Why does Galloway gall so many people on this board? Because he

[KlatooBNikto]

tells it like it is? Because he takes the sides of those demonized by our idiot press? Because he stands up to the propaganda machine? Because he is not cowed by their threats of character assassination? Because he sees the connection between our struggles at home and those of people victmized by our rulers?

[Postman]

1. Doesn't gall me. His testimony before Coleman and Levin was awesome.

n/t

[bpilgrim]

114. only a few, MOST are celebrating Mr. Galloway speaking TRUTH 2 POWER =)

probably DLC/third-way supporters/insiders

but they have nothing but hearsay and BS rw spin to back up their claims.

whenever they pop-up it serves as an excellent opportunity to EXPOSE their spin :evilgrin:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[LoZoccolo]

2. Why didn't you ask them in the threads where they showed being galled?

Instead of out of context where you can make it look like any reason you want?

[KlatooBNikto]

5. I was referring to another thread right now where Galloway is called

as "Going Off The Deep End".

[KoKo]

37. Wasn't it just the original poster who was "galled" by Galloway?

There was a mention of his views on Israel. That's always a flamer subject. Other than that it seemed most defended Galloway.

:shrug:

[KlatooBNikto]

60. After reading your post, I have to agree with you.

[Al-CIAda]

3. Who is 'galled'? False premise. n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Agreed. WTF are you talking about? nt

[KlatooBNikto]

12. Please read my response above.

[whistle]

4. Does not gall me, I think he is right on the money

[Caution]

6. I think it may have something to do with his anti-semitic rhetoric

at least that's what it is for me. It is dangerous ground to be treading on when you start talking about the "zionist" control of washington DC. While I appreciate Galloway's forthrightness when it comes to the war in iraq and calling out Bush and his cronies, to say that it stems from Israel is a little much and he treads that line a little to close for my comfort. His bombastic approach may play well to those who are already very angry with Bush it does not play well at all with moderates and the moderates are the ones who must be reached if Bush's agenda is to be stopped.

[Laughing Mirror]

14. Where did he talk about zionist control?

"I have no expectation of justice from a group of Christian fundamentalist and Zionist activists under the chairmanship of a neocon (President)George Bush who is pro-war," Galloway told Reuters on his arrival in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050516/ts_nm/iraq_un_galloway_dc_7

Is this the zionist control of Washington you're talking about?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Frederik]

125. He doesn't use anti-semitic rhetoric.

It's about time we treat Isreal as just another country and not some special-special holy land that can only be criticized with the utmost carefulness in order to avoid "anti-semitism". If AIPAC was a Japanese lobying group, would it be anti-japanese to talk about their influence in Washington?

Galloway has never said that the war in Iraq "stems from Israel". That's your own caricature.

[Junkdrawer]

7. He supports the Palestinian cause...

That'll do it.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[PassingFair]

11. Opps, you're DEAD ON Kenny!

That too!

[kenny blankenship]

142. Thanks but it was nothing really.

I thought it was merely appropriate to observe that Mr. G is unashamed to be against the illegal occupation of Arab lands and unashamedly against the genocide practiced against the Palestinian people by Israel. I thought that it was clear that this is a dangerous ground to choose--and you can see from the above that there is plenty of reason to think so.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Mr_Spock]

18. I totally agree with you. Think of who is on the 'net...

There are people sitting at home who rarely get out of the house due to one issue or another - some with emotional problems. We may never run into these people in the world out there - and their views are going to be colored by their limited experience of the world - but the internet gives them an outlet and makes them seem like everyone else. This applies to both political parties BTW - it's not a partisan issue. I'm not saying that the people I'm describing have invalid viewpoints - most are right on I'm sure - but you will have that occasional internet narcissist who thinks they are the arbiter of this domain - as it may be one of their only outlets for their frustrations in life... JMHO - we are all entitled to have an opinion :D

[Demit]

20. So that's what you seriously believe, huh?

That there are people on this board who, being narcissists, can't stand when George Galloway gets praised because it takes away from praise for themselves? Just want to make sure I understand your serious post.

[PassingFair]

23. Let's say I'm

sober, OK. No? Sincere? Earnest?
Post got deleted....I didn't name any names, I wasn't even thinking of anyone in particular....

[Demit]

27. Okay, so you sincerely, earnestly, believe that

there are people on this board who, being narcissists, can't stand when George Galloway gets praised because it takes away from praise for themselves? Do I understand it now?

[PassingFair]

33. Yes.

...fulsome praise gets the hammer here from some. It's predictable.

[Demit]

56. I see. Some DUers are narcissists who, out of self-love, must hammer

the praise a public figure like Galloway gets, because it detracts from the admiration that they, as anonymous posters, would otherwise be getting.

I haven't seen this phenomenon, myself. I confess I have probably been distracted by looking at the logic of people's arguments, bolstered by published facts and firsthand observation, from which they draw reasoned conclusions. How clever of them to mislead that way! But then people with psychological disorders can be very clever, can't they. I must strive in future to pay closer attention, so that I too may ignore the content of what people are saying, and be able to confidently identify their underlying motives for saying it.

[PassingFair]

59. If you aren't a narcissist...

You must be one of the super Pro-Israeli types.
To each his own....
I'm not accusing anyone in particular!
My aunt, for instance, simply CANNOT hear ONE NICE WORD about ANYONE else. She gets insanely jealous when the topic of conversation veers towards a good word for anyone else.
But I guess she must be an anomoly.
Alone in the world.

[Demit]

63. Okay, so the opposite of a narcissist is a super pro-Israeli type?

The things I learn by coming to DU!

Yes, we've established that you are not accusing anyone on DU in particular of being narcissists, just those who don't like hearing George Galloway praised. The one that you are accusing in particular is your aunt.

And the fact that your aunt is a narcissist just proves that some people on DU are narcissists too, because she couldn't be the only one! That would be illogical!!

This is a most intriguing and informative sub-thread. Tell me more. Like, why is a person who isn't a narcissist probably a super pro-Israeli type?

[PassingFair]

64. Since this is a Galloway thread

and the most opposed folks seem to be super Pro-Israeli, and there couldn't possibly be narcissistic types on DU, then maybe you have some other beef with him.
Are you anti-bald?
Anti-Scot?
Anti-person who has the guts to proclaim that we went into Iraq over "A Pack of Lies?" to Congress?
What?

[Demit]

75. Mr.-or Ms.-PassingFair, I have not indicated any beef with Galloway here.

My fascination is with people who leap to stereotype others with breathtaking certainty about their motives.

Although I see you've enlarged your premise now. It's not only jealous narcissists who object to Galloway getting the praise that by rights should be theirs. It's people who object to him based on existing prejudices such as being pro-Israeli or anti-Scot.

In your view, any criticism of George Galloway is suspect and must be insincere, so you feel justified in positing exaggeratedly silly motives for it.

My beef, and I do have one, is with people who make generalized, malicious, patently ridiculous ad hominem statements about strangers based not on what they have said, but on what these people in their dim-bulb righteous minds think is a shrewd assessment of their reasons for saying it. They imagine that calling the other person a name puts the spotlight on the other person. But all it does is shine the light on the intellectual poverty of the person who himself has no argument to offer.

[PassingFair]

87. and MY beef is with people

who get bent out of shape over wisecracks on a message board.
I maintain that there ARE people on this board who cannot stand to hear the praises of another.
I called NO other person any names.
You need to get over yourself. Talk about "righteous" minds.....

"In your view, any criticism of George Galloway is suspect and must be insincere, so you feel justified in positing exaggeratedly silly motives for it."

I didn't start this thread, bucko! I simply put forth one example of why people might attack the honorable Geo. Galloway.

[Demit]

102. Wisecracks? So you weren't being serious, sincere or earnest, after all?

How confusing, since you said earlier that you were. But wait--I get it now! When you were coming up with synonyms for serious, you rejected sober. So you are not sober! That explains so much, including the fallacy that you didn't call anyone names. Short-term memory does suffer when people are not sober.

When you regain your sobriety, you'll probably be able to tell the difference between simply putting forth one example (actually I could hold up five in front of your face but you're not seeing too clearly right now) of why people might attack the honorable George, and reckless & unintelligent slurs. Drive safely now.

[PassingFair]

143. And you are sandbagging

I am highly interested in your five count'em, five examples. But please, have a drink and relax first. I get it, YOU'RE Christopher Hitchens!
Whoosh! So concludes the mystery of the mysterious tight ass!

[Vladimir]

15. I'm getting the popcorn out

:popcorn:

[Just Me]

16. Dunno! Personally, I find him brilliant, compassionate, articulate,...

,...and rough as a cob!!! I find him refreshing because he is strong enough in his own principles that he powerfully represents the interests of humanity, ALL HUMANITY!!!

I love the man!! :loveya:

Is he single?:9

[ima_sinnic]

19. does that thread you're referencing even exist anymore?

did you even read it?
the PERSON who was "galled" appeared to be a troll who felt Galloway "sympathized with the Iraqi insurgents" (to paraphrase, since I can't find the thread anymore). you could have answered your own question by reading the thread.

[ET Awful]

24. The thread is still there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3771802&mesg_id=3771802&page=

[Grooner Five]

30. Yes, I'm a troll

Because I took issue with Galloway speaking of the anti-war movement and Iraqi resistance crushing US efforts in Iraq "between their hammers". <rolling my eyes>

Perhaps you feel comfortable being associated with the terrorists who beheaded Margaret Hassan in the name of "peace," but I do not. I do not feel comfortable supporting any group that has subjects who martyr themselves to receive 72 virgins in paradise, or blow up cars outside of mosques where children are playing. That's not patriotism or defense of country, it's terrorism.

I didn't even touch on Galloway's over-the-top anti-semitism.

Is there no room to disagree with the lionizing of this whack-job, or do I have to march in lockstep with the rest of you because he also hates GWB, and has thus placed himself above criticism?

[Vladimir]

31. What has he said which is anti-semitic?

Quotes please...

[Grooner Five]

32. You're not going to see it in his words

because you don't want to see it.

[Vladimir]

34. Well, I might see it if you point it out

here is a hint though: one can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic.

[Grooner Five]

Yeah, I'm sure they can.

Antisemitism aside for a moment, how do you feel about the rest of it? Do you take comfort in being associated with the folks who beheaded Margaret Hassan?

[Vladimir]

38. Ah but its this anti-semitism business that interests me

because if you are going to swing charges around like that, you should be prepared to back them up, not make veiled references to how 'I don't want to see it'. I can only see what there is to see after all.

As for your rhetoric about Margaret Hassan, no-one is associating with her killers: not me, not Galloway, not anyone on this board. On the contrary, it is you who wants to pretend that all Iraqi insurgents are criminals and murderers and the like, when it is plain that a substantial proportion of them are freedom fighters. And when you start pretending that disparate groups are some sort of monolithic block, that is dangerous ground...

[Grooner Five]

42. I see antisemitism in his Zionist rhetoric

You don't. Fair enough.



As for your rhetoric about Margaret Hassan, no-one is associating with her killers: not me, not Galloway, not anyone on this board.

Yes, they are. You (and quite a few others) are lionizing them as "freedom fighters," which is among the most repulsive things I've ever heard of. You should be ashamed to call yourself progressive.

[Vladimir]

45. So tell me, where exactly have I called Margaret Hassan's

killers 'freedom fighters'? Or is this another thing I don't want to see? Perhaps I just hate the Other because I can't stand the Other in myself...

[Grooner Five]

51. Read this thread...

...see if it doesn't become apparent to you just where the Iraqi insurgency - as a blanket - is being lionized.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3771802

If you don't see it in there, then you're not going to at all.

[Just Me]

52. Meanwhile, you deny "lionizing" the destructive global corporacrats,...

,...who are guilty of viciously imposing oppression upon hundreds of millions of people. Galloway is shining the light on these very dark human beings who carelessly and heartlessly impose their economic will upon humanity.

You want to paint him as pairing up with extremists while you yourself defend extremists who are guilty of more destruction to human beings than several wars combined.

[Grooner Five]

53. global corporacrats

I'm sorry, but this sort of talk is embarrassing and silly. Perhaps I'm more along the lines of a Clinton-style moderate Democrat, who sees globalization as the key to ending global poverty and promoting world harmony.

Isn't disparity in income the cause of much unrest? How do you suggest bringing up the poor in the third world, if not through trade and commerce? To promote trade and commerce, we need " global corporacrats."

[Just Me]

57. No. It is real and it is true. You can deny it,...all you want.

In doing so, you are not changing reality.

I have previously suggested and will again suggest that you read, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". The book details how US multinational corporations have operated over the last 35+ years to exploit people and their countries and their natural resources delivering severely oppressive circumstances.

These US multinational corporations are now fundamentally in control over the resources of the USA. These corporations have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in promoting anything other than profit (and I am talking about a fairly tight circle of corporations). "Freedom", "democracy" and all that other rhetoric means NOTHING to this global corporacratic regime. You mean nothing to them. Our soldiers mean nothing to them. Humanity means nothing to them except as gadgets to be exploited.

Corporations have the potential of contributing to the quality of human life. That potential is not being utilized by the circle of global corporacrats running things.

[ima_sinnic]

61. watch the movie Debt + Life

see what globalization and "free trade" did to Jamaica after it gained its independence from UK.

then come and spout your nonsense about how globalization is "key to ending global poverty and promoting world harmony."

if you can't take the time to find that movie, there are dozens of books out showing the exact OPPOSITE of what you are saying (and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is a great recommendation, also)--globalization is creating strife and poverty for everybody--EXCEPT the corporatists, of course.

you can see it on a small scale right here in the U.S. Notice how the mom & pops are going out of business, downtowns are turning into ghost towns of seediness, while the Walton family counts their billions--and Wal-Mart employees can barely feed themselves while they turn to the public trough for health care assistance. the ONLY beneficiary of Wal-Martization is Wal-Mart. (and don't say YOU "benefit" from their "low prices" (right, like you save, what? 3 cents on a can of beans?) the hidden costs of those "low prices" is too high.) now apply that on a global scale.

[Grooner Five]

66. Well, then.

Give me your formula for lifting the third world out of poverty. I'm all ears.

I don't need to read fringe books to understand that no system is perfect. But I see little coming from the anti-globalization faction that presents ways to actually address the issue of global disparity. Handouts and aid simply aren't going to cut it in the long run - these countries need viable economies to compete in the global market and raise their standard of living.

[Norquist Nemesis]

67. LOL!

"I'm all ears"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Grooner Five]

71. You can laugh, apparently.

But you can't think of a plan to lift the third world out of poverty that shows superior promise to globalization.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Grooner Five]

73. More troll accusations, of course.

That's easier than addressing the issue.

I may be funny, but you appear to be devoid of answers. I suspect you haven't got a single thought about how to life the third world out of poverty beyond writing them a check.

[Norquist Nemesis]

78. Again, you first!

You should go back and read my last post again. I didn't accuse you of being a troll.

You didn't give us your answers. Where are they?

[Grooner Five]

80. My answer is globalization

I believe that the development of the third world will require financial risks taken by companies willing to trade low wages (by our standards) for their working in an unstable political and social situation.

If it works for the first round of companies, more will follow, and the standard of living will eventually be raised.

What's your answer?

[Norquist Nemesis]

93. In other words

slave labor.

You're really showing your spots there, Bill. Careful. You might want to go back and read the rules.

My answer INCLUDES companies that would provide jobs, but the solution must also address training and education. Most fundamentally, education is key. My solution puts education before Wal-martization. When the citizens are educated in science, math, biology, etc., they will develop and grow. They will find their own solutions...and they will find a way to capture financial resources necessary for improving.

Did you happen to catch the Nightline segment last night? It was a piece about slavery in Niger. One of the women interviewed had escaped slavery. After she first escaped, she would go into the bush and collect straw to sell. An entreprenurial spirit, wouldn't you say? Imagine if she had the education and training to make it into a business. She certainly has what it takes in the work ethic.

This woman was called a 'success' story by the organization they were highlighting as helping to eliminate slavery. (don't recall the name of the org) The woman also said that she wants her children to go to school and get and education. That's something she never had. Another woman said the same thing! Imagine that.

[Grooner Five]

97. "Slave labor"

The hysterics of hyperbole. You may as well call the industrial age in America "slavery." I don't believe the third world can develop any differently than we did, and worker exploitation is going to be a part of that. No way around it, despite our best intentions.

But fine, so you want to build schools in the third world, staff them, and educate the populace. I presume this will be done with our tax dollars? What jobs will you provide for these freshly trained graduates, especially if you make the regulations and wages unattractive enough to spurn company interest?

More realistically, the companies taking the risks in impoverished markets will be the ones providing the training, because it's in their best interest to do so. As a bonus, we don't even have to pay for it, and can spend the money on our own schools and programs.

On a side note, you have me at a disadvantage. You know my name, but I do not know yours.

[Norquist Nemesis]

103. I'm not going to play your bait and switch game here, Bill

I stopped interacting on the other board, in part, because of your tactics such as this.

It's not going to be too long that someone alerts on you. You're playing a game. That's all that this is.

In some way, something in my heart hopes that you are reaching out for a better understanding and seeking answers. I suspect your soul is searching for some answers that your conscience is telling you are wrong in your staunch support of all things Bush/GOP.

Use this board as an opportunity to learn, Bill. Not to play a perverse political game. When a source is provided for you to learn and educate yourself, don't dismiss it as "fringe" (you conveniently omitted the loony left).

The game you're playing is only going to get you a big old tombstone trophy and then you'll cry and whine that you've been censored of your right to free speech. You are a good man and write well. You've come far in your life and work hard. Please use the privelege of interaction with the good people on this board as an opportunity to expand your horizons. :)

[Grooner Five]

105. I thought my points were fair.

I guess you didn't.

[Norquist Nemesis]

107. Of course you did

Why wouldn't you?

You defined your solution in broad terms as I did mine. Then you turned it into an attack putting all sorts of things into my "thoughts" on a solution. Details that I said nothing about.

You didn't consider my thoughts on the matter before addressing them; you allowed your knee-jerk reaction to take over. Don't you think education is a good idea, Bill?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Your points are quite selectively taken without taking history of

labor abuses into consideration.

[aneerkoinos]

110. Different development

Even head of World Band could not but admire the leaps that Cuba has taken in human development, despite the criminal US sanctions against people of Cuba.

So there is alternative and very successive model of development, that is actually human development and not neocolonialism based on exploitation and robbery of others, which was and is the American model.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. The industrial age in America WAS slavery!

Hundreds of people died building the Hoover damn because they were STARVING and took a risky job..same with the building of the subway in NY City...YES it was SLAVERY! Out of it came labor rights, an eight hour work day, a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, labor unions, healthcare through employers, and workers compensation rights.

If globalization were REALLY to lift people's boats, then those rights would be BUILT INTO it.

[Just Me]

120. And, now, the globalist robber barons are in charge of,...

,...the wealthiest nation on earth, wreaking the same kind of violent, gawd-awful oppression elsewhere and here in the Corporate States of America.

Your last line was awesome!

If globalization were REALLY to lift people's boats, then those rights would be BUILT INTO it.

[The Magistrate]

127. Several Points, Mr. Grooner

It would be nice if the world worked the way neo-classical economics courses would have you believe, but an examination of history suggests otherwise.

The fact is, Sir, that no country has ever achieved prosperity by the route you suggest, namely providing a pool of cheap labor for foreign investors. Leaving to one side such out of fashion routes to the goal as pillage, and the accidental wind-falls of resource wealth and positional advantage over trade corridors, it is clear those countries which have managed prosperity through the route of modern industrialization have invariably done so by building up that industry under conditions that protected it from foreign competitors, and concentrated the capital that its profits generated in domestic rather than foreign hands. In England's initial industrialization, this protection was afforded by that nation's being first off the mark in substantial industrialization, so that for a good while lacked it any sizeable competitors. All subsequent success stories along this line feature protection of the developing industry though a mixture of tarrifs on imports, controls on foreign investment, and government subsidy in various forms, ranging from improved transport infrastructure to outright gifts of credit and capital. This is true of the United States and various European countries in the nineteenth century, and it is true of countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and others in Asia during the twentieth century. There is no reason whatever to suppose the thing can be contrived differently in the twenty-first century.

Countries that provide a pool of cheap labor for foreign investors do not become prosperous there-by. They will reap scanty gains at best in absolute terms, and in relative terms only fall further behind the nations in which the investment exploiting their labor originates. The reasons for this are obvious on a moment's sober reflection. The only income such an arrangement provides a national economy is the wages paid, and these will be as close to subsistence as the situation will bear: the very impulse towards cheap labor behind the foreign investment gaurantees this. The wage will be far less than a monetary equivalent to the value added to the product by the labor: again, the very purpose of investment to access cheap labor gaurantees this. Thus, there will not be a sufficient importation of money into the country providing the cheap labor from which to accumulate any signifigant concentration of capital, and the countries providing the investment will garner a greater than usual increment of the value generated by the labor, from which they will easily be able to sequester a larger amount of fresh capital, and in a larger than usual proportion. The jesting count of "One for you, one for me; two for you, one, two for me; three for you, one, two, three for me" operates in such a circumstance in all its glory: indeed, the circumstance is specifically set up to enable its operation.

Where production is carried out for export under conditions where the capital is domestically supplied, or where there are controls on the repatriation of profit on foreign investment, matters will develope somewhat differently. Even if the wages remain near subsistance levels, a much greater increment of the profit generated by the value added to the product by labor will remain in the country, and remain largely in the form of capital for investment. This will increase the amount of capital goods contributing to the country's economic life, and will also tend to drive up the monetary value of existing capital goods, as they will be confronting a market that has more money to spend, and is probably acquiring new money more quickly than it is acquiring new capital goods. These are things that tend to raise living standards.

Production for domestic consumption requires wages be pitched appreciably higher than subsistance levels; otherwise, once workers have managed to secure necessities of food and shelter and clothing, they will not have sufficient money to purchase much of anything else, and thus cannot consititute a signifigant market, that will entice anyone to invest in producing anything for them to consume. It is an unfortunate fact that this is not widely appreciated by those with capital to invest in productive enterprises, who tend to reckon an immediate gain on their investment as the highest good, and view whatever is paid to those whose labor provides the value that generates the return on their investment as simply a dead loss coming out of their pockets. Thus, in a majority of instances in history, any signifigant rise in wages from subsistence levels has occured not through any purely economic process, but through political processes, often violent ones. Indeed, the real source of instability in countries where cheap labor is sought owes to the effort to prevent any rise in wages from subsistence levels, and the efforts of laborers to secure such a rise in the face of opposition from the police.

"The laboring classes of necessity constitute the greatest proportion of society, and it is folly to suppose what benefits the greater number can be injurious ro the whole."

[stickdog]

151. Nice post. (nm)

[JanMichael]

152. I agree. It was very good.

I hope that people can find it in this long thread....

[Just Me]

74. I take it corporate responsibility is something you reject.

:shrug:

What do you think of corporations which "invent" projections (for third world countries) which are strictly intended to inflate profits while simultaneously proposing infrastructure development that is neither necessary or sustainable?

Such corporate behavior creates poverty,...not addresses it.

If you genuinely care about humanity, why deny that huge multinational companies are complicit in imposing so much harm upon humanity because those companies DON'T GIVE A DAMN about how their profiteering impacts the human race?

I'm not anti-globalization. I am pro-corporate responsibility. Those corporations which deal in good faith and fairness and with interest in how they impact humanity are certainly awesome in my book.

[Grooner Five]

76. I'm not against corporate responsibility...

...and I do not believe they should be able to recklessly exploit underdeveloped countries. We are in tandem there. Companies doing business overseas should be regulated at home to insure they keep standards high.

However, I do believe that the tin-pot despots who often lead third world countries do far more to keep their citizens impoverished than the companies that may set up shop there. Getting more money and a higher styandard of living in to the hands of the people is key to unseating those despots, and I can see no other way to boost the standards there besides the entrance of businesses willing to take risks in unstable political situations.

There is no quick fix, but I believe progress can come through global progress in a world economy. People everywhere want to have opportunities and work, and want to get paid for that work. That money, in turn, creates power in the hands of the people.

[Just Me]

81. The abusive multi-national corporations I speak of LOVE despots,

because despots do NOT act in the best interests of their people. The predatory corporacrats HATE democratically elected leaders who seek to serve the best interests of their people because those leaders refuse outrageously expensive contracts which bring HUGE profits to a few and horrific burdens upon humanity.

Just, read the damn book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". The guy who wrote the book worked for the global corporateers for over 25 years and he is NOT fringe.

I understand what you believe should be happening, and I will tell you that progress in a world economy which serves ALL the people rather than a handful of greedy, heartless assholes would be AWESOME!!! But, that is NOT NOT NOT what has been happening, is NOT what is happening.

On edit: okay, now, this post IS my final response *LOL* :hi:

[Grooner Five]

83. I do not doubt that some companies exploit...

But I don't think that means we should paint them all with a broad brush, or deny that globalization is the only practical answer to ending the disparity seen in poorer parts of the world.

Workers in America were grossly exploited for years. But over time, reforms came. Can't the same happen in the third world, or do we expect them to evolve differently from us?

[Just Me]

116. The companies that have/do exploit are in the executive branch,...

,...BushCo, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole neoCON cabal represent the companies which have exploited not only people in foreign lands but also you and me and our people.

I only tolerate your persistence because I believe you are uninformed and maybe a bit naive in your beliefs. I wish the predatory corporacrats in charge of this country weren't guilty of the worst exploitation of the human race in recent history,...but they are guilty of horrendous incidences of exploitation (especially in waging this war in Iraq), they are corrupt, they are deceptive and heartless and secretive and cruel.

[Joe Chi Minh]

153. Don't waste your breath.

Rational discussion has to be a 2-way street. Matey's assumptions are so imbecilic - no, I make no apologies, there has to be minimal standards of perception - because, unless our interlocutor has an IQ of 70 or less, he is in total bad faith; and that probably not even knowingly, since he evidently has never been honest with himself in his thinking.

The first lesson you must learn, Bozo, is, "Be true to yourself, and you can be false to no man". Be false to yourself and you will easily believe and peddle the most vacuous and patently false nonsense. And quite proudly, at that.

Even calling those freedom fighters, "insurgents", is a scurrilous misrepresentation, since they are putting their own lives on the line to uphold international law, and to protect the country's assets from pillage by foreign aggressors. International law, incidentally, is not a figment of their imagination. It actually exists and is observed universally outside of the UK and the US. Your "terrrosists" are the only legitimate law in that tortured country.

Don't expect me to engage in inane disputes with you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. Who do you think keeps the tinpot despots in power?

Think Charles Taylor...who kept him in power? Look at Nicaragua..25% unemployment prior to Reagan's "freedom fighters" 40% unemployment post NAFTA

[JanMichael]

149. The facts rarely effect the true believers in unfettered globalisation.

The facts about idiotic global "rising tide" mythology are the opposite of what they want us to believe.

Oh well.

PS~ Sorry that you can't make the Grand Canyon fun! Miss you bunches!

[Just Me]

77. A final response: you can NOT be part of the solution when,...

,...you refuse to acknowledge, understand and confront the problem. Otherwise, you are simply the mechanism which perpetuates problems.

I think you really just don't give a shit about people. How could you if you shut them out in order to defend abusive coporate predators who exploit people?

[Grooner Five]

79. Tell me what the other options...

...for those people are.

Listening to their despots blame the West for the abject poverty in the country while the leaders build palaces for themselves?

Regulate the corporations. Hold them accountable here. But give those poor folks the opportunity to work and make a decent wage.

[Frederik]

134. "These people", "their despots blame the West"

Jeebus, it's like discussing with someone from a certain other website. You think Western corporations would give "those poor folks the opportunity to work and make a decent wage"? No chance in Hell, unless they are FORCED to. The Burmese refugees who are locked up in concentration camps in Thailand working 15 hours a day for Tommy Hillfiger would probably agree that you have some very good ideas about how Western companies could come and rescue them from all the evil dictators. Or maybe not.

[aneerkoinos]

96. No magic formula

But wide array of policies.

- Google ATTAC, they have many good pragmatic suggestions
- Real debt forgiveness (not what Blair is suggesting at G8)
- Democratization of WTO, World Bank, IMF and UN.
- Global trade unions
- Cooperation with Cuba and adopting Cuband methods in eradicating illiteracy, health care, education, organic farming etc. (helped Venezuela a lot)
- Land redistribution
- Natinalization, not privatization
- More cooperation, less competition
- Declaring Monsanto enemy of the Mankind
- Cancelling all patent rights and the whole notion of "intellectual property" to allow free flow of information
- Local renewable energy by small scale units
- etc. etc. etc., I hope these satisfy your curiosity for starters.

[Grooner Five]

99. What they do is scare the hell out of me.

Some of them, anyway. Land redistribution? Like in Zimbabwe? Gee, that's working well.

The end of patents and intellectual property? What motives are there to pour heart and soul in to R&D if others can simply benefit from your work without paying for it?

Nationalization? Having governments own major industry instead of individuals? Where has that ever worked in the long term? It's a Soviet formula.

[aneerkoinos]

109. Fear is mindkiller

>>> Land redistribution? Like in Zimbabwe? Gee, that's working well. <<<

Like in Venezuela, Brazil, etc. etc. etc.

>>> The end of patents and intellectual property? What motives are there to pour heart and soul in to R&D if others can simply benefit from your work without paying for it? <<<

Contrary to your unscientific belief, carrot-stick authoritarian wage slavery don't enhance creativity, it hinders. Creativity is natural, it's own reward.

>>> Nationalization? Having governments own major industry instead of individuals? Where has that ever worked in the long term? It's a Soviet formula. <<<

Not only state owned, but workers coops and between, not only (and allways) major industry, but more so natural resources, infrastructure, vital services. Guiding principle common good, not interests of oligarchic owners and ideological market fundamentalism.

[Frederik]

133. Land redistribution

Like Venezuela, uner Chávez. Like Guatemala, under Arbenz, that the corporatists and the US State Dept found so offensive that they sent in the CIA to remove the democratically elected Social Democrat Arbenz and install a gruesome dictatorship.

[Frederik]

135. "Having governments own major industry instead of individuals"

Yes, the alternative to governments are "individuals", like mom and pop stores. :rofl:

Heavy government ownership in industry was the formula that led to the "French miracle" in the post-war years, to the Scandinavian success stories, to the Asian tiger success stories. The IMF/World Bank formula led to catastrophe in Chile, Mexico, Brazil and so on, more or less all of Latin America. When Brazil pursued a policy of "import substitution", they had a healthy growth and low unemployment. Then, after the debt crisis kicked in in the early eighties, they were forced to accept IMF/WB conditionalities implying pretty much your approach to things. Guess what, it turned out to be a catastrophe, suffocating growth while unemployment skyrocketed.

Oh, and the architect behind the IMF structural adjustment programmes? James A. Baker III.

[Frederik]

132. South Korea

followed the following formula:

PROTECTIONISM, STATE OWNERSHIP, HEAVY GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE ECONOMY, REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Guess what , the countries that have followed this course have fared much, much better than the countries that have bowed to IMF/World Bank bullying and opened themselves too soon and too fast to Western corporate exploitation.

[noiretextatique]

84. you're really overreaching

which is not surprising since you didn't really comprehend that quote you keep writing about.

[Grooner Five]

85. I understood it fine.

It's not the separate coincidental thing that you're pretending it is. Galloway appears quite proud of both his work as the self-proclaimed leader of the anti-war movement and that of the insurgents.

I don't like the way he joined the two, and can't lie to myself by pretending that his "dual hammers" smashing US troops aren't connected in heart and mind - at least according to Galloway.

[noiretextatique]

88. us troops who are there based on a lie

something you keep forgetting. that's even more reason to be angry at bush, inc. unless of course you think the lives of americans are more valuable than the lives of iraqis. the iraqis have every right to defend themselves against an illegal invasion.

[Grooner Five]

89. How does blowing up Iraqis outside of a mosque

or beheading an aid worker amount to "defending themselves against an illegal invasion?"

[noiretextatique]

95. was that happening before bush, inc lied and sent troops there?

um, no. don't like war, don't start war. the epitome of arrogance and privilege is to illegally invade a country, then bitch about the tactics those invaded use to fight the illegal war you started. the tactics of war are atrocious...period. americans have no moral authority to whine about how iraqis fight against what they, and the rest of the world, know to be an illegal invasion.

[Grooner Five]

98. How does blowing up Iraqis outside of a mosque

..or beheading an aid worker amount in any way to fighting the occupation?

Was that aid worker killing Iraqis? Were those folks outside the mosque supporting America?

[noiretextatique]

100. how does torturing iraqis

further the purported goal of this illegal war: "freedom and democracy"

typical of terminally arrogant americans:
start an illegal war, commit horrendous atrocities, then cop a self-righteous attitude about HOW the invaded fight your illegal invasion.
it looks like we've create yet another CIVIL WAR because of yet another illegal invasion.

arrogant america, especially those who supported this war: you have NO MORAL AUTHORITY

[bobthedrummer]

69. There are many Jews and Israelis that have rejected Zionism too.

That cancels your perceptions, and I'm saying you don't have a clue as to what a progressive is either.
I'm a progressive anti-fascist myself.

[aneerkoinos]

90. Dear Grooner

Only way to find guilt by association n times removed (e.g. X says something nice about Americans, America is giving sanctuary to terrorists and murderers, therefore X is terrorist sympathiser) and belief in unfounded sweeping generalizations is based on unshakable belief in the most illogical form of Either-Orism, aka "with us or against us".

[Grooner Five]

91. You're neutral?

[aneerkoinos]

106. In relation to what?

I'm relativist.

And you don't deny my estimate that you are black-and-white fundamentalist.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. I take issue with the fact that unpopular words outrage you more

than lying about the reasons for war, violating the Geneva convention (gee, can our troops expect any better when they are captured?) and bankrupting the nation and giving the spoils to one's corporate cronies.

I have FAR more concern for the moral values of people who can be outraged when they hear the word ZIONIST (and as a Jew, I am NOT FOND of Zionists OR Likudniks) than when they SEE the absolute chaos a nation whose population had MORE PHD's per capita than our own has devolved into simply to make defense contractors rich.

[Frederik]

131. You don't have any idea

what you're talking about, and yet, somehow, you find a reason to keep talking.

[Mizmoon]

41. Here is the bottom line for me and many DUers

1) I do not approve of or support the killing of innocent people by either side.
2) I support Galloway's statement in Congress 100 percent.
3) I don't give a rat's ass what else he stands for. It is immaterial to me. What he said on that specific day was magnificent. It made me realize how lame our leaders are.

That's it. Sorry - no juicy quotes for you to bring back to the peanut gallery.

[ET Awful]

62. How can it be construed as "over the top" as you put it if it's not

blatantly so in his words?

Sorry, but you are falling into the same old b.s. argument of accusing anyone who believes that the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel is wrong must be anti-semitic. It's a bullshit argument now, and always has been.

[stanwyck]

68. Just post the words

so we can see for ourselves. Add a link. Otherwise, this is just more hateradio type innuendo. No substance. Just blowhard bleating without basis.
Back up what you say with factual information.

[ima_sinnic]

36. so you don't like Galloway because UNLIKE YOU he

admires those who resist the fascist invaders. I know last night you said you'd bow down if the Chinese invaded the U.S., which marks you as a total coward, with allegiance to nothing other than your own comfort (and how comfortable would you be in the midst of an invasion--even if bowing down to the invaders, your own countrymen would mark you as a traitor, don't forget).

I'm not excusing beheadings, or blowing up of children, or any other atrocities--but you seem to forget you are talking about a culture and country under siege from cannons, grenades, heavily armed jackbooted soldiers who seem to get their jollies from killing and torturing, from blowing up CHILDREN, or their parents in front of the children--and FOR WHAT??

so you don't like suicide bombers: BFD. Galloway is telling it like it is. if you don't like what he says, don't listen.

[Grooner Five]

40. A coward?

Right. First a troll, and now a coward because I said that if I were living under an oppressive tyranny, I might be happy to see China come in and depose this tyrannical leadership.

I'm not excusing beheadings, or blowing up of children, or any other atrocities

This is precisely what you are doing.

[Just Me]

44. No. You are the one determined to excuse exploitation by the neoCONs,...

,...and their corporate bedfellows who have delivered nothing but suffering upon people around the world.

You are just using the right-wing rhetoric in order to avoid confrontation of the horrors delivered by US corporacrats.

[ima_sinnic]

46. you'd be happy to have your country invaded by the Chinese?

IF you were living "under an oppressive tyranny"--and, um, what do you think the Chinese would then install?

Can you name one instance in all of human history when an invading army went in like nice polite saints, waged their war, deposed the "oppressive tyrant," tipped their hats to the oppressed citizens, and then quietly left the people to their own country?

oh, and by the way, waged their war without destroying the place in the process?

I'll be waiting . . .

[Grooner Five]

48. War destroys, of course.

That's why it's called a "war."

As to the rest of it, I'd say that's precisely what we did in Germany and Japan, and then later on in Bosnia. I also believe that's what JFK was trying to do in both Vietnam and Cuba.

[merh]

94. How about our own civil war.

Do you see the Rebel forces that fought against the Union soldiers as being traitors to the USofA or folks that were trying to maintain their way of life and keep the government from telling them how to live and what to do. As they battled to maintain their life styles, were they heros or insurgents and terrorists?

One man's terrorist (rebel forces) is another man's freedom fighter, depending on which side of the political fence they sit.

The USofA is the invading and now occupying nation, many of those who are fighting against our military, our soldiers, just want their nation back and want the USofA out of their country.

Have some fun this weekend, go rent the movie "Red Dawn" and see what "true patriots" will do to oppose an occupying presence. Were those kids terrorists or freedom fighters? What makes them any different from the people fighting against the occupation of Iraq? I realize it is just a movie, but I thought it might be educational to you and provide you with a different perspective, help you try to understand it from the perspective of the people being occupied.

If it doesn't sink in with that movie, try "Brave Heart". The hero in the movie and his men were fighting against the occupying powers that were destroying their homes and lands and their ways of life. If you have seen it, did you cheer for the Mel Gibson character during that film or did you cheer for the king and his lords? Gibson's character was an insurgent and a terrorist in the eyes of the occupying powers.

Our going to war in Iraq was based upon lies, piled upon lies. The war is illegal and immoral. We, the USofA, invaded and is occupying a sovereign nation. No one on this board will say that Saddam Hussein was good, he was evil, but that did not give us the right to take over and try to colonize a nation that posed no threat to us and whose people did not ask us to come "save" them and bring them democracy.

Just some food for thought - simply stated in the hopes that you can grasp the simple, yet horrific, notion that we (our admin) is wrong.

:patriot:

[aneerkoinos]

128. Vietnam deposing Khmer

Closest that comes to mind, though not claiming any perfectness.

[Frederik]

137. Again, this is Dahr Jamail

who knows a lot more about the Iraqi insurgency than you do:

"The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba'athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why?

This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as "patriots." Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country.

Calling them "foreign terrorists" and "Ba'athist insurgents" is simply a lie. While there are small elements of these, they are distinctly different from the Iraqi Resistance, who are now supported by, very conservatively at least 80% of the population here.

There are terrorist elements here, but that is because the borders of Iraq have been left wide open since the invasion. These did not exist in Iraq before.

The Bush regime like to refer to anyone who does not support their ideology and plans for global domination as a "terrorist."

Here, these fighters in the Iraqi Resistance are referred to as freedom fighters, holy warriors and patriots."

[LynnTheDem]

54. After all the posters who explained it to you, you're STILL twisting &

spinning what Galloway said. In the exact same words you've posted several times, too.

Amazing.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem; you have an agenda.

[Grooner Five]

55. Perhaps...

...you haven't adequately explained his words. You sure haven't convinced me.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Nope, it isn't me. It's definitely you.

Galloway said the Iraqi resistance has accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway said the anti-war movement has accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway said the Iraqi resistance AND the worldwide anti-war movement have accomplished a very significant achievement by tying up bush's ambitions to wage wars all across the ME.

-This is, in FACT, true.

Galloway should have said it in two separate sentances though, so people wouldn't be spinning & twisting into pretzels to spin & twist his words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3771802&mesg_id=3773795

[Grooner Five]

92. No, it's you

You're obviously wearing blinders as to why Galloway used both in one sentance, as "dual hammers."

[LynnTheDem]

104. Good grief. YES and he's NOT saying the insurgents are working WITH

the anti-war movement or vice versa.

GEEEEZ already.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong, and you OBVIOUSLY are spinning like mad. FINE.

Have fun.

[redqueen]

65. Did he really group the anti war movement and the insurgents?

If so, I can see quite clearly why people would balk at lionizing this guy.

[LynnTheDem]

119. No he really didn't. Unless you're a spinmeister.

http://www.iraq-news.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=461&Itemid=113

[redqueen]

123. You aint' whistlin dixie! This is now my favorite part!

"I have duty to condemn political violence; *I also have a duty to say that it should not be exaggerated beyond what it is.*"

[stanwyck]

70. Has your support

for the invasion of Iraq led you to enlist? Or encourage your children to enlist? Or are we hearing more "this is the only way" rhetoric where you have nothing more on the line but your parroting of chickenhawk slogans?

[redqueen]

108. Did this person say they support the war?

I'm so confused...

[stanwyck]

111. read all his posts n/t

[redqueen]

118. In other words, you don't know?

Thanks... that's what I figured.

[stanwyck]

124. As I said

read all his posts. You can access a DU member's posts, all of them. This is helpful when you want to get an overview. Also, visit the thread he started yesterday (referenced on this thread) and read ALL his posts.

[redqueen]

126. When you ask a VERY simple question

and the person doesn't just answer it... that usually indicates that something is amiss.

You really think I'm going to waste my time trying to back up *your* claim? How amusing.

[stanwyck]

130. simple answer

even the technically challenged can understand (accessing all the posts is SO easy): Yes. He supports the invasion. And in his posts he lists why. He buys the Bushian spreading freedom rhetoric. All the rightwing talking points. You can also read all your fellow DUers responses.
Feeling the malaise today? Vitamins could help.

[redqueen]

136. No, no milaise... just tired of all this bullshit.

I should stop expecting people to be reasonable, I suppose.

One wonders how many Democrats / progressives / liberals support this war. I certainly can't think of many.

[stanwyck]

144. You have me totally confused

I don't support the war. I support the troops. My son is a Marine on his second tour in Iraq. I've read this posters posts. All of them. He supports the war. He believes the invasion is "spreading freedom". I disagree.
Face it. We inundated today with those who are desperate for the Downing Street memos to disappear. They're busy trying to "disassemble" the impact. If that means attacking Galloway, fine. That's the rightwing way. Attack the messenger.

[redqueen]

145. Apologies... I was wondering about the other poster, not you.

Didn't mean to be confusing.

[stanwyck]

146. We're cool.

and on the same page. We're just under attack by those who are getting worried about what impact Galloway and the memos will have. They're in spin mode. We should expect to encounter many eager to stem the tide.
On a positive note: a co-worker removed his vehicle W sticker today.

[redqueen]

148. Woooohooooo!

Yeah sorry if I came off as combative at you... I just really didn't get this person's point of view at all. I've read dozens of posts on two threads, and didn't see much to go on... just a few points repeated over and over. I sure didn't want to go in for more -- thanks for giving me the info and enabling my laziness. :blush:

I expect the attacks will grow in number and severity over the next few months. Should be fun. (That was mostly sarcastic...)

:toast:

Have a great weekend!

[Frederik]

129. There you go again

I hate to brake it to you, but you're the whack-job. Galloway pointed to a cause-effect relationship: the anti-war movement + the Iraqi insurgency = trouble for the warmongers. Guess what, it's true!

Galloway has never used anti-semitic rhetoric. Could you perhaps provide a link with a quote? Or are you one of those who equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism?

As for your utterly misleading caricature of the Iraqi rebels, here's an interview with Dahr Jamail, who has spent more time in Iraq (outside Hotel Palestine) than any other American journalist:

"The US Corporate media consistently characterizes the Iraqi resistance as "foreign terrorists and former Ba'athist insurgents". In your experience, is this an accurate portrayal? If not, why?

This is propaganda of the worst kind. Most Iraqis refer to the Iraqi Resistance as "patriots." Which of course most of them are-they are, especially in Fallujah, primarily composed of people who simply are resisting the occupation of their country by a foreign power. They are people who have had family members killed, detained, tortured and humiliated by the illegal occupiers of their shattered country.

Calling them "foreign terrorists" and "Ba'athist insurgents" is simply a lie. While there are small elements of these, they are distinctly different from the Iraqi Resistance, who are now supported by, very conservatively at least 80% of the population here.

There are terrorist elements here, but that is because the borders of Iraq have been left wide open since the invasion. These did not exist in Iraq before.

The Bush regime like to refer to anyone who does not support their ideology and plans for global domination as a "terrorist."

Here, these fighters in the Iraqi Resistance are referred to as freedom fighters, holy warriors and patriots."

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

In another thread on this board today you could read the account of a former American soldier who has talked with many soldiers that have come home from Iraq. One of these soldiers told him that they - US troops - take children as hostages, using them as human shields, because the insurgents don't shoot when they risk harming children. Guess they didn't tell you that on CNN.

[ET Awful]

21. They're just prejudiced against Scottsmen.

:evilgrin:

[JanMichael]

22. Perhaps because RESPECT and Galloway are Socialists?

And while I am a <cough cough> fellow traveller, there are many DUers that hate anything/anyone to the Left of Lieberman.

Galloway pisses them off because he's an "in your face" Lefty that knows hows to give Conservatives the smack down on live TV.

He's articulate, aggressive, polished and doesn't delete all invectives.

This scares them.

[ET Awful]

28. Hey, anyone who can call Christopher Hitchens a

"drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" and not bust up laughing while doing so is okay in my book :).

[PassingFair]

49. Yeah, that got my attention, too.

Hitchens is disgusting, but sad at the same time. Pathos.

I now use Galloway as a threat around home and work, for instance:

"Don't make me get all GALLOWAY on your ass!"

[JanMichael]

50. Ok, now that's good! It has a Pulp Fiction ring to it.

[Frederik]

138. Exactly

You hit the nail on its head. The DLC Republicans-are-right-in-all-their-ideas-but-they're-a-little-too-vulgar-for-my-tastes crowd does not appreciate outspoken, unapologetic leftists.

[JanMichael]

150. They are terrified of what Galloway stands for.

And rightly so because the future is ours:-)

[spanone]

25. I support Galloway and his huge balls.

and by the way...fuck Norm Coleman.

[punpirate]

29. In a manner of speaking...

... I think Galloway's already done that to Coleman.... :)

[tavalon]

35. I worship the ground Galloway walks on n/t

[ArkDem]

39. It's the Gall-o-Way

[Protagoras]

47. Consider the sources...

I'm not sure that there are "so many people"...

[markus]

82. Because he's a former Trotskyist poppinjay?

At first, I tended to side on the Galloway is OK bandwagon, but the more of his pronouncments one reads, I long for a Paul Wellstone who could have said the same things about the war without wandering off into a diatribe from The Militant.

(This from someone who sold a couple of copies of that and the Young Socialist back in the day).

[bpilgrim]

117. lol

we definitely need more popinjay's on the left who speak TRUTH 2 POWER :bounce:

i enjoy how all the gossipy hens pop-up to cluck their disapproval in a circular firing squad spouting their terminal self-righteousness with no sense of irony or danger.

talk about whistling past the graveyard

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[noiretextatique]

139. not to mention...the militantcy of PNACers

and their radical agenda :eyes: what should be the response to the militant right? "i strongly disagree" doesn't work to well (right president...er...mr. gore?)

[markus]

140. Their stridency should not be an excuse for the same on our side

Discussing the Israeli Anschluss in unflattering terms (whoops, did I just do that?) is not a way to win friends and influence people in Oceania.

Perhaps he should go pester the French.

Sorry, just kidding. But while Galloway is as much fun as Monty Python's reading the History of the Russian Revolution, he's not going to be much serious help to us. He's had his turn, and raised some issues (and hopefully caused some heartburn for both of his inquisitors, ours and their's).

We really have to approach this from "Ceasar's wife" approach. We don't need extra baggage at the gate, no matter how right Galloway is.

[noiretextatique]

141. well, i suppose you do have a point

i certainly like his style, but it probably doesn't play well in middle muddleland.

[bpilgrim]

147. "he's not going to be much serious help to us" - he's been a BIG help

so far... and he's still swinging and spreading the word far and wide even here in the homeland.

"We don't need extra baggage at the gate, no matter how right Galloway is."

ah, he's way past the gate... hopefully our leaders can catch up before the neoCONs strike AGAIN.

:hi:

peace

[noiretextatique]

86. all of the above

the most vocal anti-galloway person here is using one galloway quote that he obviously doesn't comprehend to make all sorts of idiotic accusations. :nuke: soon for that one.

[Stand and Fight]

121. Good call, KlatooB!

Let's challenge these rat bastards and not let them continue to run over progressive politics!

:yourock:

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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