mikey mikey wrote:
Really, who in your view is better in UK politics at speaking for the causes he speaks for?
Who else is there?

Guevarista wrote:
Craig Murray

mikey mikey wrote: Ok I don't think 95% of people in the UK have heard of Craig Murray most in Dundee probably haven't either, i'd say you failed there but good try

Some might say what he did by naming an alleged victim of Assange's rape is worse than Galloway's "bad sexual etiquette" comments.

By asking who is "better in UK politics" you're just asking people to pick their favourite floating turd!

Guevarista wrote:
I had no doubt that you would say that, no matter what I said.
Guevarista wrote: Argumentum ad populum
Guevarista wrote:
Would that be the 5% that has heard of him?

Of course that accusation is a lie because both names were revealed long before this interview.

But how many of that of some people of thet 5% of the UK of the population that have heard of him knew that?

Not many if you have anything to do with it, obviously.

errm ...he said rape was ok and twitted a tweet calling people window lickers

He might be Scottish but there is a very good and valid reason he now has to live south

And he has the gall to call his poltical party 'RESPECT' when he clearly has no idea of what the word respect means.......

dawnbreak wrote:
As I said, George Galloway is more dangerous to a cause that he supports than anything else. Kinda like that poster who backs you up in an argument but then says something that you would rather not be associated with.

I wonder if some sock puppets are posting views that don't represent the person's views but rather take the opposite view and attempt to misrepresent it?

.

By theway George where did you get tan from............oh that will be on one your bianual holidays to cuba living it up with the castro's ...........doubt you were thinking about the palastines then were you.


You big TIT

dawnbreak wrote:
I wasn't necessarily talking about this place: more the strategy of some posters elsewhere in the past to sock up in order to exaggerate and misrepresent the opinion they feel they are unable to challenge openly and directly.

It's a strawman building underhand tactic that I have caught people at before: the tell-tail signs are arguments that resemble more what the wingnutters say their opposition is, rather than what it actually is.

Galloway is just that, in my opinion. He is just TOO convenient for the neo-cons, Tories and wingnuts.

A perfect example is Derek Hatton. Remember him Dawn?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Hatton

But i had a sock here for a few hours. But that is another story that I can PM you, if you like.

I had never heard the term neo-cons before that man (galloway) started saying it

mikey mikey wrote:
Exactly yep, and as oi said, favourite turd.

Here's a nice vid of Galloway.



He's an authoritarian just the same as the rest. A turd is a turd.

dawnbreak wrote:
It means neo-conservative
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

George W. Bush --President of the United States 2001-9; numerous neocon advisors[92][93]
Dick Cheney --Vice President 2001-9; numerous neocon advisors[94][95][96][97]
John McCain Republican Senator from Arizona; numerous neocon advisors
Colin Powell Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State
Donald Rumsfeld --Secretary of Defense; numerous neocon advisors[94][95][97]
Paul Wolfowitz -- State and Defense Department official
Scooter Libby --Chief-of-Staff to Cheney
Condoleezza Rice --Secretary of State
John R. Bolton --Ambassador to the United Nations
Irving Kristol --Publisher, journalist, columnist.
William Kristol --Founder and editor of The Weekly Standard, professor of political philosophy and American politics, political adviser
Robert Kagan --Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, Historian, founder of the Yale Political Monthly, adviser to Republican political campaigns.

Are a few.

FOX News sums them up really

mikey mikey wrote:
So your saying when Galloway talks about how wrong it was for NATO to kill a million people in Iraq that actually he really wanted those people to die?

RealAmerican wrote:
Well you may have misunderstood what I posted, or you may have deliberately misrepresented my the point I was making.

i.e strawman fallacy

If it is the latter, then ironically and despite yourself, you have iluustrated my point perfectly with such a fine example.

But I am going to accept the former as your intention and clarify my point further: Galloway is an opportunist and is making a career out of making outrageous remarks. The press need a "loony left big mouth" loose cannon in order to report politics as melodrama. This suits both of them: they get to turn a "dry" story as scandal while simultaneously clouding the issue andand misrepresenting the opposition to the military-industrial machine for their masters.
Whilst he gets press and attention guarenteeing his next appearance (and salary) whilst simultaneously gathering support amongst people skeptical of the government.