George Galloway

[mancityvstoke]

Doesn't take a majority vote to get elected these days either

It never has with FPTP

Galloway was elected by a majority in Bradford West too.

Half the people in Bradford didn't want him

 

[tidyman]

It never has with FPTP

Galloway was elected by a majority in Bradford West too.

Half the people in Bradford didn't want him

What's your solution. Only elect MP's who get 100% of the electorate to vote for them?

 

[Skashion]

It never has with FPTP

Galloway was elected by a majority in Bradford West too.

Half the people in Bradford didn't want him

55.9% did, and that's all that's needed in any democracy.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Galloway was elected by a majority in Bradford West too.

Half the people in Bradford didn't want him

55.9% did, and that's all that's needed in any democracy.

I know that...I understand the SYSTEM.......I just hate it.


Changing it? They are all shit in my view.

I'm just making a point about hitting George Galloway - doesn't mean you're twatting every single person in the area.

I don't agree that it was right to injure him either though.


Liar or nob or attention seeker he's a human being.

 

[mcmanus]

I think that just about kills this thread

How do you come to that conclusion?
It proves he may have lied, as I'm sure we all have.
It doesn't prove that punching a pensioner is acceptable.

Fucking hell that's the best you've got when the man's life is practically all on YouTube? Notice the very significant editing in there. Very very short clips in order to remove all context from the situation, because as Galloway later clarified, and I don't agree with him on this, because I think you should engage with Israelis even if they defend Israel because I believe in public dialogue. I also don't agree with him on the idea of an academic boycott. However, what it amounts to, when he said he doesn't debate Israelis, is that evidently he should have said I don't debate Israelis who are apologists for Israeli crimes. Now, that's a bit of a mouthful, especially when leaving a room, but let's just say he should have said it, it's not the biggest crime in the world.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpqkVnZP-8M[/video]

By the way, if you really really want, you can find clips of George Galloway interviewing Ilan Pappé on several occasions and singing his praises on a lot more occasions. The idea that he hates all Israelis and won't associate with any Israeli is clearly false. All those who insist that he hates Jews and all Israelis are constantly contradicted by his willingness to share platforms and be friends with Jews and Israelis who condemn Israel. That's his beef. It's with Israel.

If he wants to boycott Israelis who apologise for the regime but associate with Israelis who condemn it, that is his right. I don't agree with the whole of it as I say but trying to score points on him with that is pretty poor and the editing really does suggest someone looking to misdirect you doesn't it? Which is far worse than Galloway failing to clarify something properly when leaving a room.

In the second clip, he's quite right to say he didn't claim Israel gave them the gas, he said, and this is quite audible in the original clip, "here's my theory" i.e. it's speculation! He does not make ANY claim to knowledge and so someone demanding evidence would be wrong to ask for something where he is just speculating. If someone asked me to provide evidence to a claim I'd made when I'd quite clearly indicated it was a theory, supposition speculation etc., I'd deny claiming it too.

This is not to say he doesn't lie. He has lied, and will lie again I'm sure, but it's not really the gaping hole certainly Ducado seems to think because I think most of us would admit lying on occasions even if we would generally describe ourselves as honest - and those that don't admit lying are probably the biggest liars. Fortunately for us, most of us don't have a camera pointed at us 24/7. For his many critics to have such little dirt on him suggests he's actually pretty consistent with his opinions - even if you don't agree with what he says. Many of his critics tried to nail him when he was on TalkSport, I don't remember any successes. Usually someone would try something similar to what has happened in this thread and Galloway had the evidence to refute it. Such as those who criticise his 'friendship' with Saddam. He would then slap them down because he can point to Hansard records where he brought up human rights abuses and criticised Saddam - then in the 1980s being armed by western powers when it was at war with Iran, he can point to protests and rallies attended which many others can verify he attended, he can point to fellow MPs like Tam Dalyell who went to meet Saddam with him and says that Galloway was "even less impressed by him than I was." Do his critics bother to involve themselves in that level of detail? No, which is why he so routinely handed them their arses on TalkSport, check out "Galloway Crackers" on YouTube to see how quickly and thoroughly he'd take apart the limited effort and knowledge of those who thought it would be easy. I think his critics on this thread need a bit of a reality check. Yes, you can beat him in an argument in your own heads I'm quite sure, but George Galloway went to Washington, took on the Senate, and came out smelling of roses, and you think a couple of suspiciously edited videos have finished him off as a source of political opinion on Bluemoon?

Great post.

 

[Skashion]

I know that...I understand the SYSTEM.......I just hate it.


Changing it? They are all shit in my view.

I'm just making a point about hitting George Galloway - doesn't mean you're twatting every single person in the area.

I don't agree that it was right to injure him either though.


Liar or nob or attention seeker he's a human being.

Are you advocating for proportional representation? If so, I quite agree with you. I'd like to see a broader spread of the political spectrum. When I vote I'd like to be able to vote for more than the main three parties, none of whom I would vote for now (until 2010 I voted Lib Dem for Council and General elections, and Green in European elections). However, part of that broader spectrum would be that there would be more Galloways not less. There'd also be more Farages. Now, I'd quite welcome that but the fact remains that George Galloway has enough support in this country to get him elected in any kind of democratic electoral system you can name.

Or maybe you don't want democracy? Well, democracy obviously has many problems, but it's the least worst of all alternatives in my book.

 

[mancityvstoke]

I know that...I understand the SYSTEM.......I just hate it.


Changing it? They are all shit in my view.

I'm just making a point about hitting George Galloway - doesn't mean you're twatting every single person in the area.

I don't agree that it was right to injure him either though.


Liar or nob or attention seeker he's a human being.

Are you advocating for proportional representation? If so, I quite agree with you. I'd like to see a broader spread of the political spectrum. When I vote I'd like to be able to vote for more than the main three parties, none of whom I would vote for now (until 2010 I voted Lib Dem for Council and General elections, and Green in European elections). However, part of that broader spectrum would be that there would be more Galloways not less. There'd also be more Farages. Now, I'd quite welcome that but the fact remains that George Galloway has enough support in this country to get him elected in any kind of democratic electoral system you can name.

Or maybe you don't want democracy? Well, democracy obviously has many problems, but it's the least worst of all alternatives in my book.

Like you say what we have is probably the best of a lot of evils.

I just hate the fact that the Tories got 36% and are in (shared I know) power................and then they went back on some of their promises too.

(Although Lib Dem influence probably made them re think some policies)

 

[tidyman]

I know that...I understand the SYSTEM.......I just hate it.


Changing it? They are all shit in my view.

I'm just making a point about hitting George Galloway - doesn't mean you're twatting every single person in the area.

I don't agree that it was right to injure him either though.


Liar or nob or attention seeker he's a human being.

Are you advocating for proportional representation? If so, I quite agree with you. I'd like to see a broader spread of the political spectrum. When I vote I'd like to be able to vote for more than the main three parties, none of whom I would vote for now (until 2010 I voted Lib Dem for Council and General elections, and Green in European elections). However, part of that broader spectrum would be that there would be more Galloways not less. There'd also be more Farages. Now, I'd quite welcome that but the fact remains that George Galloway has enough support in this country to get him elected in any kind of democratic electoral system you can name.

Or maybe you don't want democracy? Well, democracy obviously has many problems, but it's the least worst of all alternatives in my book.

Like you say what we have is probably the best of a lot of evils.

I just hate the fact that the Tories got 36% and are in (shared I know) power................and then they went back on some of their promises too.

(Although Lib Dem influence probably made them re think some policies)

If you're waiting for ANY government to be elected and then not go back on any of their pre election promises, I fear you may be in for a very long wait indeed.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

How do you come to that conclusion?
It proves he may have lied, as I'm sure we all have.
It doesn't prove that punching a pensioner is acceptable.

Fucking hell that's the best you've got when the man's life is practically all on YouTube? Notice the very significant editing in there. Very very short clips in order to remove all context from the situation, because as Galloway later clarified, and I don't agree with him on this, because I think you should engage with Israelis even if they defend Israel because I believe in public dialogue. I also don't agree with him on the idea of an academic boycott. However, what it amounts to, when he said he doesn't debate Israelis, is that evidently he should have said I don't debate Israelis who are apologists for Israeli crimes. Now, that's a bit of a mouthful, especially when leaving a room, but let's just say he should have said it, it's not the biggest crime in the world.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpqkVnZP-8M[/video]

By the way, if you really really want, you can find clips of George Galloway interviewing Ilan Pappé on several occasions and singing his praises on a lot more occasions. The idea that he hates all Israelis and won't associate with any Israeli is clearly false. All those who insist that he hates Jews and all Israelis are constantly contradicted by his willingness to share platforms and be friends with Jews and Israelis who condemn Israel. That's his beef. It's with Israel.

If he wants to boycott Israelis who apologise for the regime but associate with Israelis who condemn it, that is his right. I don't agree with the whole of it as I say but trying to score points on him with that is pretty poor and the editing really does suggest someone looking to misdirect you doesn't it? Which is far worse than Galloway failing to clarify something properly when leaving a room.

In the second clip, he's quite right to say he didn't claim Israel gave them the gas, he said, and this is quite audible in the original clip, "here's my theory" i.e. it's speculation! He does not make ANY claim to knowledge and so someone demanding evidence would be wrong to ask for something where he is just speculating. If someone asked me to provide evidence to a claim I'd made when I'd quite clearly indicated it was a theory, supposition speculation etc., I'd deny claiming it too.

This is not to say he doesn't lie. He has lied, and will lie again I'm sure, but it's not really the gaping hole certainly Ducado seems to think because I think most of us would admit lying on occasions even if we would generally describe ourselves as honest - and those that don't admit lying are probably the biggest liars. Fortunately for us, most of us don't have a camera pointed at us 24/7. For his many critics to have such little dirt on him suggests he's actually pretty consistent with his opinions - even if you don't agree with what he says. Many of his critics tried to nail him when he was on TalkSport, I don't remember any successes. Usually someone would try something similar to what has happened in this thread and Galloway had the evidence to refute it. Such as those who criticise his 'friendship' with Saddam. He would then slap them down because he can point to Hansard records where he brought up human rights abuses and criticised Saddam - then in the 1980s being armed by western powers when it was at war with Iran, he can point to protests and rallies attended which many others can verify he attended, he can point to fellow MPs like Tam Dalyell who went to meet Saddam with him and says that Galloway was "even less impressed by him than I was." Do his critics bother to involve themselves in that level of detail? No, which is why he so routinely handed them their arses on TalkSport, check out "Galloway Crackers" on YouTube to see how quickly and thoroughly he'd take apart the limited effort and knowledge of those who thought it would be easy. I think his critics on this thread need a bit of a reality check. Yes, you can beat him in an argument in your own heads I'm quite sure, but George Galloway went to Washington, took on the Senate, and came out smelling of roses, and you think a couple of suspiciously edited videos have finished him off as a source of political opinion on Bluemoon?

Great post.

+1

 

[mancityvstoke]

Are you advocating for proportional representation? If so, I quite agree with you. I'd like to see a broader spread of the political spectrum. When I vote I'd like to be able to vote for more than the main three parties, none of whom I would vote for now (until 2010 I voted Lib Dem for Council and General elections, and Green in European elections). However, part of that broader spectrum would be that there would be more Galloways not less. There'd also be more Farages. Now, I'd quite welcome that but the fact remains that George Galloway has enough support in this country to get him elected in any kind of democratic electoral system you can name.

Or maybe you don't want democracy? Well, democracy obviously has many problems, but it's the least worst of all alternatives in my book.

Like you say what we have is probably the best of a lot of evils.

I just hate the fact that the Tories got 36% and are in (shared I know) power................and then they went back on some of their promises too.

(Although Lib Dem influence probably made them re think some policies)

If you're waiting for ANY government to be elected and then not go back on any of their pre election promises, I fear you may be in for a very long wait indeed.

No I expect them all to lie I'm afraid