Looking forward to seeing him in the commons shouting at that swine Blair.
A most definite poke in the eye to the Galloway haters.
What a courageous, strong and indefatigable man.
nuff Respect.
Gorgeous "George" Galloway
Gorgeous "George" Galloway
I am really pleased. In fact, a couple of us in the office are going to send him some cigars.
Looking forward to seeing him in the commons shouting at that swine Blair.
A most definite poke in the eye to the Galloway haters.
What a courageous, strong and indefatigable man.
nuff Respect.
Looking forward to seeing him in the commons shouting at that swine Blair.
A most definite poke in the eye to the Galloway haters.
What a courageous, strong and indefatigable man.
nuff Respect.
It's on the BBC site. Brilliant. Paxman can get stuffed.
Paxman vs Galloway
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 519553.stm
Paxman vs Galloway
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 519553.stm
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact:
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
For me, Galloway won this hands down and Paxman was left looking very silly indeed. He may be able to take on the under-grads on University Challenge but he lacks the gravitas for politics.
Funnily enough, I always confuse him with Jeremy Clarkson. And when I think about it, I think they are actually pretty much inter-changeable.
Funnily enough, I always confuse him with Jeremy Clarkson. And when I think about it, I think they are actually pretty much inter-changeable.
-
maureen mclaughlin
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 13:46
: Brilliant! 
Gah, too many poncy liberal types in here..
Do you actually think Galloway is in anyway concerned for the constituency in which he was voted? He's just going to cause unconstructive trouble in the commons (I can see them trying to get him the far top-back seat) to settle a personal vendetta that will no-longer serve a useful purpose.
Paxman IS very rude though
Do you actually think Galloway is in anyway concerned for the constituency in which he was voted? He's just going to cause unconstructive trouble in the commons (I can see them trying to get him the far top-back seat) to settle a personal vendetta that will no-longer serve a useful purpose.
Paxman IS very rude though
MrSpoon
I think you need to visit the Respect site in the first instance.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
If you want to know if George cares about his constituents, you could try asking some of them - perhaps some of the majority who decided to elect him as their member, or perhaps previous constituents from Hillhead. I don't know how he is as a constituency MP and they would give you a much better answer on whether they think he cares in the case of the former, or whether he actually does a good job in the case of the latter.
Personally, I would much rather have as my MP someone who caused, as you have decided to put it, "unconstructive trouble" in the commons as opposed to someone who LIES in the commons in order to justify dropping large amounts of TNT on other people's children.
There is no doubt that Galloway has a personal vendetta against Blair. I guess when you have been kicked out of your own party for telling the truth, and been systematically smeared by some *very* shady types, it would take a lot in order to not have a grudge. But what you have not done is separate Galloway from his politics, which are firmly on the anti-imperialist left and have been consistent whilst weaker politicians vacillate.
If you think that holding Blair to account for the blood on his hands does not serve a useful purpose, so be it. But a large number of the UK electorate thought rather differently on Thursday.
I think you need to visit the Respect site in the first instance.
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
If you want to know if George cares about his constituents, you could try asking some of them - perhaps some of the majority who decided to elect him as their member, or perhaps previous constituents from Hillhead. I don't know how he is as a constituency MP and they would give you a much better answer on whether they think he cares in the case of the former, or whether he actually does a good job in the case of the latter.
Personally, I would much rather have as my MP someone who caused, as you have decided to put it, "unconstructive trouble" in the commons as opposed to someone who LIES in the commons in order to justify dropping large amounts of TNT on other people's children.
There is no doubt that Galloway has a personal vendetta against Blair. I guess when you have been kicked out of your own party for telling the truth, and been systematically smeared by some *very* shady types, it would take a lot in order to not have a grudge. But what you have not done is separate Galloway from his politics, which are firmly on the anti-imperialist left and have been consistent whilst weaker politicians vacillate.
If you think that holding Blair to account for the blood on his hands does not serve a useful purpose, so be it. But a large number of the UK electorate thought rather differently on Thursday.
-
andydckent
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 16:38
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
i've seen it now and Paxman was a t osser. Galloway minced him, preposterous was the word
However, I also liked David Blunkett's answer to David Frost's "And how will you be greeting George Galloway when you encounter him in the Commons?"
"I wonlt be greeting him, the people of Bethnal and Bow elected him, they are welcome to him"
However, I also liked David Blunkett's answer to David Frost's "And how will you be greeting George Galloway when you encounter him in the Commons?"
"I wonlt be greeting him, the people of Bethnal and Bow elected him, they are welcome to him"
Re: Gorgeous "George" Galloway
Hmmm,Dadaist wrote:
Looking forward to seeing him in the commons shouting at that swine Blair.
<snip>
What a courageous, strong and indefatigable man.
nuff Respect.
So where do I start...
Firstly, as a new poster, hello all.
Secondly, George Galloway is a courageous, strong and infatigable man? Well, that's your view. Some see him as a corrupt apologist for the former head of a murderous regime. I didn't see the interview - I'd like to have - Paxman is usually pretty good at making those with something to hide look a little uncomfortable; see the recent chat with Martin McGuinness as an example!
Perhaps - and I have neither Scots or English blood running through my veins so you may consider my views neutral - you are blindly defending a Scot who has come up against an Englishman. Some of you guys really don't like folk from south of the border do you! Not all Scots are good; not all English people are bad. Fact!
As for that swine Blair. Have you forgotten that. unlike the Iraq that George Galloway liked to visit, the UK is a democracy and has just re-elected Tony Blair. Yes, I know some of his back benchers would like to see him walk too but that isn't necessarily democratic either.
Best,
Tee
Welcome Tee.
Think you are miles off the mark regarding your comments on Scottish v English, Ive been on POL for a year and I can't recall any anti-english comments here. (Not to say there haven't been any).
POL welcomes all sorts, even people from other Planets, like Lawrence and Davie Bhoy.
And BTW: Paxman got a deserved pasting from Galloway, who I think is very far from gorgeous. He is a cigar smoking, moustachioed midget. And he has an overcoat. Would not be surprised if his parents are English.
Think you are miles off the mark regarding your comments on Scottish v English, Ive been on POL for a year and I can't recall any anti-english comments here. (Not to say there haven't been any).
POL welcomes all sorts, even people from other Planets, like Lawrence and Davie Bhoy.
And BTW: Paxman got a deserved pasting from Galloway, who I think is very far from gorgeous. He is a cigar smoking, moustachioed midget. And he has an overcoat. Would not be surprised if his parents are English.
Porty wrote:Welcome Tee.
Think you are miles off the mark regarding your comments on Scottish v English, Ive been on POL for a year and I can't recall any anti-english comments here. (Not to say there haven't been any).
POL welcomes all sorts, even people from other Planets, like Lawrence and Davie Bhoy.
And BTW: Paxman got a deserved pasting from Galloway, who I think is very far from gorgeous. He is a cigar smoking, moustachioed midget. And he has an overcoat. Would not be surprised if his parents are English.
Porty at his best/or worst
Last edited by Gemini on 10 May 2005, 23:14, edited 1 time in total.
George Galloway was an opponent of the Iraqi regime when the UK and US governments were selling weapons to Hussein. Hansard documents this.
As to blindly defending a Scot who has come up against an Englishman - well, for starters I am half English.
So if you remove the incorrect aspects of your argument, can you remind me of your point again?
As to blindly defending a Scot who has come up against an Englishman - well, for starters I am half English.
So if you remove the incorrect aspects of your argument, can you remind me of your point again?
I think that's more to do with free speech than democracy.MrSpoon wrote: seriously though, he's a ***, and thanks to democracy, I don't need a reason to think that.
It's always nice to have some reasoning behind your thoughts, though.
Mr Galloway expressed his opinion, and for that he was drummed out of his party (other strategies having failed). David Blunkett did much the same thing and was left unpunished, indeed welcomed back into the fold after being sent into the corner for some rather more serious misdemeanours.
If he fails to serve his constituents, he'll get chuffed out, and that will definitely be thanks to democracy.
So your reference to Galloway as a "courageous, strong and indefatigable man" didn't contain a thread of irony then? I'm confused (or, perhaps you are?) I seem to remember George Galloway, within fawning distance of the great leader, uttering those words himself- "Sir…- we salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability" to be exact.Dadaist wrote:George Galloway was an opponent of the Iraqi regime when the UK and US governments were selling weapons to Hussein. Hansard documents this.
As to blindly defending a Scot who has come up against an Englishman - well, for starters I am half English.
So if you remove the incorrect aspects of your argument, can you remind me of your point again?
I'll apologise for the remark about the Scots view of the English, that was unjustified.
The rest of my argument stands. Gorgeous George is an ass and a hypocrite.
Galloway says that he was referring to the Iraqi people's courage and strength. He also says that Hansard will back up his claim as to being an opponent of the Iraqi regime long before the west were.
Whether that is true or not, it is true that the west used to arm Hussein - he was their ally and friend.
At the same time as this photo was taken, Hussein was gassing Iranian troops with mustard gas laced with nerve agent.
I am as uncomfortable as you when I see Galloway with Hussein as I was seeing Ron Brown with Gaddaffi. But that doesn't mean that either men are complicit in the crimes of either the Iraqi or Libyan regimes respectively.
If you think his actions make Galloway an a$$ and a hypocrite, fine. But if that is the case, the outrageous horror supported, encouraged and inflicted by Bush snr, Bush jnr, Major and Blair must surely make you ten times more outraged...
...almost as outraged, perhaps, as the honourable member for Bethnal Green and Bow?
Whether that is true or not, it is true that the west used to arm Hussein - he was their ally and friend.
At the same time as this photo was taken, Hussein was gassing Iranian troops with mustard gas laced with nerve agent.
I am as uncomfortable as you when I see Galloway with Hussein as I was seeing Ron Brown with Gaddaffi. But that doesn't mean that either men are complicit in the crimes of either the Iraqi or Libyan regimes respectively.
If you think his actions make Galloway an a$$ and a hypocrite, fine. But if that is the case, the outrageous horror supported, encouraged and inflicted by Bush snr, Bush jnr, Major and Blair must surely make you ten times more outraged...
...almost as outraged, perhaps, as the honourable member for Bethnal Green and Bow?
Really! Well he would say that wouldn't he.Dadaist wrote:Galloway says that he was referring to the Iraqi people's courage and strength.
"Sir" isn't usually a form of address used when speaking to a whole nation.
Galloway finished his little speech to the "people" of Iraq by saying "We are with you," and then some words in Arabic, which the BBC translated as "Until victory! Until Jerusalem!" this not quite three years after Saddam Hussein had rocketed bombs on Israel during the Gulf War, and used poison gas against Iraq's Kurdish people.
According to "Solidarity"; afterwards, Galloway tried to insist that his words were addressed not to the mass murderer in whose presence he stood, but as a salutation to the Iraqi people. Galloway then, under pressure, admitted that the words which began with "Sir", were addressed to the "indefatigable" and "strong" butcher.
A pic of Donald Rumsfeld has no part in this discourse. He's an ass too. You know it and I know it. It don't make George any less of one!
You're quite right. But my point is about relative ass-ness. If we had to be as puritanical as you obviously are, we would be struggling to do or say anything in politics because of guilt by association.
Politics is about taking sides, and in my personal and subjective opinion, Galloway is one of the smallest asses in a parliament which contains some enormous braying donkeys.
Sadly, Mother Theresa is not represented in this parliament, as she must be the only person you could support - what with Mandela being an ex-terrorist. No, wait, even she had some controversy surrounding her at some point in her career...
(p.s. welcome, tee, to the forum. i tip my hat in your general direction)
Politics is about taking sides, and in my personal and subjective opinion, Galloway is one of the smallest asses in a parliament which contains some enormous braying donkeys.
Sadly, Mother Theresa is not represented in this parliament, as she must be the only person you could support - what with Mandela being an ex-terrorist. No, wait, even she had some controversy surrounding her at some point in her career...
(p.s. welcome, tee, to the forum. i tip my hat in your general direction)
Thanks for the welcome, Dadaist and everyone else.
Your initial post celebrating Galloway's victory in Bethnal Green is what prompted me to reply originally. I'm certainly no Puritan but I'm also not blind to the man's obvious flaws. The only reason he isn't an ass on the scale of, say Rumsfeld, is that nobody actually takes much notice of him.
Would he have won in his former constituency? Would he have won if he hadn't been standing against a Jewish woman in a constituency with a large Muslim population? It all smacks of opportunism to me.
Regards,
Tee
Your initial post celebrating Galloway's victory in Bethnal Green is what prompted me to reply originally. I'm certainly no Puritan but I'm also not blind to the man's obvious flaws. The only reason he isn't an ass on the scale of, say Rumsfeld, is that nobody actually takes much notice of him.
Would he have won in his former constituency? Would he have won if he hadn't been standing against a Jewish woman in a constituency with a large Muslim population? It all smacks of opportunism to me.
Regards,
Tee
It's difficult to know what Galloway's exact reasons were for picking that constituency. I think he had a choice of 6 or 7. I think Respect came second in the neighbouring one (West Ham?) Obviously, his opponents will pick up on the muslim thing immediately and either accuse him of being racist (Oona King is black) or anti-semitic (Oona King is Jewish).
If he were a BNP candidate, it would be clear what his intentions were. But I would say that as the Respect candidate, both accusations fall short for a number of reasons.
1. As a socialist, Galloway is by definition an internationalist and committed to the anti-racist cause. If the accusation of racism is true, it's odd that he picked an area with a broad ethnic mix.
2. As a campaigner for Palestine, it's very easy to paint him with an anti-semitic brush. But he is allied to the Israeli peace campaigners, who are Jewish, much more than he is to Islamic militants. I think he would say that he was anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic.
3. Jewish intellectual thought is prevalent in the left, from Trotsky onwards, and there are peace-loving campaigners from many religious backgrounds working together in Respect (one of whose splinter groups is the SWP, founded by Tony Cliff, who was Jewish.)
4. Oona King baited Galloway and argued an aggressively pro-Blairite stance. I wouldn't discount this from the reasons you pick from when you attempt to understand why he picked Bethnal Green.
Tee is simply re-stating Paxman's question from the interview - same rhetoric but different slur. Just as Galloway said, I invite Tee's next question.
p.s. tee, you forgot to mention that Oona King is female. I presume you also think that gender is an issue here?
If he were a BNP candidate, it would be clear what his intentions were. But I would say that as the Respect candidate, both accusations fall short for a number of reasons.
1. As a socialist, Galloway is by definition an internationalist and committed to the anti-racist cause. If the accusation of racism is true, it's odd that he picked an area with a broad ethnic mix.
2. As a campaigner for Palestine, it's very easy to paint him with an anti-semitic brush. But he is allied to the Israeli peace campaigners, who are Jewish, much more than he is to Islamic militants. I think he would say that he was anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic.
3. Jewish intellectual thought is prevalent in the left, from Trotsky onwards, and there are peace-loving campaigners from many religious backgrounds working together in Respect (one of whose splinter groups is the SWP, founded by Tony Cliff, who was Jewish.)
4. Oona King baited Galloway and argued an aggressively pro-Blairite stance. I wouldn't discount this from the reasons you pick from when you attempt to understand why he picked Bethnal Green.
Tee is simply re-stating Paxman's question from the interview - same rhetoric but different slur. Just as Galloway said, I invite Tee's next question.
p.s. tee, you forgot to mention that Oona King is female. I presume you also think that gender is an issue here?
Anti-Zionist - someone opposed to the zionist project, which seeks to reclaim the lands described in the bible for the jewish nation, though most described as such would settle for Israel to retreat to the pre 1967 bordersfoxy wrote:What exactly is the difference between anti-Zionist and anti-semitic..excuse my ignorance
Semitic - Arabs, Jews, Amharic
Anti-Semitic - literally anyone against the above but generally used as a catch all term of abuse for anyone who is critical of Israel or Jews
Hope thats clear enough
As far as the Israeli government would have it, no difference at all.
In my limited and personal understanding, an anti-semite is someone who doesn't like all Jews - like a cross between religious and racial intolerance.
Whereas an anti-zionist is someone who could even be Jewish themselves - they just oppose the initial formation of the state of Israel, because they claim there were some people living there already. It's like a subset of anti-imperialism, I guess.
For the Palestinians there is no Ann Frank, and whilst oppression of the Palestinians (whether by Israel or other Arab nations, like Jordan for example) has no name, those who oppose the Israeli "project" will always be easy targets for their opponents, who simply have to bleat "anti-semitism" and settle back, their own personal prejudices pretty much intact.
In my limited and personal understanding, an anti-semite is someone who doesn't like all Jews - like a cross between religious and racial intolerance.
Whereas an anti-zionist is someone who could even be Jewish themselves - they just oppose the initial formation of the state of Israel, because they claim there were some people living there already. It's like a subset of anti-imperialism, I guess.
For the Palestinians there is no Ann Frank, and whilst oppression of the Palestinians (whether by Israel or other Arab nations, like Jordan for example) has no name, those who oppose the Israeli "project" will always be easy targets for their opponents, who simply have to bleat "anti-semitism" and settle back, their own personal prejudices pretty much intact.