Ticomaya wrote:WhoodaThunk wrote:Until then, I suppose we're stuck with Galloway.
Who?
Yes. I think it's time to buy a consonant, Vanna ...
http://www.cabcalloway.cc/callowayorch.htm
WhoodaThunk wrote:HofT wrote:Whooda - with respect, if Oprah's "do you know WHO I AM???" approach didn't work in France after closing hours of a shop already preparing for an after-hours PR event, then it shouldn't have.
For the record: I personally have never been a member of the "21" Club in New York, the Petroleum Club in Dallas, or any number of such establishments from San Francisco to Mobile, Alabama, to Geneva, Switzerland, to Hong Kong and points east - and yet whenever I showed up (with any number of guests) I was freely admitted and given a table without any question. Time and time again while giving my coat to the attendant I happened to notice perfectly respectable-looking black people entering the vestibule, being promptly told "Very sorry, this is a private club" and having to leave.
Sad it may be, but we'd be hypocrites in criticizing the French on that particular subject. Sorry, and as prefaced, with respect
Maybe we'll eventually find an a2k thread entitled "Oprah Winfrey Blasts the French."
Until then, I suppose we're stuck with Galloway.
So let's get this straight. On the one hand we have the Oprah winfrey saga, which seems to be about a "Celebrity" not being "sucked up to", and being turned away like the rest of us mortals, then throwing a hissy fit. The whole saga being witnessed by a yet unnamed "source" (normally the "get out" used in this type of sensationalised journalism) who says that Store staff refused her because they had experienced trouble with "North Africans". Until this "source" is properly identified and the staff have been given a full opportunity to tell THEIR side of the story, the "racism" slur cannot properly be confirmed. This could turn out to be a spiteful backlash by the Oprah camp, for her actually being treated like an ordinary person and not being allowed in, or it could be the hype of a journalist, trying to make a bigger story for more bucks.
....And on the other hand, we have an official report being published by the most powerful nation on earth, and possibly one that just squeezes into the top five for justice and freedom of speech, making accusations against the character of a democratically elected British Member of Parliament, in the most scathing of language. The accusor then has to sit there on live worldwide TV, as that maligned (to date there is STILL no evidence) person thoroughly humiliates him (and the USA in the process) by ripping him apart.
So.....let's see hmmm....Dahling Oprah vs. Snobby Parisian shop staff?
Or live worldwide TV arse kicking of U.S. Senator, because someone stood up to his scurrilous and unproven accusations.?
That's pretty much the size of it, Lordoftheobviousbutneglected . . . don't look for sense in any of this any time soon.
But as always, LordE, look for spin that'd put an Oklahoma twister to shame.
This "Do you know who I am" comment comes with story, apocryphal.
A pompous bigwig phones his organisation, unexpectedly, and can't get the answers he wants.
"This is outrageous. Do you realise who I am? This is your CEO speaking!"
-"Oh. Do you know who this is?"
"No I certainly do not!"
-"Good." <click>
Lord Ellpus wrote:So let's get this straight. On the one hand we have the Oprah winfrey saga, which seems to be about a "Celebrity" not being "sucked up to", and being turned away like the rest of us mortals, then throwing a hissy fit.
Actually it's about a a "Celebrity" not being "sucked up to", and being turned away
unlike the rest of
the celebrities.
and wrote:The whole saga being witnessed by a yet unnamed "source" (normally the "get out" used in this type of sensationalised journalism) who says that Store staff refused her because they had experienced trouble with "North Africans". Until this "source" is properly identified and the staff have been given a full opportunity to tell THEIR side of the story, the "racism" slur cannot properly be confirmed. This could turn out to be a spiteful backlash by the Oprah camp, for her actually being treated like an ordinary person and not being allowed in, or it could be the hype of a journalist, trying to make a bigger story for more bucks.
Frankly, I would be surprised if that were the case. Despite efforts to demean her here by the Oprah-unwashed, Ms. Winfrey really is in a class above tabloid journalists and paparazzi.
and wrote:....And on the other hand, we have an official report being published by the most powerful nation on earth, possibly one that just squeezes into the top five for justice and freedom of speech,
Really??
and wrote:making accusations against the character of a democratically elected British Member of Parliament, in the most scathing of language. The accusor then has to sit there on live worldwide TV, as that maligned (to date there is STILL no evidence) person thoroughly humiliates him (and the USA in the process) by ripping him apart.
I can positively hear Union Jacks snapping in the breeze here, Lord E.
See JTT's comments RE Oklahoma twisters ...
and wrote:So.....let's see hmmm....Dahling Oprah vs. Snobby Parisian shop staff?
Or live worldwide TV arse kicking of U.S. Senator, because someone stood up to his scurrilous and unproven accusations.?
Your perception of it, I fear.
Pretty similar reactions to both scenarios, I'm guessing ... initial interest and then prolonged yawns. Oprah will eventually stir up any level of reaction she chooses and then move on long before George completes his Timbuktu-to-Cincinnati tee-shirt & coffee mug tour.
It's all about perceptions (IMO, the French will take it on the chin) and ... of course ... the endless spin.
Me:-
...."And on the other hand, we have an official report being published by the most powerful nation on earth, possibly one that just squeezes into the top five for justice and freedom of speech"
Whooda wrote:-
"Really??"
Dont sound so surprised Whooda......yes, despite everything, America does just about scrape in, as far as I am concerned. But then again, I am sure that there are plenty of Australians, Canadians, Dutch, New Zalanders, Germans, Swiss, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and UK people that would be certain that they have better freedom of speech, and a fairer justice system.
I'm thinking OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, the "third strike" system, leading to horrendously long prison sentences for relatively minor offences, the attempts to withdraw the teaching of evolution in schools, the worrying amount of power that religeon has in the USA, the biased News and Media programmes, the lack of open, unscripted debate between your politicians on live TV..............
Maybe I should reconsider?.......NOPE, I still think that you deserve at least fifth place.
ME:-
"making accusations against the character of a democratically elected British Member of Parliament, in the most scathing of language. The accusor then has to sit there on live worldwide TV, as that maligned (to date there is STILL no evidence) person thoroughly humiliates him (and the USA in the process) by ripping him apart."
Whooda replied:-
"I can positively hear Union Jacks snapping in the breeze here, Lord E.
See JTT's comments RE Oklahoma twisters ..."
So, Whooda.....please be good enough to tell me what was factually innacurate about my statement, and how you consider it as "spin"?
Or is it ACTUALLY the case that people are presumed guilty in the USA, without hard evidence, and the accused then has to prove his/ her innocence?
Maybe I should revise my ranking for the USA after all, eh?
My thanks, LordE . . . i'm thoroughly enjoying this . . .
No problem, Set.
I was about to launch into the "my perception" bit, if you dont mind.
Yes, Whooda, it WAS my perception, also (IMO) that of about 95% of the UK population who were given their proper freedom of speech and "open" TV privileges, to be able to watch the Galloway "interview", in its entirety, on national TV.
How many national, mainstream channels screened the entire, uncut interview in the USA, I wonder?
Whoever watched the whole thing, wherever they were in the world, would have had to have been a thoroughly brainwashed Bushite, not to have recognized that Galloway came out the clear winner.
......and I dont even like the guy, but I feel that nobody should be allowed to get away with such slandering, and act with such comfortable arrogance, as that Senator did in that report. If he had evidence, he would have presented it by now. Surely it doesnt take the mighty workings of the FBI and CIA THIS long to manufacture something.
That Senator is dead in the water.
I am comfortable in my prejudice that Galloway is probably a loudmouthed bully and con artist, who very likely did some of the things of which he is accused. At the same time I acknowledge that U.S. Senators often take a foolish, lofty view of their situations in the world. Bullying others and casting forth unsupported accusations, protected by the institution, has been a long-standing practice from the days of Joe McCarthy to today;'s reigning idiots, Teddy kennedy, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Robert Schumer and several others.
Seems fair enough to me..
(except that I dont know who Robert Schumer is)
Lord Ellpus wrote:Me:-
...."And on the other hand, we have an official report being published by the most powerful nation on earth, possibly one that just squeezes into the top five for justice and freedom of speech"
Whooda wrote:-
"Really??"
Uhhhh ... Lord E .... I honestly don't have the proper time to address all of your concerns, but I'll do my best to get back to you and please know, I am most certainly looking forward to it. (Just so you know ... as certain folks have interpreted lapses in posting times as evidence of cowering, pants-wetting.)
I
am going to make time for your initial post, though, and explain how I read your comments. The antecedent for your indefinite pronoun (one) was apparently "nation" meaning you were squeezing the U.S. into your Top 5 list. I read your comment as claiming the "report" was considered by you to be among your top five all-time issues for justice and freedom of speech.
Not that it will take any of the wind out of your Union Jacks, but I just wanted to put my "Really??" in its proper context.
The proper name for the Union Jack is the Union Flag. It should only be referred to as the Union Jack when it is flying from a jackstaff.
But no-one takes any notice of that.
Carry on.
That was a completely superfluous injunction, if you know what i mean . . .
Gentlemen - ORDER!
Thank you.
Steve - also on behalf of others here, but at least speaking for myself: apologies for invading your Galloway thread with such irrelevancies as French couture (guilty as charged, moi) French fries (also guilty but wish to name Francis as correspondent) and Oprah (not guilty but aiding and abetting Whooda who introduced the subject). Hermes btw has made it known that its security cameras were rolling at 18:45 hrs, a full 15 minutes after their posted closing time, and that all conversations between the lady, her 3 followers and Hermes personnel are on tape.
Defamation is actionable, so now there's a team of lawyers filtering Oprah's threatened "racism exposure" TV show, at an estimated cost of $50,000 per hour.
At such rates it would have been cheaper to buy Hermes ties, boots, and leather trousers to outfit George Galloway and his countless (he says) mistresses for the rest of their days <G>
"Countless" is the correct term. It is untoward of a gentleman to make any such tally.
