Yes, LordyLordyLordy, there are so many now desparate to paint Galloway in the blackest terms. It is so silly--he's a politician, for Dog's sake, you can't get much morally black than that. Which is not, of course, the point. He stood up and shouted that the Emperor indeed has no new clothes, that the Emperor is, in fact, naked. For this he will never be forgiven. For this, in the virtual world, he will be hunted until the end of his days, and well beyond.
That's the point, isn't it. Over here, not many middle-of-the-road people would have chosen George Galloway as their spokesman, far less champion, but the fact is he went over to the senate committee and said what had to be said. He spoke bluntly, and the words he said were the words that every anti-war person wanted him to say. He spoke for the people who marched, in their millions, against this criminal, awful war.
The character assassination which is going on now is testimony to the accuracy of his argument. The messenger is being attacked, while the message is being erased from the record. Free speech?
Free in the sense that there's no cover charge to watch this Circus.
There is a one personal freedom minimum however.
I did enjoy the Christopher Hitchens piece on Galloway. Setanta portrays him as the innocent child in Andersen's fable. pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Some innocent child! Setanta has once again suspended use of his critical faculties in reaching this particular judgement.
The fact is that Galloway's impact on both the media and the public attention here was transitory and momentary at best. Perhaps some will rejoice in one of their boys giving it to a supposed powerful forum, but the reality was much less than that. The Senators were foolish to give him an appearance at all, but wise to limit their responses to his theatrics. As in an old Navy saying -
"Don't get in a fight with a pig"
"You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."
McTag's right, the reason Galloway's testimony pleased so many people was the Iraq factor and the strong hand bullying ways of the right in the US and that still stands no matter what gets thrown Galloway's way.
Besides trying to fight it now after the fact just won't work. The right would do better to just walk away and let it slide.
georgeob1 wrote:I did enjoy the Christopher Hitchens piece oin Galloway. Setanta portrays him as the innocent child in Andersen's fable. pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Some innocent child! Setanta has once again suspended use of his critical faculties in reaching this particular judgement.
This statement is purest horseshit, and as close as you can get to a personal slander without violating the terms of service. Keep your witless, goose-stepping, reactionary comments to yourself, and do not ever quote me again, as i assure you that i will never quote you again.
Your sneering, condesceding, hypocritical and reactionary politics have disgusted me for the last time boyo, keep your Prod nastiness to yourself.
Setanta wrote:Yes, LordyLordyLordy, there are so many now desparate to paint Galloway in the blackest terms. It is so silly--he's a politician, for Dog's sake, you can't get much morally black than that. Which is not, of course, the point. He stood up and shouted that the Emperor indeed has no new clothes, that the Emperor is, in fact, naked. For this he will never be forgiven. For this, in the virtual world, he will be hunted until the end of his days, and well beyond.
I have added emphasis to highlight just how close georgeob1 comes to being a liar.
georgeob1 wrote: The Senators were foolish to give him an appearance at all, but wise to limit their responses to his theatrics.
Did you hear or see what happened, george?
Wise to limit their responses? That's a unique interpretation of speechless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Galloway's an ass, but he's a good politician.
The show was almost as good as when Bush was interviewed by that delightful Irish woman.
ehBeth wrote:The show was almost as good as when Bush was interviewed by that delightful Irish woman.
That was priceless . . . when they posted that at P45, i watched it three times in a row. Ya gotta love RTE.
Not horseshit at all. You did indeed use the Emperor's clothes metaphor, just as I said. My " witless, goose-stepping, reactionary comments ..." were merely an expression of disagreement. Apparently your ability to abide that is a bit .... limited.
I am neither a ractionary nor a "Prod", and I believe you have come far closer to slander, etc. than have I.
I don't react much to that sort of thing, because it would be as pointless as the attempted insult itself. Why do you do it?
Because you have lied. This: "Setanta portrays him as the innocent child in Andersen's fable."--is a lie. Read the post again.
QED what georgeob1? What part of: "It is so silly--he's a politician, for Dog's sake, you can't get much morally black than that." failed to sink beneath the partisan shield of your comprehension?
To paraphrase: "Georgeob1 has once again suspended use of his critical faculties in reaching this particular judgement."
And, as McGentrix advertises to all and sundry each day with his signature line:
"Excessively patronizing postures are often an indicator of those whose self-images exceed their ability." -Georgeob1
That last quote does say a lot about you, boyo.
Quoting just a sentence from R. Emmett Tyrell Jnr's article, previously entered on this thread:-
"Blustering and shaking in what sounded to me like a Scottish accent -- though it could have been the consequence of strong drink"
Just who is this Ponce?
How on earth he can call himself a journalist when he writes such innaccurate and insulting crap is beyond me.
Did anyone notice Galloway blustering? Shaking?
Just how DOES one shake in an accent?
What connects someone sounding Scottish, with someone suffering from the consequences of strong drink? Did George W. speak in a Scottish accent when a road cop pulled him over for drink driving or something? Is this where the rumour started?
Simply reading that one sentence (and the whole article carries on in the same vein) would surely give some sort of indication to the reader that this is not good, credible journalism. That maybe, just maybe, Tyrell is working for Bushmedia.com .
Why would anyone take this piece of garbage and actually post it here as something that is worthy of consideration?
Anyone wish to defend this Tyrell W*nker, perchance?
That's right, george.
Setanta posted that Galloway was a politician.
And posted that you can't get more morally black than that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good of you to move that comment forward.
Well, Lordofallaboveandbelow, georgeob1 is trying to make a cottage industry of attempting to defend that particular wanker.
(Pssst . . . it's an American site, wanker will slip right through.)
Setanta wrote:
(Pssst . . . it's an American site, wanker will slip right through.)
It must be the lube over there, obviously better than ours.
We have nothing but the finest lubricants, Lordofallhesurveys, inasmuch as this is the greatest nation on earth . . . no, no, really . . . just ask the right wingnuts.
To, in a single paragraph, refer to Galloway as a "morally black" politician and then in the following sentence to portray him in the role of the innocent child crying out that the Emperor has no clothes (As in Andersen's fable) does indeed involve a certain suspension of critical judgement.
I don't think much perception is required to see the contradiction there and to recognize the many other far more likely possibilities. I believe this is self evident - Setanta's indignation notwithstanding.
I have expressed no opinion concerning Setanta other than disagreement over this point and the observation that he is a bit ... irritable. Contrast that with his expressions.
My abilities are what they are and are neither diminished nor enhanced by Setanta's opinion.
I did not by any stretch of anyone's imagination--other than your fevered imagination--portray Galloway in the role of an innocent child.
If you lack the good breeding and the good manners to honor a request not to communicate with me further, boyo, at least have the good sense not to do so.
