus]

Why is he even allowed to hold office? He should be in jail for financing a designated terrorist organization.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Dennis Skinner is really from another generation. It's nice to see people like him still there but most of the House of Commons has been taken over by an army of very bland PR-trained people with very little interest in ideology. It doesn't really matter which party they are from because ultimately they are all the same.

People like Skinner are really just the last of a different breed. In fact, Tony Benn and Margaret Thatcher are these days pined for by some of the same people only because they at least stood for something and weren't useless grey suits.

I used to be able to put a name to pictures of all the cabinet and shadow cabinet, but nowadays so many of them look like clones that I can only recognise the main ones*.

If only they'd cloned Skinner or Benn instead of Blair! [/nostalgia]






*Or is it just me getting old?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I've always held that those who desire power least deserve it, but stepping into your world for a moment, why should George desire to govern?

Because that's the job he got elected to do.

Quote:

He appears to desire to oppose government. Opposition is an essential part of democratic government, is it not? Actually, stepping into your world for a moment, no it isn't. The opposition should shut their wide flapping mouths.

There is nothing axiomatically good about any and all opposition. Furthermore, I note that you aren't even trying to defend his actual positions. It's only by abstracting the issues to one of generic, content-free opposition that you can make an even superficially credible defense of Galloway. But that's all it is: superficial.

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because that's the job he got elected to do.

No. Simply no, and you should be embarrased to have made that mistake. He got elected as a member of parliament to represent his constituents. Feel free to show evidence that he performs less than averagely in that regard.

Meanwhile, we (in the uk at least) are governed by our government, which does not include all MPs of the leading parties, let alone staunch oppositionists like Galloway.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There is nothing axiomatically good about any and all opposition. Furthermore, I note that you aren't even trying to defend his actual positions. It's only by abstracting the issues to one of generic, content-free opposition that you can make an even superficially credible defense of Galloway. But that's all it is: superficial.

I am not trying to defend his positions. Well spotted. I am not delivering instructional information on underwater soot juggling either. I am pointing out that opposition is axiomatically good (indeed, essential) for democracy.

You, meanwhile, are artificially shifting anything and everything to 'side with me or be a nazi' (or communist or such as may suit, I'm not paying attention to which cause you attach your zealotry). I've only been here a couple of years and standards have noticeably slipped already. Maybe it's my fault...

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There is nothing axiomatically good about any and all opposition.

Traditionally Parliament is an adversarial body, so while it is true that not all opposition is necessarily good it is necessarily good to have (some) opposition.

Quote:

Furthermore, I note that you aren't even trying to defend his actual positions.

Again, in an adversarial system it is not necessary to defend both positions. In fact, it would be somewhat schizophrenic to attempt to.

Quote:

It's only by abstracting the issues to one of generic, content-free opposition that you can make an even superficially credible defense of Galloway. But that's all it is: superficial.

No. He was fairly elected to his Parliamentary seat, so you can defend the principles on which he was elected (we call this thing "democracy") without having to defend every single person who gets elected and all their views.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I am pointing out that opposition is axiomatically good (indeed, essential) for democracy.

No, it really isn't axiomatically good. Opposition to the end of slavery, for example, was incredibly destructive to the United States.

Quote:

You, meanwhile, are artificially shifting anything and everything to 'side with me or be a nazi' (or communist or such as may suit, I'm not paying attention to which cause you attach your zealotry).

Well, you got part of this statement correct.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

No. He was fairly elected to his Parliamentary seat, so you can defend the principles on which he was elected (we call this thing "democracy") without having to defend every single person who gets elected and all their views.

I'm not questioning the electoral system. I'm not demanding that Galloway be stripped of office, or the election results ignored. But the fact that he was elected doesn't mean he should be immune to criticism, or even that his election was a good thing. It means nothing of the sort. In fact, if opposition is even potentially good (which you've stated and I agree with), then my criticism of Galloway logically cannot be ignored on the basis of his election. Such a position would be self-contradictory.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not questioning the electoral system. I'm not demanding that Galloway be stripped of office, or the election results ignored. But the fact that he was elected doesn't mean he should be immune to criticism, or even that his election was a good thing. It means nothing of the sort. In fact, if opposition is even potentially good (which you've stated and I agree with), then my criticism of Galloway logically cannot be ignored on the basis of his election. Such a position would be self-contradictory.

I agree.

I've just remembered a video of George Galloway vs. Jeremy Paxman from the time when Galloway last got elected to Parliament as the Respect candidate for Bethnall Green and Bow. I think he turned out to be a pretty terrible MP and I expect Bradford West will find his office empty most of the time as he jets off to exotic dictatorships to visit.

You're right that he supports dictatorships opposed to the west, for example, Assad's Syria and Ahmadinejad's Iran while opposing dictatorships friendly to the west, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc... although if you're worried about immunity from criticism I think your fears are misplaced. He'll get plenty of it such as on this BBC video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[angrysoba]

Also, there's "criticism" and "making an arse of yourself".

Boulden does the latter here where he asks Galloway about drinking alcohol, Is Galloway a drinker? - (who cares?), is he stoking racial and religious conflict? (Galloway points out that Labour put up a Muslim candidate), what about Galloway's religion? (Is George a crypto-Muslim like that Obama?) What about gambling? Are you sure you never drank alcohol? Why not? Are you really a Christian? Remember Big Brother and that milk thing! Indefatigability!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

And saying so appears to excuse you listening to, let alone hearing, analysing or competently commentating on the words that trip from his wide flapping mouth.

How dare he speak

How much halitosis-perfumed hot air do you expect me to endure? The bastard has been yammering endlessly for longer than I care to recall, and every odiferous word has been slavishly reported.

Are you channeling Galloway? He really doesn't need another parrot, but keep it up. You're doing a good job of demonstrating exactly how democracies can fail.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

...why should George desire to govern?

Duhh...because he ran for office? Or has governing become passe in the UK?

(creak groan crack)

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

He appears to desire to oppose government.

So his supporters elected an anarchist?

(creak groan crack shudder)

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Opposition is an essential part of democratic government, is it not?

Loyal opposition, yes. Not sabotage.

Do you enjoy being raked from stem to stern?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

And people like Galloway are the harbingers. The man has no talent for governing competently, or even any detectable desire to do so. He is a demagogue. A wide, flapping mouth. Nothing more.

To whit, democracies fall when people - suffering from juvenile disillusionment with the mainstream - fly to the fringes.

Democracy is a good thing but that doesn't mean that the result of a democratic election will necessarily be good (think Gaza/Hamas, or 1930's Germany).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Virus

Why is he even allowed to hold office? He should be in jail for financing a designated terrorist organization.

Apparently that's just fine and dandy in the UK. Just so long as he doesn't troll on the internet.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Giz

To whit, democracies fall when people - suffering from juvenile disillusionment with the mainstream - fly to the fringes.

Is this really a serious attempt at political theory?

A lot of the time democracies fall when there's a military coup.

Quote:

Democracy is a good thing but that doesn't mean that the result of a democratic election will necessarily be good (think Gaza/Hamas, or 1930's Germany).

I think there's way too much hyperventilation over this by-election victory of Galloway's. This doesn't herald the coming of Der Respekt Reich I can assure you. I will publicly eat my hat if Respect get more than three or four seats. What I think is more likely is that instead of "juvenile people flying to the fringes" as your mature and not at all fanciful image suggests, the the main parties may stop moving towards each other.

I know that you have already blamed the immigrants for voting for Galloway, but you have done this on the strength of nothing but a hunch, as far as I can see. It seems also likely that people have voted for Galloway because they see him against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues.

[Toontown]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think there's way too much hyperventilation over this by-election victory of Galloway's.

Galloway is just the poster boy. Tip of the iceberg.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Toontown

Galloway is just the poster boy. Tip of the iceberg.

He's pretty much the whole iceberg.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I know that you have already blamed the immigrants for voting for Galloway, but you have done this on the strength of nothing but a hunch, as far as I can see. It seems also likely that people have voted for Galloway because they see him against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues.

Every report I have seen has reported Galloway's campaign as blatantly sectarian. I fear that when you see his popularity as being a protest "against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues" that you may be projecting your wishes onto an unworthy recipient.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Giz

Every report I have seen has reported Galloway's campaign as blatantly sectarian. I fear that when you see his popularity as being a protest "against cuts in public services, against the privatization of the NHS, against tuition fees and a lot of other bread-and-butter issues" that you may be projecting your wishes onto an unworthy recipient.

I agree with you here on two points:

1) Yes, it could be projection
2) Yes, Galloway probably was trying to mobilize the "Muslim vote"

I know he likes to begin lots of his speeches with a "salaam ahlaikum" and the campaign literature was written in English and in foreign.

But winning on an appeal to Muslims (and in particular to Muslim extremists) and winning on bread-and-butter issues isn't mutually exclusive. Galloway won with 56% of the vote, which requires an explanation beyond simply being a Muslim extremist.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

His support for Assad and the Soviet Union. His words have been posted in this thread.

I can't see these words, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toontown
Democracies can fail badly. Democracies can collapse.

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

[jiggeryqua]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, it really isn't axiomatically good. Opposition to the end of slavery, for example, was incredibly destructive to the United States.

I said opposition is axiomatically good (indeed essential) for democracy.

You reply that some opposition has been bad for the US. I apologise if this comes as a rude awakening to you, but the two are not synonymous. The US is a democracy, not the concept of democracy (and not even a particularly good example of democracy). What was incredibly destructive for the US was good for democracy.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Well, you got part of this statement correct.

Standards have slipped, I said, and here they plummet. Oh look, you can highlight part of what I said (while ignoring the meaning) and make a poor joke at my expense. Is this because I pointed out how wrong you were in your understanding of Galloway's new job role? You didn't quote or respond to that part of my post at all.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I can't see these words, unfortunately.

Here, let me help you.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Originally Posted by Cleon

If Galloway was ever "supportive" of Asad, as of last August he has certainly changed his tune.

George Galloway on Syria:

There's no 'if' about it, not should "supportive" be in quotes.

Quote:

In July 2005, Galloway spoke at Al-Assad National Library, saying, "Syria is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president."

In a remarkable speech, this time at Damascus University, Galloway said: "You know, it never ceases to surprise me that Arab governments can allow a foreigner to come to their country and sit at their tables with their leaders to insult and attack another Arab country. This is the behaviour of slave governments, and the Bahraini regime should have asked Condoleezza [Rice] to leave when she insulted Syria in their presence, in their capital. In fact, maybe it's the rulers who should leave." Galloway was referring to a meeting in Bahrain where Rice fired off provocative statements against Syria in the presence of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara.

Galloway added, in front of Syrian officials who were all smiles, that "All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by President Bashar Al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus," referring to Assad's speech of 10 November where he spoke of steadfastness; rhetoric popular in Syria since the 1960s. Assad, Galloway said, "is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of remaining dignity of the Arabs."

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Here, let me help you.

I read those ones. Where are his expressions of support for dictators in this quote?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

UK democracy has already collapsed. It is now suffering under an unelected government of upper-class incompetents pursuing chaotic policies that no one voted for.

The UK government is not "unelected"?

It is a government of largely upper-class incompetents but unfortunately that is what elections can throw up. Just as it has now thrown up Galloway.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I read those ones. Where are his expressions of support for dictators in this quote?

Well, if you meant to say that you do not consider Assad a dictator, then you should have said so, rather than stating that you could not see the words from Galloway supporting him. Which is it?

[angrysoba]

Galloway really is a panderer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA: I had thought that some of the comments about Galloway drinking, or pandering to Muslims or being a Muslim were out of order but, Jesus Christ! Some of the stuff Galloway is saying in this video is unbelievable. He's saying that his Labour opponent is less of a Pakistani than him and that he's less of a Muslim than him and that his opponent is never out of the pub and will spend 40 years drinking in the House of Commons bar if he gets elected. What a wanker!

ETAII: Oh, and his phone number, according to this speech, is 078940585465, by the way.

[JihadJane]

In those words I see a Palestinian-supporting politician using diplomatic froth to butter up someone he needs to work with while favorably comparing the Assad regime to regional "slave governments", not a difficult thing to do! This doesn't translate into "supporting dictators".

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Galloway really is a panderer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I had read elsewhere that Galloway had taken advantage of a feeling among the younger muslim voters that clan politics plays too much of a role in the selection of the Labour candidate, and they broke ranks with the elders in the community. The video seems to confirm that.