George Galloway blasts the Senate

Chistopher Hitchens was on the radio this morning, on the "Start The Week" programme, talking about the Iraq situation and George Galloway.
Interesting. And not complimentary.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Identify an example of expulsion and I might be able to answer your question.

I doubt Galloway's expulsion was any less of an exception in the UK than it might of been in the US.

Well, there are party rule, a party constitution.

These are the charges on which George Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party:
he incited Arabs to fight British troops
he incited British troops to defy orders
he threatened to stand against Labour
he backed an anti-war candidate in Preston.
(As said earlier already on this thread.)

The first two charges seem to be deserving of expulsion from any political party.

The second two are inconsequential and would never have been exerted on their own.

I can't recall any similar situation in the US, but expect that if such a miscreant held office here he would be charged with treason, and rightly so, as opposed to the slap on the wrist of banishment from a political party.

My my but aren't you the hypocrite, FB. Here you are in the abortion thread chastizing someone for their lack of "factual support".


Finn d'Abuzz
#1: Presumably you can validate your assertion with factual support.

You may as well have gotten a billboard. "Finn d'Abuzz is a hypocrite!"


#2: There is a presumption in your post that there is some significance to this trend (assuming it is accurate).

There is an assumption in your post that there is some significance to these charges. News Alert, Buzz, George Galloway was right in opposing an illegal war.

#3: Your use of the term "so-called," reveals your bias and should be instructive to all who read this thread and/or respond.

There's no need for me to point out your bias.

Was it on BBC? Can you find a link, McTag?

McTag wrote:

Chistopher Hitchens was on the radio this morning, on the "Start The Week" programme, talking about the Iraq situation and George Galloway.
Interesting. And not complimentary.

Was it on BBC? Can you find a link, McTag?

Precisely what factual proof do you accuse me of ducking?

None. I said you were a hypocrite. You've proved me right.

Yes, I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant. Since they resulted in him being thrown out of his Party I think it's appropriate to consider them significant. I'll bet you Galloway thought them significant.

There is a need for you to point out my bias if you wish us to take you seriously.

... Oh well, why fight it? [Finn hands the gun to JTT and grinning from ear to ear, jumps into the barrel.]

I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant.


Of course I could just as easily respond there is no need to point out why your [sic] are a idiot, but that would be a pretty lame tact to take.

Not 'pretty', Finn, an exceedingly lame tact, exceedingly.

Galloway has just been taken out of the news. Deep Throat identity revealed:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1371088#1371088

sumac wrote:

Galloway has just been taken out of the news. Deep Throat identity revealed:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1371088#1371088

Galloway was in the news?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Precisely what factual proof do you accuse me of ducking?

None. I said you were a hypocrite. You've proved me right.

Yes, I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant. Since they resulted in him being thrown out of his Party I think it's appropriate to consider them significant. I'll bet you Galloway thought them significant.

There is a need for you to point out my bias if you wish us to take you seriously.

... Oh well, why fight it? [Finn hands the gun to JTT and grinning from ear to ear, jumps into the barrel.]

I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant.


Of course I could just as easily respond there is no need to point out why your [sic] are a idiot, but that would be a pretty lame tact to take.

Not 'pretty', Finn, an exceedingly lame tact, exceedingly.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Precisely what factual proof do you accuse me of ducking?

None. I said you were a hypocrite. You've proved me right.

Yes, I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant. Since they resulted in him being thrown out of his Party I think it's appropriate to consider them significant. I'll bet you Galloway thought them significant.

There is a need for you to point out my bias if you wish us to take you seriously.

... Oh well, why fight it? [Finn hands the gun to JTT and grinning from ear to ear, jumps into the barrel.]

I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant.


Of course I could just as easily respond there is no need to point out why your [sic] are a idiot, but that would be a pretty lame tact to take.

Not 'pretty', Finn, an exceedingly lame tact, exceedingly.

JTT wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Precisely what factual proof do you accuse me of ducking?

None. I said you were a hypocrite. You've proved me right.

Yes, I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant. Since they resulted in him being thrown out of his Party I think it's appropriate to consider them significant. I'll bet you Galloway thought them significant.

There is a need for you to point out my bias if you wish us to take you seriously.

... Oh well, why fight it? [Finn hands the gun to JTT and grinning from ear to ear, jumps into the barrel.]

I am making an assumption that the Galloway charges were significant.


Of course I could just as easily respond there is no need to point out why your [sic] are a idiot, but that would be a pretty lame tact to take.

Not 'pretty', Finn, an exceedingly lame tact, exceedingly.

Obviously you are unwilling or incapable of responding in any way but an obtuse, self satisfying and insulting fashion. You may find it amusing; I find it tiring. Come back when you are prepared to debate intelligently.

.... that's what a lot of the 'conservative side' do here. They argue with little to nothing in the way of proof to substantiate their positions. Oft-repeated talking points don't count as proof.

And if you want a real primer on liberal literacy, go to JTT's cited source (crooksand liars.com ... of course) for that video and check out the comments section. Those pummeling GWB's gaffe can't seem to connect more than three words without using various grammatical variations of the f-word ... oh yeah ... that means to engage in sexual intercourse.

Idiots.