We've got some Norm Colemans on this board...

[trumad]

I'm startled to read from a few DUers that Galloway is a crook and that we should stay clear from him.

When challenged for the facts they don't reply...

[Avalux]

1. I ran into one of those last night -

no worries! They come and go but the MO is always the same. :hi:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Just Me]

40. Thank you very much.

I keep tabs.

[tx_dem41]

49. Self-delete

Responded to incorrect post.

[Avalux]

53. hee hee -

good job btw! :applause:

[zoeb]

113. ouch! pick on my thread and call me Norm

I'm guilty. I can defend the man's past but it's irrelevant. It's the package. Wonderful Scottish brogue; conviction in what he was saying and the ease at which it was delivered to congress makes him great progressive mouth piece.

I would guess most of our nation couldn't tell you who Gannon/Guckert was and they don't have a clue to who George Galloway is, let alone his past.

[stepnw1f]

173. Thanks!

Adding names to list...

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yodermon]

268. Right. Not a crook, so you just compare him to a pedophile instead.

:eyes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3682579#3686229

[northzax]

269. analogies are wonderful tihngs, aren't they?

I guess calling me Norm coleman is just fine.

I hereby apologise to George Galloway. Mr. Galloway, your defense of Stalinism has inspired me to become a dictator and kill 20,000,000 of my own people! you sir, are an inspiration! I will create a secret police to send my enemies to a frozen wasteland where they will starve and freeze to death. And by enemies, I mean people who look at me funny.

Congratulations. you have lain down with someone who defends Stalin. What, were the Nazis not avaliable?

And if you are admitting that you were lying, shouldn't you get that post deleted, or at least append a comment to that effect?

[yodermon]

285. So what do you think of Senator Byrd?

I truly hope you have never defended any of his statements without mentioning his dark past, else, you have lain down with the KKK. :eyes:

Really, northzax, why are you spending so much energy parsing out all of Galloway's past questionable positions? His statements yesterday stand or fall ON THEIR OWN, and he is clearly being witch-hunted w.r.t the OfF matter. Are you really so concerned that the freeper naysayers will, in fact, say nay? Of course they will.

Unbunch your panties and recognize that Galloway's statements should be an inspiration to everyone who want to call the wingnuts out on the carpet for their crimes. That is all.

[northzax]

312. frankly, I'm not a big fan of Senator Byrd

and if you did a search of my roughly 9500 posts on tihs board dating back to 2001, you'll be unlikely to find anything. But that's for other reasons.

Personally, I am disgusted by anyone who mourns the loss of the Soviet Union. Reagan was right about one thing (and only one thing, as far as I can tell) the USSR was an evil place. Not the people, the state. And no amount of rose coloured glasses can change that. and this is not a past questionable position, it was from 2004. that's not ancient history, that's now.

I can understand, by the way, how someone could be enraptured and sold a bill of goods on an organisation, society or country when the full story isn't avaliable. Happens all the time. It is when the light is shone, and things are revealed that the true test comes, do you change your beliefs to reflect reality, or cling to them. I would think that Senator Byrd grew out of his Klan days. If he said, in 2004, "boy, I sure miss my white robe days" I would be at the front of the line to kick him out of power. And if Galloway had said, at the age of 20 "boy, Communism is great, I love the USSR," I'd forgive him. he aligned himself with Stalin LAST YEAR.

And I don't think it's an inspiration to have a foreign minister come to the Senate and dress down the panel, I think it's embarrasing. And inspiration would be an American Citizen doing that.

and the reason I'm defending myself is that I don't really like being called Norm Coleman simply bacause I question the Party Line. Notice that all the Brits on these threads are warning us about Galloway as well? Listen to the people who know him.

[bpilgrim]

314. "warning us about Galloway" - FUD

thats all you got, right-wing-wacko smears and LIES.

peace

[northzax]

316. say it again

eventually it might be true.

[bpilgrim]

319. all you got, right-wing-wacko smears and LIES.

peace

[northzax]

320. yeah, damn those wingnuts at the Guardian

and the BBC...always pushing the conservative agenda.

but maybe the next time it'll be true...

[bpilgrim]

321. and don't forget the Christian Science Monitor

the M$MWs will print anything these days to tear down and slander a lefty.

shame ain't it.

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :bounce:

peace

[northzax]

324. I know, can you believe it?

how dare they print a quote from him, and entire paragraph, WORD FOR WORD?

you can't let someone hang themselves with their own words...


keep a'trying! you can do it!

[bpilgrim]

325. at least they retracted their smears

i called you on yours and you didn't even respond.

peace

[northzax]

328. nothing to retract

everything I stated was my own opinion, I simply don't like the guy. he says one thing and does another. He keeps unsavoury company. plus, I don't like his politics.

bad personal life, bad friends, bad politics. not a great combination. Everything I have said has been backed up with documentation. You have nothing but smears on me. But keep calling me names, it helps your case.

[bpilgrim]

330. wasn't talking about YOU, i was talking bout the CSM

and your FUD opinion is of 0 value, so there is no need to retract it.

btw: i posted a clear response to you calling me a liar, that you STILL haven't responded to, that highlights your smears and FUD.

peace

[bpilgrim]

283. "he is slime" "he is not a person you want to be associated with" northzax

you alleged, in your post linked above, that he was a Saddam supporter when the record shows he has been an out spoken opponent of Saddam's dictatorous regime for decades.

the OP was referring to posters informing us that some here think "we should stay clear from him" for various nefarious reasons and LIES with 0 to back up their claims so i posted a prime example, your post, quoted in the title of this post, that fits the topic of this thread exactly.

I also take offensive to people smearing left wingers with no facts, nor links, and LIES again your post was a PRIME example, who then lash out at folks who call you on it. and now you call me a liar, you got some nerve.

i've been called worse in this thread, even a freeper, so don't worry about it, i know it's a knee jerk reaction without any thought behind it.

peace

[BlueJazz]

2. It must be True.

I mean, a friend of a friend who happens to know this guy who has a father that knows a person who listens to Rush said that Galloway was a crook.
Christ!..What more proof do you want?

[liberalhistorian]

157. Hey, wait a minute, I think my neighbor's

mother's aunt's cousin's co-worker's ex-wife's new lover said Galloway was a crook also, looks like they've got him! :evilgrin:

[oasis]

326. Bottom line:Galloway told the truth about Bush's deception involving Iraq.

The anti-Galloway crowd has a hard time acknowledging those facts.
Is discrediting Galloway their way of providing a distraction away from those facts? :shrug:

[tx_dem41]

332. Funny....the "anti-Galloway" people on this thread have all...

acknowledged that he made a great speech at the hearing. Are you talking about people not on this thread?

[Swamp Rat]

3. Geaux Galloway!

:kick:

Bolton butt-buddy Norm Coleman is a dangerous lizard.

[xultar]

4. There may be but I trust my UK DUers who say what Galloway is

all about. Maybe you should do some research in the UK media and find out about Galloway and make your own decision.

[bpilgrim]

10. maybe you should post some links to back up your gut

it's the DU way :hi:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3

peace

[Just Me]

72. The "DU way",...

,...a common cause and feavor,...

,...or am I mistaken on that? :shrug:

[zippy890]

5. I'm noticing some odor around here

:puke:

[wakeme2008]

6. On another board somebody posted things Galloway said about Saddam.

Problem is Saddam IS A NUT CASE, and nobody has the transcripts of what Rummy said to Saddam. IMHO, you had to praise Saddam to talk to him at all. I would bet Rummy told him how GREAT a leader he was too.

[kiki]

13. Good point...

...and one which my mum (see post below) pointed out - Galloway's job at the time was to get aid to the Iraqi people, and to do that you had to go through Saddam, and you didn't get anything off Saddam unless you asked very, very nicely.

As for Rummy, well, I hate to state the obvious, but fuck that death-dealing piece of shit. It would take a pretty massive leap of logic to say that a guy who was trying to get aid to a beleagured people was worse than a guy who was selling fucking mustard gas to a dictator, but I'm sure the right-wing machine will manage it.:grr:

[Bouncy Ball]

7. Heh heh.

I saw one who jumped in early the first day and was ragging on Galloway, warning that this could turn around and bite "us" if we "embraced him."

Mmmm-hmmm. Yeah. Ok.

[sendero]

211. Where have I heard..

.... that nonsense before.

Note to the hand-wringing crowd (notice, Galloway didn't even pretend to wring hands) - what is "biting us" is that there is damn near zero Congresspersons who have the courage and the ability to do what Galloway did his first time out - tell the right wing to FUCK OFF, and watch them piss themselves like the fragile little bullies they are.

As soon as middle Americans see some Dems with that kind of conviction and that kind of spine, we'll be well on our way to being in power again.

[bpilgrim]

8. just tell them to listen to this --------------------------- ---> MP3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/George_Galloway.mp3

peace

[kiki]

11. Just had dinner with my mum...

...who's a veteran of 70s/80s activism. What she remembers about Galloway is his time as director of the aid group War on Want, which he apparently ran into the ground.

I personally don't know much about the guy, but y'all need to understand that, while his recent performance in the US might have been impressive, many intelligent left-leaning people in the UK who know about him in the longer term, mainly on a personal level, wouldn't trust him as far as they can throw him.

His past certainly isn't short on dirt - real or false - for the RW scum to throw at him.

[Bouncy Ball]

12. So what?

That means we can't thank him for standing up and saying what he did?

I heard what he said yesterday, it was exactly what I wished SOMEONE would say for the past two years or more. I thanked him for that.

I don't need to check out his entire history before I decide whether to thank the man, just like I don't need references before I decide to thank someone who has done something for me on a personal level.

It's not like the DNC is officially endorsing him or something. It's just people saying "Thank you, thank God someone said all that!"

[kiki]

16. Never said you couldn't.

My point was intended merely as an observation, not advocacy or condemnation.

[SmokingJacket]

38. I am uninformed on British politics, and while I'd love to be better

informed... I sorta have my hands full with this crowd.

I LOVED what Galloway said. Period. I'm not going to endorse him for King, or anything.

In other words... Ditto, B. Ball!

[jeanarrett]

267. Amen. n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

18. "STFU - peace"

Well aren't you just the perfect advocate of peace and free speech.

I don't think my post reads like a smear - it's a word of caution, at best.

If any of you are genuinely interested in learning about the criticisms of Galloway, you know how to Google. Last week, half of you probably didn't even know who he was... all I'm saying is that many of those who have been dealing with him for DECADES aren't so impressed.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

39. You're clearly an "all or nothing" sort of chap

but you're coming off as pretty didactic. As far as I'm concerned, "uncertainty" and "doubt" are two things that intelligent people keep in mind at all times.

But hey, you're right. Galloway is perfect. An angel of a man. An adonis. A virtual god on earth. And anyone who says otherwise must have been personally hired by Rupert Murdoch himself.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

19. ah, more hearsay with no links -------------------> FUD

you don't even know why you are against him, sheesh

peace

[kiki]

22. Sigh.

Not sure why I'm bothering, but I'll repeat my point:

If you are GENUINELY CONCERNED as to the man's character, there is nothing to stop you going on Google and trying to find out for yourself what the critiscms of him are, so you can judge for yourself whether they're valid or not.

For example, it took me approximately 20 seconds to find this on Wikipedia:

"The War on Want episode is important in the context of George Galloway's probity with money. To say that he was cleared of dishonesty would imply that the result was a complete exoneration that the funds in his expenses account were used entirely above board, and that was not quite the case. Essentially what was going on was that War on Want did not bother to look into his expenses account so long as the general funding was looking OK, which it was. When they did look in to it, they found that they really ought to have stopped him spending the money on some of the things he was spending it on.

Galloway's personal liking for nice suits is relevant to his political life because it has affected his perception. He has been quoted, I know not whether accurately, as saying that he needs at least £150,000 a year to survive as a political figure."

[bpilgrim]

24. lame COP-OUT after spreading FUD

we got a tradition on DU of backing up our claims, especially HEARSAY.

peace

[kiki]

26. Check my edit.

And I don't know what FUD means, sorry.

As for my "lame cop-out", you seem to be saying that, if you've decided to like or hate someone, you have absolutely no responsibility to check the facts FOR YOURSELF if they might not gel with what you already think. So who's copping out?

[geek tragedy]

29. This is like debating Freepers about Ronald Reagan's legacy.

You can't debate hero worshippers.

[kiki]

34. Apparently not.

But, to repeat myself AGAIN, these are people who HAD NEVER HEARD OF GALLOWAY PRIOR TO LAST WEEK. And there are decent people in the UK WHO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT GALLOWAY FOR DECADES who aren't so impressed. So if I was sitting there with a huge boner for Galloway, and I considered myself a thinking person, I'd want to know what those people in the UK had to say.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

44. For many around here, the only quality that counts is how loud someone

denounces the Bush administration. The enemy of their enemy is not only their friend, but their hero.

[bpilgrim]

46. and some on here like to trade on innuendo to feel superior

and call other DU'ers FREEPERS :puke:

peace

[geek tragedy]

47. Check out the title of this thread, which essentially says that you're

either with Galloway or with the Freepers. Who thinks like that?

[bpilgrim]

54. there you go again, calling DU'ers, FREEPERS, who are TOASTING a lefty

lame

peace

[geek tragedy]

56. The sentiment expressed in the original post is very Bushian

in its simplicity and black-and-white view of the world.

You're either with Galloway or with the Freepers. That's the attitude around here, and it's utter stupidity.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

63. I'm defending imperialism? Again, you need to learn the difference

between Galloway and the anti-war cause.

[Just Me]

83. No. I am talking about YOUR POSITIONI!!! I am able to distingish.

I have the capacity to distinguish MY EGO, acknowledge MY EGO,...from MY ROLE in this world.

YOU are avoiding the topic of corporate imperialism by pointing at Galloway and the anti-war cause.

YOU are doing the pointing, the fingering. YOU.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO! Not me.

[geek tragedy]

87. True or false: One can support the anti-war cause while being a harsh

critic of George Galloway.

[bpilgrim]

96. a 'harsh critic' based on RUMORS, LIES, HEARSAY and FUD?!?

just like ole Norm, eh - lol

i have REPEATEDLY called you BASHERS out and all y'all respond with is calling us FREEPERS, what a joke.

peace

[Just Me]

97. LMAO,...you AREa superb manipulator,...a consistent force I note.

You can NEVER control me or my life.

DO YOU GET THAT!!!!

Perpetrator. You are weak against the human spirit. You will fail.

[stepnw1f]

179. I Like Your Spirit! (nt)

[TheWatcher]

220. Are you at this again?

Like I told you last night. You have no concrete proof of the man's guilt. You have no evidence to point to.

If you have it, share it.

[tx_dem41]

92. In other words...

"you're either with us, or against us". You're definitely simpatico with the Administration on this philosophy. In fact, you have it down pat.

[Just Me]

185. Do I have my principles concerning BELIEF in the potential of humanity,...

,...firmly in my hands? YOU BETTER FUCKING BELIEVE IT!!!

I have no compulsion to LIE MY ASS OFF in order to empower myself!!!

I have no compulsion to beat the shit out of those who speak facts!!!

I have no desire, whatsoever, to persecute the innocent.

I am repulsed by those who seem ever skillful at dismissing their willingness to be evil and impose their will upon someone weaker.

I feel compelled to FIGHT against those who advantage themselves off the weaknesses of others.

HOW'S ABOUT YOU!!!!

[tx_dem41]

191. Check, check, check, check, check, and a final check.

Its a shame that sometimes we can't always "walk the walk". No?

[Just Me]

194. Walk the walk,....are you being accusatory or offering?

Walk the walk.

I didn't initiate this fight, ya' know.

Walk the walk.

Ready to do it?

Walk the walk.

[tx_dem41]

200. I'm walking right now. n/t

[Just Me]

204. Me, too! n/t

[tx_dem41]

205. LOL...

good sparring with you, JM. Have a good one.

[tx_dem41]

68. I must have missed the part where imperialism was being defended...

care to point out where that happened?

[Just Me]

117. EW! You are all over my posts, you, tiger, you. How come?

Tell me,...do you acknowledge the leadership's bent towards imperialism, or not.

Yes or NO.

Confess or DENY.

[tx_dem41]

123. Of course, I abhor the hegemony displayed by this administration..

I care about fighting it enough not to lay the fate of the fight onto a cult of personality, in fact.

I still don't know where anyone on this thread was supporting imperialism.

[bpilgrim]

133. and i don't know where anyone on this thread suggested...

"lay the fate of the fight onto a cult of personality,"

cept YOU.

peace

[tx_dem41]

136. Oh this whole thread is textbook...

"Cult of Personality". People participating in a cult of personality have trouble seeing it, obviously. Too bad we can't participate in a "cult of issues", so to speak, instead.

[bpilgrim]

140. BULLSHIT - there you go again with your STRAWMAN

NO ONE has said we should put ALL OUR FAITH IN HIM. no one but you and a few other HEARSAY critics.

it's either we are freepers or hero worshipers but not 1 shred of PROOF to all your claims of why we should distance ourselves from him.

and because yall get called on it you think you can shift the topic to us, lol.

this ain't fox news.

peace

[tx_dem41]

148. Bpilgrim...please review my posts on this thread ....

please point out where I have said anything critical about Galloway. I said that I have no opinion on the man himself (as I do with any politician), but that I think what he said yesterday was great.

So, please point out where I was criticising him. Or are you just "rumour-mongering" and "spreading FUD"?

[bpilgrim]

156. i have and responded to a few even

you are throwing up strawmen, in defense of what other RUMOR MONGERS have posted, and putting words in peoples mouths 'cult of personality' or it's all Galloway or nothing.

no one said that and it is UNFAIR so i am simply pointing that out.

you seem to have sympathy with the folks posting HEARSAY so i thought you agreed with their unfair attacks. if not, i apologize. but maybe you can stop it with the hero worship STRAW-MEN.

peace

[tx_dem41]

160. Thanks for the apology...

...I feel I've been sticking up for people who have been subjected to unfair attacks. Kiki was accused of supporting imperialism, and that's what got me involved on this thread. I just didn't see anything in her posts that deserved that attack.

Again, its been fun sparring with you.

[bpilgrim]

177. you're welcome

anytime

peace

[Frederik]

142. That's not how I read the post

The point is that some seem to have an agenda against the man, seizing on any allegation or quote from the past to show that he is "dirty", which is a little pointless imo.

[geek tragedy]

181. There's no 'agenda.' Many honest leftists (especially in the UK) simply

find the man to be unsavory. Given the outpouring of worship for him around here (the "who wants to have George Galloway's baby" thread comes to mind)it's not unreasonable to point out that the man has critics amongst the liberal/left/progressive movement and may not deserve all this adulation.

[bpilgrim]

195. "simply find the man to be unsavory" -------------------> more FUD

with 0 proof of how he is "unsavory".

some have no SHAME, apparently, and they've had PLENTY of time to find some PROOF but what to we get, nuttin. you know if there was ANY-PROOF that he was 'unsavory' these people would be posting it EVERYWHERE but nadda, nothing, zilch. just like the SENATE.

peace

[Tansy_Gold]

271. One does not have to have "proof" to state the "opinions"

of others.

"My mother thinks George Bush is a bigger crook than Richard Nixon" does not require proof, since I am merely stating my mother's opinion.

"Some leftists in the UK find Galloway unsavory" is exactly the same thing.

It does not mean Galloway IS unsavory, nor does it HAVE to provide the reasons (as disctinct from proof) why some leftists in the UK find Galloway unsavory.

People are stating opinions here, even when they suggest Galloway is showing spine on this issue that no Dems have done for a very long time. It's opinion, and it doesn't need "proof."

I believe Paul Wellstone voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. He wasn't perfect either.

[SeattleRob]

322. Sorry ---

But thr "some say" thing is very much like Faux News. Have you seen "Outfoxed"?

[bpilgrim]

323. they do when attacking a lefty

and when asked to.

it's a DU tradition :hi:

peace

[tx_dem41]

207. Let me go on record as not wanting to have Galloway's babies...

Don't hold it against me. I'm a 42 yo male. :)

[Frederik]

214. I don't see any "outpouring of worship"

Simply joy after hearing his unusually powerful testimony yesterday. He certainly deserves "all this adulation" for that performance, regardless of whether he has critics in the liberal/left/progressive movement (who hasn't?).

[TheWatcher]

227. .And why do they find him unsavory.

Once again, you have not been able to provide one shred of evidence of the man's guilt, yet you continue this.


I think the failure in some of your perception is to realize that people are showing a great deal of appreciation for what the man SAID, not necessarily for the man himself. It is the brilliant performance he gave in front of the contemptable idiots in our Senate, and the way that he turned them into oatmeal with their OWN Bullshit that people are basking in.

And this would be quite understandable, because what he said was brilliant and spot on. You aren't able to dispute this.

And perhaps people are basking in the wonder of actually seeing someone STAND UP and call these imperialist pices of shit on their lies, their hypocisy, and their crimes, because they sure haven't gotten it from their leadership or their Media.

Sure the man has Critics.

However, he is not even comparable to the thugs in our Government.

Not even close.

[geek tragedy]

233. The man has a long career of very controversial stands and statements.

Do a google search on him.

He could be both right about the Iraq war and guilty as charged.

[bpilgrim]

238. lol - AGAIN! 0 links...

no facts, no proof, just more FUD.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[TheWatcher]

298. I'm not the one so feverishly screaming about the man's guilt.

If you are so eager to prove the man is a criminal, Google yourself and post the links.

[JanMichael]

60. It's an M.O. I've noticed.

Shhhhhhh....

[JanMichael]

I've known about him for years sweetie.

And compared to the human filth who art our fearless idiotic "leaders" he's a world above them.

Yesterday as Exhibit A.

[kiki]

59. Aargh.

Did I say "Galloway is no better than the Bush administration"?

Did I say "Galloway is an evil man"?

Or did I say "Galloway is regarded by many on the left to have a slightly shady past, regardless of how cool he was last week"?

(Clue: I didn't say either of the first two.)

[bpilgrim]

66. it's THIS WEEK, hello...

YESTERFURCKINGDAY

and who are you to get indignant about putting words in peoples mouth because you did that very thing to me just moment before.

LAME

peace

[kiki]

76. Jesus.

If you have to pick up on a minor typing error to make a point, whatever. Ignoring all the other posts where I referred to "this week" just like you're ignoring the Wikipedia bit.

And I'm sure JanMichael can speak for him/herself, and more rationally and maturely than you seem to be doing.

But there you go. I guess that, with some DUers, I have to learn when there are allowed to be two sides to a story, and when there aren't.

[tx_dem41]

71. You didn't say those things, Kiki. n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

85. Well, I did post one bit of evidence...

...and you, oh enlightened one, told me to stick it up my ass!

I'm a "he", by the way.

[eyepaddle]

172. But that was Wikipedia,

anybody can throw stuff on that.

[tx_dem41]

86. There are a lot of people good at that, from what I have seen.

Some are more shameless about it than others.

[bpilgrim]

93. well i quoted her, and she said a mouthful

and she continues to SHAMELESSLY spread RUMORS and FUD.

glad we got a record here, unlike the M$MWs, so DEAL with that before accusing others of simply pointing out that FACT.

peace

[JanMichael]

80. Everybody I know of, and know, has something "shady" that if people want

...to make a big deal of they probably could.

Sort of a "house of glass/throw stones" issue in my opinion.

He's taken a lot of shit and pressure from both mainstream Labor and the "far" Left over the years, I know of no other public figure that holds radically different ideas about the status quo that hasn't had the same treatment.

It happens here too. Chomsky gets picked apart relentlessly by Liberals, not Conservatives (I doubt many know his works, neither the linguistic pieces or the political), but Liberals. Same with Zinn and Albert and the whole lot of the Lefties left in this country.

Either way I think I'm just tired of the personal attacks on a fellow traveller of mine, perhapsnot yours, that's Ok, but it gets so damned old hearing the same stuff over and over.

I suppose when one has a background with a certain issue that one may tend to just respond with posts that just might not seem in proportion to what others see.

With that I'll agree to you first two points:-)

Actually I'll agree on the 3rd but I'm not sure which "on the left" folks you're refering to, there isn't much consensus on the "left" here or there at this time.

[Henny Penny]

77. Perhaps those who had never heard of him

were free to make their own judgment based on the man himself, rather than believe the numerous smears propagated by the establishment.

[bpilgrim]

37. now you are calling us FREAKERS - lol

hero worshipers, FUCK THAT, we are giving him his due and if we are passionate it is because we are STARVED for the TRUTH.

people who spread FUD with 0 proof are certainly much more similar to the FREAKS and yet you got the NERVE to call us FREEPS for toasting a man who spoke truth to power :crazy:

we are FUCKED

peace

[kiki]

43. But you're NOT just "toasting him"

for his recent actions, you're also saying that anyone who casts any kind of doubt on anything he might have done in the previous 50-odd years of his life, must be some kind of fascist infiltrator. Which is, to be honest, pretty fuckin stupid.

If you're saying that you don't care what he's done - that, if you found out that, up until this week, he regularly ate human babies and raped kittens, you'd be fine with that - then fair enough. Nowhere in any of my posts did I denigrate his US speech, which I think was pretty cool. All I'm saying is that the guy is apparently far from perfect.

[bpilgrim]

45. WHAT?!?

i said STOP spreading FUD on DU against one of our OWN a LEFTY, hello.

you got a lotta nerve calling people stupid.

peace

[kiki]

51. That was barely even a coherent reply to my post...

...but I'll repeat myself AGAIN that many of those criticising him in the UK are LEFTIES.

HELLO.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

62. Still ignoring the Wikipedia excerpt I posted, I see.

And for the record, if I'm attacking anyone, it's YOU, not DUers. Nobody else here seems quite as, well, rabid on the subject as you. Sorry.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

81. We have a winner!

"Mature debate", thy name is, well, whatever the fuck your name is. :p

[Just Me]

159. And YOU have WON,....NOTHING!!!!

What is your objective? What is your passion? What do you want?

If it's all for you,...what do you get?

I'll tell you,...NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

[tx_dem41]

167. I happen to know her passion.....

You might just be surprised when you find out what it is...and humbled. I hope you get the opportunity someday to do both.

Why do I know these things? Because, I had a decent, normal conversation with her, instead of flying off the handle and sicking the dogs on her. Its amazing what progress can be made when two people do that.

[Just Me]

192. Can't spread humility without a stock of it.

Yes?

What does her "personal" issue have to do with this IMPERSONAL post?

:shrug: just asking

[tx_dem41]

197. Cute saying....I have one too.

Can't find out about a person while yelling at them.

[kiki]

55. Did you read my edited post above?

Do you think that £150,000 a year is an acceptable wage for a man working for a charity to "expect"? Or is Wikipedia not a "credible" enough source for you?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiki]

118. Well, you clearly are pissed off.

But I would question whether your "pissed-off-ness" is very productive, when you take a passing comment on a conversation I had with my mother, together with my merely making the statement, for the benefit of those not familiar with UK politics, that some people in Britain have doubts about Galloway, and turn it into a full-blown flame war.

I would say "don't tell me to shut up", but apparently "shut up" and "stick it up your ass" are all part of rational debate for you.

That "peace" sig is ringing pretty hollow right now.

[Just Me]

162. YOU HAVE WON NOTHING!!! Take provocation of anger to your grave.

I guess that's something more than money.

You produce, you take with you.

Of course, you would NEVER ADMIT producing anger or hatred or violence,...would you?

[MADem]

106. Pay no attention to the exchange rate -- a hundred fifty K quid

...goes about as far as a hundred fifty K bucks do in the States. I've lived in UK, I KNOW. That is not unreasonable renumeration for management of a good sized charity.

Hey, Kiki, check out how much the US Director of the Red Cross gets for their work...or any major charity here in US. It's a tidy sum. The Head of the fucking GIRL SCOUTS gets more than GG.

You're just looking to fight with people, I think. You've indicated your displeasure, why not leave it at that? You aren't making your case by getting shirty...

[kiki]

126. Shirty?

As bpilgrim is so fond of saying, we have a record of everything that's said here. I think anyone can read through it and see which of the two of us had the more aggressive stance.

My head is spinning.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

171. Verrry interesting.

I see we are very interested in building a movement here. I can't wait until the "Night of the Long Knives". :eyes:

[kiki]

174. Wow. Just... wow.

For the life of me I really can't see how anything I've posted could be seen the way you see it, but I'm truly sorry if I offended anyone.

By the way, there's no such word as "inciteful". You can call me "insightful" if you like. ;)

[PassingFair]

184. Er, I wouldn't want to live in London on less than 150,000 pounds.

That city is EXPENSIVE. Your "link" is vague and pointless.

[MADem]

239. That's all I was saying, above

And I have lived there, in good exchange rates and bad, as I imagine you have as well! The land of the thirty dollar intown pizza!

[kiki]

241. Lol...

You must have some expensive tastes!

I've been managing it for the last five years. Some years I earn less than 10 grand.

[PassingFair]

256. And you have been an MP for HOW long?

There's surviving and there's living.
Have you been managing raising a family on 10 grand?
I have family that live distinctly middleclass lives in the London suburbs, and they make far more than 10,000.

[Henny Penny]

67. He was cleared by an independent auditor's report!

"If you are GENUINELY CONCERNED as to the man's character, ".....

you might start by listening to what he says rather than taking your information from an establishment that fears his every word.

I cannot believe that the number of false allegations against him has been so large (with everyone from auditors to courts of law finding in his favour) and still the mud sticks!

[bpilgrim]

78. yeah, but norm and the wiki say different

:crazy:

peace

[Henny Penny]

84. you mean kiki! lol

[bpilgrim]

98. D'oh!

you got me there ;->

phew, i can't believe the NERVE these people have and then they call US freepers to boot :eyes:

:hi:

peace

[Henny Penny]

100. Hi bpilgrim...

yes you gotta admire their nerve and persistence! Every thread about Galloway probably has a smear or two added by now, just in case this thing started to build a head of steam. They are so thorough... luckily for us though, they are incapable of making a case.

:toast:

[bpilgrim]

105. i so love that DU has a record that people can review instead of HEARSAY

these people expose themselves as master practitioners of the trade.

it might fly on the teeVee, but not on my beloved DU ;->

thanks for helping to spread the word and fight the good fight :toast:

peace

[CHIMO]

28. How About Tariq Ali?

Blair Wins Third Term; Majority Reduced Over Iraq War


AMY GOODMAN: Finally, we only have 30 seconds, but more on the victory of George Galloway, who was expelled from the Labour Party, as well as the man who voted against Blair, who lost his son in Iraq.

TARIQ ALI: This was the high point of the election. The Labour leadership had expended a great deal of energy in sending its top people to campaign against George Galloway. Hitchens and other right wing journalists in the British media had been denouncing Galloway. And his victory was a tremendous triumph for the anti-war movement. And Galloway immediately dedicated this victory to the people of Iraq and to the people who had been killed and said it was payback time for Blair. So, it will be very good to have him back in Parliament, agitating and arguing against the war and demanding a rapid British withdrawal.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/06/141228&mode=thread&tid=25

There are some other lefties from the 60's and 70's in Washington that are now called by a different name.

[Henny Penny]

48. Before I saw Galloway speak myself, I had heard

some of the allegations about his past and I believed them, because in those days I trusted the establishment(I was just a kid then). But after hearing him speak I thought "this guy seems pretty angry, but what he says is right"! And I looked a bit closer...

I remember the War on Want allegations but like all the other stuff the establishment has thrown at him... they were unfounded.

"But always, always the questions. In that same year, 1987, he faced inquiries over his financial stewardship at the charity War on Want, where he had been general secretary for four years.

He was exonerated - after volunteering to repay some contested expenses: beyond, he stressed, the repayment required by auditors. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4539429.stm

Its a bit depressing to think how easy it is to get mud to stick though.

[Frederik]

127. You said it

"It's a bit depressing to think how easy it is to get mud to stick though."

It's also a bit sad to see how a big deal some try to make about allegations of a couple of expensive suits bought in the 1980s or whatever. It's the kind of inquisition you'd expect from someone who had an agenda against somebody. I don't worship at the altar of Galloway or anybody else but I like the man and his testimony yesterday was nothing short of historic! I don't see the relevance of his taste in clothes or his remuneration twenty years ago.

[rman]

282. It's trivial to run anything into the ground and blame it on someone else.

It's one of those things the RW does. Money, time and persistance are no object to them.

[peacetalksforall]

120. If he has a 30 year history...why does the UK/UN still use him. Did he

act on his own or for someone...who is the someone? We should learn more. But, I sure favor a person who tells the truth as I 'KNOW' it to be in my heart and head. And I will favor the person until someone makes a claim that he is as bad as Cheney or Baker or Meese or Kissinger or Blair.

[rman]

280. I just had dinner with my aunt,

and she says what your mom says isn't true.

It's impossible to find anyone on who the RW could not find dirt to throw.

[Solly Mack]

15. Lickspittle alert?

[applegrove]

17. Anyone who came in contact with Saddam, let alone supported him

was warped somehow: neocons in the 1980s, African leaders (told Saddam was being attacked because only because Kofi was a black man), Galloway (told kids were starving and Saddam was a good guy and wanted to give them food), etc.

I don't think, from what I can tell, that Galloway was out for money or perhaps realized how tied up he was. Doesn't matter. He fell into line and played the role Saddam layed out for him. And he as much as admitted it when he compared himself to Rumsfield and said "at least I didn't do it for weapons" or whatever he said. I believe the guys intent could have been as simple as saving lives. He still got covered in Saddam's slime.

I am so happy he said what he said to the congress. He spoke some truths there we have not seen.

But as too the money put into his charity... I don't have enough information on that.

[bpilgrim]

20. ah, another link with 0 proof or context

i know, i know, we are all entitled to our opinions, but sheesh, before we eat our fucking own can we have some got damned CONTEXT with LINKS, please.

peace

[noiretextatique]

21. if i read you correctly, saddam

was (almost) as powerful as clinton's penis.

[Solly Mack]

30. No way! Nothing is as powerful as the Clenis!

:)

[noiretextatique]

33. i didn't think so

but apparently the vrwc does :hi:

[Solly Mack]

36. Can you imagine living in their mind?

scary....

[applegrove]

103. Living in the mind of someone who agrees with much of what Galloway

says but finds him a victim of Saddam too - like so many. And wanting for his testimony and his errors to be a foil to all that some American corporations & neocons did?

[Solly Mack]

107. I was thinking of right wingers

[applegrove]

108. Okay - sorry. n/t

[applegrove]

70. Oh - with megalomaniac sociopaths like that...there is no reality

with a few minutes of meeting with them.

That is just the way it is.

[geek tragedy]

25. There are no Norm Coleman's on this board. There are some Carl Levin's

though.

People here are treating Galloway like the Freepers treat Dear Leader

If people can't handle seeing this guy being criticized,

BOO FUCKING HOO!

Not everyone who dislikes this snake oil salesman you worship is a goddamn freeper. Get over yourself.

[bpilgrim]

32. we are giving the man the RESPECT he deserves for speaking TRUTH to POWER

and some don't like it i suspect because it reveals how lame most of our 'leaders' have been for the past 5 years :puke:

BTW: g people with NO LINKS, no context, hearsay and most not even sure why they don't like him is certainly more LIKE the FREAKERS than giving an ally against this crimminal admin his due respect.

peace

[geek tragedy]

41. I've provided PLENTY of links in my posts.

All found through the wonderful world of Google.

It says something that his critics have done the research, and his supporters haven't.

[bpilgrim]

73. BULLSHIT

i have yet to see ONE link by you and your parter.

fyi: wiki don't count

peace

[geek tragedy]

75. Yawn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1480694&mesg_id=1481923

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

158. Would a link to the UK's official parliamentary Hansard transcripts count?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldhansrd.htm

Oh wait...duh me! The official records all show Galloway criticizing the US and UK for their support, business dealings and financing of Saddam Hussein's government; his calling Hussein a "brutal dictator" etc; and his denouncing the US and UK governments for their lack of caring about the citizens ("victims") of Iraq.

Besides, a certain couple of Iraq war supporters on this thread equate any speaking of facts that DON'T show Hussein's government as Satan's Spawn and DON'T support invading and occupying a nation that hadn't been doing a damn thing to anyone, as being a "Saddam lover".

[tx_dem41]

180. God, I love great irony.

"Besides, a certain couple of Iraq war supporters on this thread equate any speaking of facts that DON'T show Hussein's government as Satan's Spawn and DON'T support invading and occupying a nation that hadn't been doing a damn thing to anyone, as being a "Saddam lover"."

Some people confuse irony and hypocrisy. You're masterful at irony. Just masterful. Congrats.

[LynnTheDem]

210. As one Texan to another, it's the Texas thang.

Not to be confused with the Texas thong.

[bpilgrim]

186. that counts!

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[geek tragedy]

249. History lesson.

When Saddam was pro-US and anti-Communist, Galloway hated him.

When Saddam was anti-US, Gorgeous George started kissing Saddam's ass and having Christmas dinner at the home of his "dear, dear friend" Tariq Aziz.

[bpilgrim]

251. ah hah... he's one of dem dare american haters, eh? GOTCHA!

:rofl:

peace

[LynnTheDem]

252. Reading Lesson: UK official parliamentary transcripts; 1990 - 2003

Mine comes with links and is an official source.

[Henny Penny]

88. I think you are being a little disingenuous!

You may have provided links... but they proved nothing :-)

Largely because you left out the 90% or so of the quote that makes your claim look like the case for war!

[geek tragedy]

91. In the past week or so, I've linked to

his support of the Soviet Union, his praise of Saddam and Tariq Aziz, his looney comments about Al Gore and Iraq (hint: he blames people wearing yarmulkes), and the fact that the books and records for his pseudo-charity were physically removed from the UK and "lost."

[SOS]

199. One reporter did some serious research....

"Coleman, with pro-AIPAC Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, is using the Senate Permanent Sub-committee on Investigations to rehash charges that foreign and even U.S. officials financially benefited from the United Nations' Oil for Food program. These charges, which later were proven false, first surfaced in the neoconservative controlled London-based Daily Telegraph, owned by the Hollinger Corporation, a company that had financial ties to arch-neoconservative Richard Perle. The charges by both the Daily Telegraph and now Coleman's committee are based on documents as bogus as the Niger yellowcake documents and those proffered by Curveball and Chalabi about Iraq's fantasized weapons of mass destruction. Galloway successfully sued the Telegraph for libel over its baseless Oil for Food allegations against him."

His Swiftboating critics have their work cut out for them.

Full article at onlinejournal:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/051305Madsen/051305madsen.html

[geek tragedy]

237. Wayne Madsen? Tee hee.

I take that guy about as seriously as I take Curveball on crack.

[SOS]

304. Which elements of the article can you disprove?

Do you have a link? Did Galloway win his libel suit against the Telegraph or not?
Everything Galloway said in the Senate and the facts in Madsen's article appear to be accurate. If Coleman had any real evidence against Galloway he would have presented it at the Senate hearing. This Senate "inquiry" is just another Swiftboat-style hatchet job.

[rinsd]

329. In other words hero worship is okay as long as the guy is on the left (nt)

[bpilgrim]

331. no, RUMOR MONGERING against lefties is frowned upon

and will be challenged for PROOF.

see how that works, we are much different than the M$MWs and why we are popular.

peace

[lockdown]

111. Seems you can't handle Carl Levin being criticized

but at least people aren't running round calling him a crook like you are calling Galloway (yet you paint it as sensible justified criticism in the face of far left idiocy). "No smoke without fire" you said in another thread... pfff, with reasoning like that you probably still think there are wmd's buried in the Iraqi desert.

[geek tragedy]

189. Nobody has brought criminal allegations against Levin. Criminal

allegations have been brought against Galloway.

Now, do I know that Galloway is a crook and guilty as charged? Nope. But I am drawing an inference from the extraordinarily suspicious and irregular bookkeeping and accounting practices that Galloway and his cohorts used in running it.

[tx_dem41]

193. Oh come now. Those are just inferences....

I mean that's as bad as inferring that someone that isn't sold on Galloway is "supporting imperialism" and is an "Iraqi war supporter". We don't go for just plain ol' inferences around here. We need hard evidence before we would state such things. Anything short of that would be "rumour-mongering" and "FUD-spreading" ;)

[geek tragedy]

196. Court cases are won and lost based upon such inferences all the time eom

[tx_dem41]

201. Geek....check the "wink" at the end of my post. n/t

[geek tragedy]

206. I saw it, you ol' FUD'er.

;)

Just thought I would emphasize the point for the general public.

[tx_dem41]

213. "Ol' FUD'er"

I've been called worse. I was called an "insipid bastard" earlier. Post has been deleted though. I think I'm on some "Night of the Long Lives" list as well. Quite an evening. :)

[geek tragedy]

215. I was called a "perpetrator." Which was nice, but certainly not as cool

as "insipid bastard."

[tx_dem41]

216. Yep...very cool! I thought "insipid" really pushed it over the top.

I would hate to be just a garden-variety bastard.

[lockdown]

219. Oh well, if people have alleged it

there must be something to it, and anyone not treating George Galloway as a pariah is clearly deluded. Never mind that the people alleging it are lickspittles and it's all based on forgeries, trumped up nonsense and ridiculous innuendoes!

Speaking of which, "I am drawing an inference from the extraordinarily suspicious and irregular bookkeeping and accounting practices"? hahahaha!

[geek tragedy]

234. Again, calling Carl Levin a Republican lickspittle is just plain ignorant

and wrong. Seriously.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Yes, we certainly do have some lickspittles on this board.

No proof whatsoever...but Galloway MUST be guilty! Even though is charity was cleared by the UK Charities Commission, nope he MUST be guilty!

Yeah and Iraq MUST have WMD, we just haven't looked hard enough yet.

:eyes:

[reality based]

31. Because Democrats have failed to exert leadership

against the pack of lies underlying an abominable war, George Galloway has filled the moral vacuum. Without vision the people perish.

[Just Me]

35. EW how you're drawing attention must make some skins CRAWL,...

,...away.

Intentions are grey,...until facts catch up!!!! :bounce:

[JanMichael]

50. I don't have to use "ignore" anymore with those poppycocks...

...er, pippinjays, whatever the fuck those conservative weasals are, I've got a mental ignore on already.

Don't worry they'll all get CL'outed eventually.

[Just Me]

57. If we are REAL,...we can only examine one truth at a time.

We've ALL been pulled into a sort of "persecutory" mode which is WRONG!!!

Worse, we are buying into a "paranoid" zone of NO TRUST,....which is destructive.

Stop buying into this awful nightmare. It's up to you to choose embracing the best or worst of human existence.

I don't HAVE to be on anyone's boat,...I want to be on our ship.

[applegrove]

79. Great words Just Me! "Ship" I like that! n/t

[Taxloss]

65. He's a very controversial figure in the UK.

Very controversial indeed. It's hard to think of a US equivalent. I think that's why we Brits are steering a bit clear of this issue.

I started a discussion in the UK forum on the subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x4633#4641

It's proved to be very interesting so far, and I think it rewards reading as a primer on what the UK left thinks of Gorgeous.

[bpilgrim]

90. a WHOLE thread of FUD, not one single link, 0 proof, just HEARSAY...

i say the OP got it 100% correct about some people here.

thanks for helping prove the point :toast:

peace

[Henny Penny]

94. What would be your guess as to numbers?

I think 3.

[Taxloss]

95. Why do you say that?

There's a lot of positivity about Galloway on that thread. It's alarming that discussion of him is being stifled in this manner.

On Edit: Tumbleweed ... ticking clocks ...

[bpilgrim]

112. 0 links

i went there to find links to credible evidence of his alleged bad behavior and noted there were NONE.

if you wanna pick on a lefty on this board, especially someone as brave and straight forward as that man speaking TRUTH to POWER on the historical record you better bring something more than FUD.

thats why i said that.


gotta go for now.

peace

[Taxloss]

119. That's because we weren't discussing his "bad behaviour".

And we weren't "picking on" him at all. We offered genuine opinions without malice. I thought it was a level-headed and fair discussion, unlike this one.

[bpilgrim]

129. "He's a very CONTROVERSIAL figure in the UK... "

"we in the UK are steering clear of him"

"we weren't discussing his "bad behavior"

yeah, i wonder where i got that idea...

never the less, in this thread we are discussing him and folks are making negative charges against him with 0 proof and i am asking for PROOF not OPINIONS.

you can not have a FAIR discussion about someone with FUD being thrown around like in this one.

question, is it UNFAIR of me to ask for PROOF and LINKS if someone makes accusations against the man?

another question, is it unfair of me to call them out when they do?

tia :toast:

peace

[Taxloss]

138. It's not unfair of you to ask for proof of allegations.

But you are seeing allegations where none exist, you are seeing persecution and character assassination in honest discussion, and you are using pejorative language against people who are your allies. You are fighting shadows.

[bpilgrim]

145. oh, it's all in my head, eh? we've been called freepers, hello

and guess where it started, when we asked for proof of why we shouldn't respect the man and you tell me it's all in my head, i'm fighting shadows, lol.

like i said, i am very glad DU has a paper trail so folks can judge for themselves.

i know now not to trust your obviously biased judgment but thanks for helping to illuminate that point.

peace

[Taxloss]

150. Where have you been called a Freeper? Where?

Links = 0 on that claim. And where have I accused Galloway of anything, exactly? Links = 0. And where have I said Galloway shouldn't be respected? Links = 0 on that one, too. I've been completely open and honest about my feelings on the Galloway issue, and respect your opinion too, but you are assaulting ANY criticism of this man. What he did in front of Coleman was impressive, but it was ONE moment out of a long and mixed political career.

[bpilgrim]

165. "This is like debating Freepers about Ronald Reagan's legacy." #29

started there... and i see kiki edit her post where she called me that directly but it was thrown around a few times up thread.

now, where did i say YOU said ANYTHING that you mentioned in your post? links = 0

i am ASKING for LINKS with PROOF to his ALLEGED bad BEHAVIOR. and NOT 1 link have i seen so far.

got any?

peace

[kiki]

176. I never called you a Freeper.

That's an outright lie, and I expect you know it.

And for the second time, I'm a "he". Good to see you're paying attention. :)

[bpilgrim]

190. you edited your post

but you said something close to "we were calling YOU one (freeper) not other DU'ers"

hope that refreshes your memory :hi:

peace

[kiki]

217. No, it doesn't.

Because I didn't.

[tx_dem41]

209. You're a "he"?`

Jeez, now I'm embarrassed. I apologize for a couple of my posts then.

[Vladimir]

143. Well he is a controversial figure, whether you like it or not

In my experience he is extremely controversial here, and I dare say I have a fair bit of expereince on what life in the UK is like. As it happens, I did a little bit of campaigning for George Galloway during this election, so I know very well how controversial he can be. That he is controversial does not change the fact that I admire him very much, but it is undeniable that many people quite simply do not. And that ain't gonna be changed by calling them 'Norm Colemans' - if anything you will just make things worse.


edited for style

[bpilgrim]

147. and i am asking for reasons WHY we shouldn't support him

no kidding he's 'controversial' he speaks TRUTH to POWER but is there a REASON why us lefties shouldn't support him. if it's because some think he's controversial, fine, but there are folks ACCUSING HIM of illegal behavior with 0 to back it up with and that my friend is NOT fair.

peace

[Taxloss]

153. Maybe this is a clash of cultures,

based on our more combative parliamentary style and less polarised politics, we tend to cling to our icons less in the UK. I appreciate the relief and joy you must feel when something happens like Barbara Boxer doing her thing to Condi, but that does happen a lot here.

[Vladimir]

154. Taxloss never said you shouldn't support him

not that he needs me to defend him, but we need to stop this silly blodletting. Taxloss and I don't agree on many things, but we can have a civil discussion about the issue without calling each other names. If he has his doubts about RESPECT and George, he is entitled to them and I welcome the opportunity to persuade him otherwise - that is how one builds a party after all. And believe you me, if I thought there was any substance to the allegations against Galloway, I would not have been on the doorstep telling people to vote for him.

[Taxloss]

163. You know, Vladimir, I count myself as a potential RESPECT voter,

perhaps even campaigner. I am a frightful old leftie, after all. I welcome attempts to convert me!

[tx_dem41]

168. Vladimir, thank you for your contributions to the thread.

They are invaluable.

[Vladimir]

170. You're welcome

and so are your attitudes to politicians and the people...

[bpilgrim]

183. no, he said NO ONE was making negative claims against him and

"He's a very CONTROVERSIAL figure in the UK... "

"we in the UK are steering clear of him"

"we weren't discussing his "bad behavior"

and that it was all in my head that i am "fighting shadows" which is FALSE.

now, if someone wants to make a claim as to why we shouldn't support this lefty due to his alleged bad behavior i am going to ask for PROOF.

i think that is fair and if i wasn't called a freeper, a cultist, etc. maybe we could carry-on this discussion in a more civil way but no one is goin to tell me it's all in my head after having a number of people post nothing but FUD and or slander.

fair enough?

peace

[Vladimir]

212. I am going to try and explain this as best I can

although I am clearly not doing a very good job of it. It is absolutely true that in a court of law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, I challenge anyone who has ever done political work to turn up on the doorsteps of potential voters with that attitude. See how far it gets you when someone starts asking questions about your candidate, based on what they have read or seen or heard, and you tell them to "prove it". Or for example if someone at work asks me why I support RESPECT, if they ask me whether Galloway is corrupt - I do not tell them to prove it. I try and persuade them otherwise by showing them why their doubts are misplaced. The onus is on the activist to persuade a sceptical public (and so it should be - a sceptical audience is an audience that is trying to think for itself), and not otherwise! And not least precisely because the activist has more time, by definition, to spend learning about the issues. So when Kiki posted the issue of the War on Want charity, a more constructive response would have been something along the lines of:

"So you say, but Galloway was expressly cleared of any dishonesty. Everyone makes mistakes, the important thing is that he accepted the findings with good grace and returned a sum of money in excess of that required by the auditors."

It may be that you would still not persuade Kiki to put aside her worries about GG in this respect, but I dare say you'd stand a much better chance.

[bpilgrim]

221. i am not trying to 'persuade' kiki and the rest of the RUMOR MONGERS

maybe i am not being clear... i am asking for PROOF of wrong doing that KIKI, and others, put out there.

i am NOT trying to persuade ANYONE to put aside their 'worries' just asking for a more fair discussion by demanding folks back up their claims and opinions.

is that not FAIR?

we are on the verge of WWIII and folks are slandering one of our few outspoken ALLYS coming off one of OUR greatest moments in this FIGHT against the neoCONs and you want me to not notice the MUD and irresponsible rumors being floated about this man fighting the good fight, please, sir, i have no more patience for that.

why don't you do that instead of lecturing me, who is also being slandered and accused on this thread.

peace

[tx_dem41]

225. If you re-read Kiki's original post (it seems like a week ago)....

all he did was report what his "mum" and other "intelligent,left-leaning" people in Galloway's home country (UK) FELT about the guy. Vladimir, a man who campaigned for Galloway for goodness sakes, and other UKers on this thread have confirmed this. I just don't see where Kiki and several others have made any attack.

[bpilgrim]

228. "wouldn't trust him as far as they can throw him"

which is HEARSAY and i asked for FACTS to back up WHY we shouldn't trust or support him, since that is the same thing the neoCONs and the rest of the elite over here say, with NO facts to back it up, so sue me.

this person is someone to be supported as far as i can tell and at this critical time i am certainly not gonna cut off any ally without FACTS.

can you handle that? thats fair, right?

peace

[tx_dem41]

230. Reporting that many people are uneasy with the guy....

is not the same as making a comment about the validity of the charges. I just spent 2.5 weeks in the UK, Beligium, and the Netherlands. This was during the run-up to the election, the election night, and the aftermath. I watched the returns in a British pub in Brussels full of Brits, a few I knew personally. They are lefties. And, guess what. I can report the same thing that Kiki reported. There are more than a few lefties in the UK that either don't like the guy and/or don't trust the guy. On another matter, there was a great deal of resentment that he basically carpetbagged onto an East London constituency (remember he's from Glasgow) and took a seat away from one of the few women of color in the Parliament.

Anyway, I'm reporting what some people from the UK said they feel about him. None of these people are for the war. None of these people like Blair now. Most voted Lib-Dem (as I would have voted had I been a Brit). Am I attacking him? No. Am I passing along any opinion of the validity of their feelings? No. I'm reporting what people that are like us (leftie, anti-war), who actually are much more familiar with the guy, said about him. I feel that is what Kiki was doing.

Thanks for hearing me out.

[bpilgrim]

235. HEARSAY

and it was more than just being 'uneasy' it was 'wouldn't trust him as far as they can throw him', hello...

again, another post with 0 proof of why everyone can't trust him.

just goin with their guts i suppose, and i guess thats fine, it's just that it doesn't contribute anything of value cept maybe to spread FUD, which, btw, you are now another 'contributer' of.

whats really weird is how folks who ain't got a clue themselves about why they shouldn't trust him ain't got a problem spreading the meme.

lame

peace

[tx_dem41]

245. I'm guilty of relating an actual experience that happened to me that...

...others might not have had. I thought this board was about communicating such experiences. I now see that it is about NOT communicating. Not learning. Not sharing. Not understanding. You've made that quite clear.

You disappoint me, BPilgrim. Go ahead, and sharpen your knives and make your lists. Its sad that you have to do that. I hope one day you find your true nirvana. I have a feeling that I and many others on this board wouldn't like it. It sounds to much like our present world here in America. Just a few names and nouns turned around. But, still based on closed-mindedness and distrust. A world where no one listens to each other. A world where nothing is learned and nothing is accomplished. What an ugly world that is.

I'll choose another world. I'll be in search of people that want to share ideas.

[bpilgrim]

250. in the context of spreading FUD against a champion of the left

what did you expect, flowers and candy?

you got nerve to speak of 'mistrust' being one who is spreading it based on HEARSAY against one of our OWN, hello...

go ahead, choose another world, i choose this one and will stand up for all who speak truth to power against the lies and innuendo anytime.

:hi:

peace

[Demit]

255. Hear Hear! Very well said, tx. Relating how people feel is valid

How people feel is not "hearsay". It's how they feel.

I came on this thread late and have been marveling at the heat, AND the talking past one another. I'm afraid it's a sign of these times--any breath of disagreement, any hint of complexity, is taken as a sign of treason to the cause. Some folks succumb to the pull of "If you're not with us you're against us" and harden their positions. They need their heroes to be saints. It makes them nervous to think otherwise. And so the accusations fly.

I, for one, appreciate the tone of reasonableness in your posts.

[bpilgrim]

260. "And so the accusations fly" - you said it

"They need their heroes to be saints"

no one said that.

people have been saying though that we shouldn't trust him nor support him because of his bad behavior, the same thing the neoCONs and the elite have been saying, so naturally we are asking for proof of his alleged bad behavior.

all we get in response is hearsay, insults and 0 proof, even been called FREEPERS for our inquiry.

the eating of our own is rampant, be they DU'ers or our most recent champion speaking TRUTH to POWER coming off their best day on record.

so please try to understand where we are coming from as well before you, too, start with the insults.

have a nice day :hi:

peace

[Demit]

306. "before I, too, start with the insults"?

You seem to have gotten there well before me.

I have read all the threads referenced here and was drawn to your posts in particular. So I read through them again, in particular looking for information on why you think the way you do, and found very little. Mostly I found shouting at people in uppercase, and repeating the words rumormonger, and FUD, and hearsay. That last is the most annoying, the characterization of opinion as hearsay, as if we are in a law court. Wait, no, most annoying is the repetition, because it lengthens the thread without adding anything of substance. The profanity in response to thoughtful, factual posts kind of gets up my nose too. But mostly, I guess, it's the need to insult people then asking them to please understand where you're coming from. Haha! How does one do that, pilgrim, if you are too stuck in attack mode to explain it?

[bpilgrim]

310. that's right

i demand FACTS not ALLEGATIONS, in defense of lefties, especially on the heels of a magnificent performance. sorry, if that rubs you the wrong way, but it IS a DU tradition.

if folks didn't post FUD and HEARSAY i wouldn't need to keep repeating, fruitlessly, my simple request for proof, now would I?

hope you can see your way out of this chicken and egg scenario you set up with all the FUD.

we are celebrating the brave Mr. Galloway for traveling across the pond to speak TRUTH to POWER and calling out all those who seek to smear him.

welcome to the party :toast:

peace

[Demit]

313. Exploring the ambiguity of a person's past does not necessarily equate to

a smear. People long before you and me have found this man's actions to be open to interpretation. It is my view that I can be very happy with his performance in front of Congress the other day and still entertain the lingering questions about him.

I don't know half the stuff about George Galloway that a lot of Britishers here do, but I know I'm going to listen to what they have to say, and click on the links they provide, and then click on the links I find through those links, sooner than I will be persuaded by your generalized huffing and puffing, which does most definitely rub me the wrong way.

Then I'll make up my mind, if that's even possible with a figure like George Galloway, who is not the first public figure in history to be a mass of contradictions and perhaps, in the end, even an enigma.

It takes nothing away from Mr. Galloway's performance to know more about his record; unfortunately your tiresomely repetitive posts have had little to add in that regard.

[bpilgrim]

315. "lingering questions" "mass of contradictions" more FUD

with no links to anything.

talk about being consistent.

all you got are RUMORS and i have more respect for myself to participate in such lame campaigns.

happy hunting

peace

[Demit]

317. Then we're done here. I'll go learn stuff & you can go respect yourself.

[bpilgrim]

318. cya

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Vladimir]

232. I apologise for the pompousness of my last post

it was directly proportional to the frustration I feel at the orgy of self-mutilation that is this thread.

For the record, in case there are any doubts, I think George Galloway is one of the the most trustworthy politicians in Britain. In terms of standing firm for what he believes in, he is in a very very small group of decent human beings like Dalyell, Benn, Corbyn, Salmond, etc. who have consistently taken the correct stand on British neo-imperialism.

[bpilgrim]

240. i understand your frustration

apology accepted and thank you for contributing to this thread :toast:

peace

[Henny Penny]

253. well said vladimir.

They're not gods, just people who know they can speak well and use their abilities to stand up against the crowd and say what they think is right.

I admire that courage.

[Demit]

292. I didn't think you had to apologize for anything, Vlad. It was a good post

Kind of lost in all the shouting and repetitive pugnaciousness, but I enjoyed reading it.

[Vladimir]

294. Its kind of you to say that

:toast:

[tx_dem41]

114. Quite alarming, quite planned, and quite deliberate.

I agree. I long ago stopped making politicians my heroes. My heroes are the people on the ground fighting for issues that I care about. When one ties a single politician to the success or failure of an issue, which is what is happening here, one sets up that issue for potential ultimate failure. Anyone that would do that, through a manic Cult of Personality, must not truly care about the issue, at least as much as they purport to. That's my guess.

[bpilgrim]

121. nice STRAW-MAN - "hero worship", just like the St. Ralph, put down

talk about being predictable, better get some NEW material, more and more are seeing through the BS.

so, you ain't got a problem with RUMOR MONGERING, eh?

but you do have a problem supporting leaders who speak and work for the people.

interesting.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[tx_dem41]

134. Unlike some, I support the PEOPLE. I expect the "leaders" to work..

..for the people. Some have it reversed though.

And, I have no idea what you are talking about with the "Saint Ralph" reference. Care to shed some light?

[bpilgrim]

149. word games

cya

peace

[tx_dem41]

151. I didn't expect you to grasp the distinction.

So, no worries.

I kind of expected you to answer the question though.

[bpilgrim]

178. that cheap BS sloganeering don't mean nuttin

you don't support the leaders fighting and working for the people, so what? you wanna a medal for acting against your own and the people you 'support' interest, give me a break.

peace

[tx_dem41]

182. No....I got that part already....

its the Saint Ralph reference. C'mon you rascal...give me some clue as to what you're talking about.

[Taxloss]

122. Yes, it is simply unwise to place someone on a pedestal like this.

Especially a politician. Especially a politician as controversial as Galloway. Looking at the McCarthy hearings, the people who carried the most weight were not the politicians, they were artists like Bertolt Brecht.

[bpilgrim]

130. lol - more FUD with 0 evidence and STRAW-MEN -> 'PEDESTAL'

i think that is unwise.

what say you?

peace

[Taxloss]

144. I say you're being extremely doctrinaire.

McCarthyite, almost.

[bpilgrim]

152. and i say, again, that YOU are putting words in peoples mouth

neoCON like

peace

[Taxloss]

155. How am I doing that? I don't see that.

I find it incredible that you're able to pick this fight with someone who's simply ambivalent about GG. I hate to think what you'd say to someone who actually didn't like him.

And nice NeoCon comparison - abuse will get you nowhere.

[bpilgrim]

169. "place someone on a pedestal like this"

in response to "114. Quite alarming, quite planned, and quite deliberate."

no one is saying what you two are all alluding, but we are accused of cult like behavior for asking for PROOF of this mans bad begavior and we get hit with cult and freeper lables.

McCarthyite almost

peace

[tx_dem41]

131. I'm ambivalent on Galloway, as I am any politician. What he said...

...was excellent. It helps the cause, if we emphasize what he said, put it in our "weapons cache" and separate from the man. I would say that regardless of who spoke those words.

[Demit]

259. People on that thread seem to know more about Galloway & British politics

than anything I've learned on this thread. I appreciate the link to it. It's people discussing his positions, and his party, and the positions of the various parties, and it's all from people who live in Britain. I learned things from that thread. And I watched people back up their positions on things with the reasons they think that way. Wow, an actual discussion, in which not one poster had to use a lot of capitalized words, or insult other posters by accusing them of babbling, or constantly and tiresomely misuse the concept of hearsay. I quite enjoyed it.

[bpilgrim]

293. you said it

no one on this thread has posted ANYTHING to back up the charges that he is NOT to be trusted or why we should not support him, which is the topic of this thread.

almost 300 post and nadda, zilch, just lame hearsay and FUD.

FYI: DU has a tradition of backing up claims against lefties with actual facts i.e. links to respected media or gov publications.

and we got a paper trail ;->

peace

[Frederik]

99. Interesting thread

I like the way you said it:

"So many people have sold and bought the tickets to the dance on his grave, and he's kept it postponed, and I hope he keeps it postponed. But the guy sails very close to the wind."

[Taxloss]

102. Thank you.

On a personal level, I have some trouble with the guy, mainly after the doctrinal infighting at university. But by gosh I'm glad he's around, and I hope he stays around and stays noisy because no-one brings the true left to the fore like Gorgeous.

[kiki]

128. No, thank you...

...if you look at the post I made that started this little shitstorm, I pointed out that many had problems with Galloway "mainly on a personal level".

Although some seem to have read that as "Galloway used to fellate Saddam on a regular basis".

[lala_rawraw]

74. Those would be trolls:)

[KitchenWitch]

124. trolling trolling trolling

RAWHIDE!

[OilemFirchen]

104. Very reminiscent of the anti-Hugo Chavez trolls, pre-election...

... who gleefully quoted every fucking right-wing Venezuelan medium, blog, and "pollster" as if they were evidentiary because they were in "print".

The lead provocateur was finally tombstoned, but not until incredible quantities of bilge had been spilled.

[Taxloss]

109. So critics of George Galloway are automatically trolls?

[OilemFirchen]

115. Nope.

Some are, probably. The rest are simply duped.

Eventually it sorts out.

[kiki]

132. So, effectively, Galloway is beyond criticism?

That's a pretty dangerous thing to think about ANYBODY in politics.

[bpilgrim]

137. he is BEYOND FUD, RUMOR and HEARSAY

hello...

and there you go again, putting words in peoples mouths. who said he is "beyond criticism" but YOU?

we are asking for EVIDENCE and no, the LACK of EVIDENCE is NOT evidence and no the wiki that anyone can edit don't count, either.

peace

[kiki]

141. And I quote:

"So critics of George Galloway are automatically trolls?"

"Nope. Some are, probably. The rest are simply duped." (Emphasis added)

In other words, anyone who crticises Galloway is a troll or a dupe.

In other words, ALL CRITICISM OF GALLOWAY IS WRONG.

How else could you interpret the two quoted posts?

[OilemFirchen]

202. Point taken

No one is above reproach, and objective criticism is quite healthy. Demanding perfection of anyone, especially a politician, is inane. That's one of the reasons I never participate in the internecine squabbling over in Politics.

That said, I was responding to the context of this thread. If there's been "critcism" I must've missed it - all I've seen are thin character attacks, including a few unsubstantiated smears from the right and one utterly silly suggestion that a paperwork snafu is a high crime.

I'm quite confident that Galloway has his faults and wouldn't be surprised to find that they're myriad. So fucking what? I've been told that I have a few as well (though I've never seen proof...).

But no, criticism is fine, as long as it's contained within some verifiable framework. Innuendo, forgeries, lies, et al are not, however, very "critical" and, as per this thread, troll droppings.

[bpilgrim]

208. well said

:toast:

peace

[Frederik]

218. Exactly

There hasn't been criticism as much as "well some people don't like him, and remember, no smoke without fire".

[OilemFirchen]

222. Where there's smoke...

... sometimes there's a smoke machine.

[Frederik]

229. LOL

How true.

[bpilgrim]

116. no, RUMOR MONGERS are

FYI: there is a HUGE difference.

peace

[entanglement]

125. Thanks FYI n/t

[Beacho]

135. I ran into one in particular

This guy always shows up to stop any rabble rousing

Codename: Wet Blanket

methinks the only approved rousing is of the 'Joe-mentum' *yawn* variety in his book

[spanone]

139. I still like the question from yesterday...

why is the Senate looking into the UN? Is this the correct protocol? Or is this bush* trying to destroy the UN? This is a UN problem I would think...world court?

[The_Casual_Observer]

146. All I know is that they had nothing on Galloway yesterday

and he was given a almost free forum to speak his piece in a manner practically unheard of anyplace in the world. It was quite refreshing actually. I don't think that coleman knew what was coming.

[CatWoman]

161. God, I love you!!!!!!!

you fucking rabblerouser!!!!!!!

:loveya:

[bpilgrim]

175. he may be the rabble

but i'm the 'rouser' :P

what about me, don't i get no lovin ;->

:hi:

peace

[eyepaddle]

187. Well, at least a

"Go get 'em Tiger!" :hi:

[CatWoman]

188. GO GET EM, TIGER!!!

:hi:

[JanMichael]

166. But you know Trumad....Galloway has a lot more in common with Nader...

...that Kerry or Gore, eh? And he's a bonofide Socialist.

Just yanking chains:-)

[Just Me]

198. He was "yummy", too! *LOL*

Hey, it's really, really nice to feel those chills and thrills every once in awhile.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

203. You too? I thought it was just me! lol! n/t

[trumad]

223. LOL

Who's Nader?

[kiki]

224. Well, one thing is for sure...

On the rare (almost non-existent) occasions when somebody stands up and speaks honestly in US politics (which I'm not denying Galloway did, bpilgrim, before you start :)), it certainly ignites a lot of passion.

Imagine if this sort of thing happened every day!

[bpilgrim]

226. true dat

now lets CELEBRATE :party: :bounce:

sorry for being so gruff, it been a loooong 4 years, i apologize. :toast:

peace

[tx_dem41]

231. I'll jump in and apologize to for being a smartass on a few posts..

as well. BPilgrim, please read my post #230 if you have the time.

[bpilgrim]

243. i accept

and i replied.
and i already apologized to you upstream ;->

:toast:

peace

[tx_dem41]

246. I think we're talking on two different planes tonight, BP.

Maybe some other time we can find more common ground. Take care.

[bpilgrim]

248. sorry, i tried to be VERY CLEAR and DIRECT.

maybe next time... cya :hi:

peace

[FreedomAngel82]

236. LOL!

Have you given any evidence that he's a crook? Seems to me you're calling the kettle black!

[Malikshah]

242. Triptraptriptrap...who's that triptrapping on their bridge...

Ahhh...its the billygoats gruff.

To quote Dean and others.

We don't respond to blind quotes.

So Gally boy (hmmm...sounds very gallic, that name..could you be p'raps French??!?!? quelle damage!) do you still beat your wife?....it's been said....

[mmonk]

244. I wouldn't even care if he was

as long as he is exposing OUR crooks.

[UTUSN]

247. Well, *I* Don't Need No Links for Anybody Who Pimp-slaps COLEMAN/HITCHENS

[NuttyFluffers]

254. who be talking 'bout my pimp from the house of the rising sun?

no one better be talking 'bout my pimp daddy like that. he come bust your chops. and i'd be behind 'im rootin for 'im. and that's all i gotta say 'bout that.

[mogster]

257. Everytime when there's a win

Some need to turn that into a loss. Or just question it, to make the win less perfect.

I'd say; Stop looking for perfect people, start looking for truth and honesty.

Anyone hearing that guy speak could tell how dangerous he is to the plastic people, how unpredictable and un-politician.

Personally, I find it comforting that he's not a goddamn political broiler groomed to speak totsie language about fake, double bottomed issues. Comforting and refreshing.
That he is in no way perfect and have seen battle before: GREAT! That means he's a vet, and knows how, what and where. Not to mention WHOM!

And o-la-la, did he go directly at the throat of the neocon pussies the other day! My oh my.

He is my new hero and I'll be delighted to follow this man's actions more closely from now on! Hopefully, he was pissed off enough by the fake charges to continue his pick on the vulture's noses :toast: Galloway :toast:

[RogueTrooper]

258. I don't like George Galloway

and I probably have the best reason on this message board for disliking him. It comes from something that happened in the mid-nineties if you are wondering. Now, as George likes to drink the American flavoured kool-aid when it comes to lawyers I am afraid that I am not prepared to furnish you with any details. ( Thankfully this website comes under American law - othewise I would not even have typed that ).

Allegations of financial misconduct and improprietry have followed George Galloway for decades. The first I heard were from the time before he entered parliament. Now, coming down, like a ton of bricks, on posters who are advising other DUers to be cautious is a little bit off. WE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMIES. We are just giving you advice.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/

http://respectwatch.blogspot.com/

[mogster]

261. With what?

> Now, coming down, like a ton of bricks, on posters who are advising other DUers to be cautious is a little bit off.

With what? What should we be cautious of? I don't get this.

The man spoke words that any true lib would give his right arm to hear spoken, and rubbed the rw-slimebags in their own hippocrisy.

Thank you, Galloway. But that's it. He's not running for office or anything, so I don't get where you're going.

Why do we need to be 'cautious' about praising the man for what he said?

[RogueTrooper]

264. Well

try not to be too easily charmed by the snake-oil salesman.

George Galloway excels at a kind of political rehtoric that is all but obsolete now. It was good to hear Norm Coleman get a carpeting; he deserved it.

He has run for office. He has just carpetbagged his way back into the house of commons as an east London mp ( from being a Glasgwegian one ).

Look,I like what George Galloway said. God knows somebody needed to say what he said; and God knows it should have been said a long time ago. But people are not just praising what he said but adulating the man himself. From past experience with GG I would say be carefull. That is what is being said. And from what I can gather the real George haterz have not turned up here yet.

[bpilgrim]

272. a "snake-oil salesman" and a carpetbagger

oh' that's rich :rofl:

i enjoy how a politician from the left with a fiery rhetoric and guts get's smeared so easily with FUD round here, you'd think we were on the yahoo boards.

peace

[RogueTrooper]

273. excuse me

exactly what are you implying?

[bpilgrim]

276. you're excused

i wasn't implying, i was quoting you.

peace

[RogueTrooper]

279. No, you there was a definite implication

in what you were saying. You were quoting what I said and then implying that there was a political stance to go along with those quotes.

[mogster]

281. Well, what IS your political stance, then?

You come here, tells us all how you don't like Galloway because:

"It comes from something that happened in the mid-nineties if you are wondering. Now, as George likes to drink the American flavoured kool-aid when it comes to lawyers I am afraid that I am not prepared to furnish you with any details. ( Thankfully this website comes under American law - othewise I would not even have typed that )."

Which sounds like something BEEEG has been going on in the past, but no,no, you can't tell us - just take my word for it, folks!

How about providing info of what the above is about? If you read the posts here, you'll see this is why we're so critical.

Info - verified, please.

[RogueTrooper]

287. For my part

I am not going to discuss what happened between myself ( and the others ) and George Galloway. It was a deeply frightening and unpleasant time for me. It was a long time ago and it is none of your business. I am not using the incident to "smear" George Galloway. All I did was post on a thread to say that I do not like George Galloway and the reason stems from something that happened in my past.

For myself. I spent the Iraq War ( before, during and just after ) as a moderator in GD at DU ( there was no politics forum ). My country's security services paid me a visit on the back of that activism. You might now understand why I am a little sensitive to certain implications.

[mogster]

290. OK. Fair enough.

You DO understand that there is no personal accusations to this, but a healthy critical stance towards hearsay and rumours, yes?

I'm sorry to hear you had that trouble.

Peace.

[RogueTrooper]

275. Whatever makes you think

George Galloway is a left winger?

[bpilgrim]

277. his record

whatever makes you thing he isn't?

peace

[RogueTrooper]

278. I know him mate

his strident anti-choice views for one ( although this is less of an indicator in the UK than the US ).

Much of what he talks about is neither left wing nor right wing. It may be spoken about more on the left but I have never pegged Gorgeous as somebody who is classically left wing. His politics have always reminded me of Ken Livingstone.

[bpilgrim]

286. now he ain't a lefty based on your empty FUD laden post

and now i'm your 'mate' :eyes:

all you got is FUD, against one of our own, who just EXPOSED all the HYPOCRISY of the imperialist elite on the historical record for all the world to see.

must make you mad that so many admire his inspiring performance the other day.

get over it

peace

[RogueTrooper]

288. what is fud?

[bpilgrim]

291. unsubstantiated FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT

it's an old trick

peace

[RogueTrooper]

295. Sounds like away to smear somebody

who you disagree with politically. Easy to remember; and easy to repeat.

[RogueTrooper]

289. I have no problem with what he said

I have said, in posts previous, that I am glad he said it. I have been listening to George Galloway make political speaches for over 20 years and I have always enjoyed his rehtoric. It is a great sadness that he is one of a dying breed.

My problem is that it took a Dundee wide-boy to say it. Thats right: A working class boy for Dundee. I know how the right smear the uppity working classes. Now, you might have noticed that I have not made any allegations about George.

It has been over four FUCKING years of this murederous Republican regime; and the best you Americans can do is wait for the Scots to appear.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RogueTrooper]

299. Maybe you should nip over there youself mate

after all you are the one who with the good line in mocking and abrading those you disagree with.

Insulting people goes both ways.

[bpilgrim]

301. why? for pointing out NONSENSE?

and posting LINKS to counter your BS?

get real

peace

[RogueTrooper]

303. what links have you posted to any of my posts?

[bpilgrim]

305. see above post... #297

and here they are again for your convenience :hi:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/gore/a_few_bad_apples.mp3
http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/aar/af/gore/we_desperately_need.mp3

peace

[RogueTrooper]

307. Thanks

I saw them after I posted. Sorry I can't listen to them ( my headphones are bust ).

[bpilgrim]

262. goin wit your gut, eh?

do you not realize that most lefty, long-lived politicians have allegations against them?

the issue is has there ever been any PROOF?

so far no one has presented any.

now, you wanna go wit your gut, fine, but do expect to be called on it, just like Mr. Galloway called out the U.S. Senate sub committee.

:hi:

peace

[RogueTrooper]

266. where did I say I was going with my gut?

no, something happened between myself ( and others ) and Mr. Galloway during the mid-nineties. Things got tense for quite a while. My reasons for disliking George go back to then.

All politicians have allegations against them. It is just that the right wing are better at distributing their catalogues bp.

[bpilgrim]

270. oh, it's personal

gotcha

peace

[rman]

284. But does he speak the truth? Or is that irrelevant?

-

[RogueTrooper]

296. Yes he did

In the case of speaking the Imperial America's senate: Yes he did.

No, it is not irrelevant; but neither does it excuse.

[bpilgrim]

300. "neither does it excuse" - excuse what?

and not more FUD, HEARSAY or your GUT. if you got proof of something that is inexcusable, post it.

peace

[RogueTrooper]

302. Saying something that needs to be said

and saying it well does not forgive somebody their faults. Now, neither does having faults make somebody a bad person, or a person incapable of holding public office. George Galloway has the odd fauly ( infidelity, rather than corruption and theft in all honesty - and infidelity is hardly rare fault in politicians ).

[bpilgrim]

308. lol - now it's the Monica Lewinsky charge

again with no facts to back up you assertion, how consistent.

anyways, i'm glad to hear he's spreading his DNA around, the world sure needs a lot more like him these days.

thanks for the 'info', cya :hi:

peace

[RogueTrooper]

309. Okay

Infidelity is not the great political crime it is in the US ( even for left wing politicians ). Please don't judge the rest of us by your country's rather bizarre standards of behaviour. His wife has recently filed for divorce because he of it; and here is a link.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=466692005

[Misunderestimator]

263. LOL

you always know how to stir the pot, tru... :hi:

[mogster]

274. Kick n/t

[sleipnir]

311. Norm Colemans' or trolls?

Is there a difference?

I think a couple of DU'ers have showed their true colors over the last couple of days.

I'm surprised we haven't seen a couple more tombstones in the boneyard.

[HuckleB]

327. OK. But what about some Norm Charltons or Vince Colemans?

Anyone? Anyone?

:hi:

[Moderator]

333. Locking.....

There are many rule violations in this
thread. I stongly suggest that all
participants in this thread should
read the rules before posting again.



DU Moderator