Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, nitram
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:38:30 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>,
    > ><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:18:31 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
    > >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:42:57 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:12:46 +0100, The Reids
    > >> >><[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>>Out of curiosity what sort of reaction is his appearance before a
    > >> >>>senate committee getting in US. Do people believe him and suspect
    > >> >>>smears against those who didn't like the war or do they generally
    > >> >>>believe the Senators?
    > >> >>>So far he has been portrayed on UK radio giving the Senators a
    > >> >>>drubbing but we didn't hear much of what they said, mind you,
    > >> >>>hard to get a word in with Gorgeous George!
    > >> >>
    > >> >>For those who missed it
    > >> >>http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8868.htm
    > >> >
    > >> >Superb reading. Let's see who I can forward it to.
    > >> >
    > >> >Jay? JBK? Rod? Gunner?
    > >> >--
    > >> >---
    > >> >DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
    > >> >---
    > >>
    > >> Don't bother. I can read.
    > >
    > >I don't think he can though or has a comprehension problem, as what is
    > >quoted there is ONLY his prepared "Opening Statement" not his response
    > >to direct questioning, under oath.
    > >
    > >Not understanding that, is very, very telling...
    >
    > The video includes the whole thing.

That is not the point, but I think you knew that.

jay
Thu May 19, 2005
mailto:[email protected]

Keith Anderson

On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:51:51 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:

    >
    >ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >> > Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >> > Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >> > one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >> > to highlight her ethnic origin
    >>
    >> More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied it.
    >> It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful libel
    >> litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    >> King.
    >I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    >the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    >some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    >troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    >lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    >Iraqis)? It certainly seems like code to me. The only highlight was when
    >he was visibly frightened when some whackos invaded a press conference
    >he was giving and almost went as far as issuing death threats against
    >him.

I think it's time the truth was told about Galloway, and I'm wondering
if this article was co-written by JBK and Figgers?

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/200...-galloway.html
    >But- I do agree with him on his position over the Iraq war- and thought
    >he gave an excellent performance.



Keith, Bristol, UK

DE-MUNG for email replies

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn And

Keith Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:51:51 +0100, [email protected]
    > (chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected] oups.com...
    > >> > Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    > >> > Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    > >> > one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    > >> > to highlight her ethnic origin
    > >>
    > >> More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied it.
    > >> It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful libel
    > >> litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    > >> King.
    > >
    > >I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    > >the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    > >some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    > >troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    > >lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    > >Iraqis)? It certainly seems like code to me. The only highlight was when
    > >he was visibly frightened when some whackos invaded a press conference
    > >he was giving and almost went as far as issuing death threats against
    > >him.
    >
    > I think it's time the truth was told about Galloway, and I'm wondering
    > if this article was co-written by JBK and Figgers?

    :)

I think the 'truth' on Galloway is probably complex. I'm not really
interested in speculating on the kind of unsubstantiated myths that US
senators are. I think that if he had received a lot of money, the paper
trail would be too apparent. I'm interested in what he actually _says_
though, and trying to analyse some of that. Goodness knows, he's pretty
prolific with his comments- there's a lot to go through!

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Charles Hawtrey

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
    > On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:04:05 GMT, Charles Hawtrey
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Depends on who you ask. People who were anti-Bush and anti-war to begin
    > >with thought he gave a great performance. Those in the other camp
    > >thought he was a loudmouth trying to bluster his way out of a sticky
    > >situation. I doubt anyone's mind was changed.
    >
    > I changed my mind about him.

As mentioned above, were you anti-Bush and anti-(Iraq) war to begin
with?

Nitram

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:28:54 +0100, Keith Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:51:51 +0100, [email protected]
    >(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
    >wrote:
    >>
    >>ALAN HARRISON <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected] oups.com...
    >>> > Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >>> > Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >>> > one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >>> > to highlight her ethnic origin
    >>>
    >>> More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied it.
    >>> It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful libel
    >>> litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    >>> King.
    >>I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    >>the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    >>some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    >>troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    >>lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    >>Iraqis)? It certainly seems like code to me. The only highlight was when
    >>he was visibly frightened when some whackos invaded a press conference
    >>he was giving and almost went as far as issuing death threats against
    >>him.
    >I think it's time the truth was told about Galloway, and I'm wondering
    >if this article was co-written by JBK and Figgers?
    >http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/200...-galloway.html

allegedly? :-)

jbk

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:38:30 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:18:31 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
    >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:42:57 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:12:46 +0100, The Reids
    >> >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>>Out of curiosity what sort of reaction is his appearance before a
    >> >>>senate committee getting in US. Do people believe him and suspect
    >> >>>smears against those who didn't like the war or do they generally
    >> >>>believe the Senators?
    >> >>>So far he has been portrayed on UK radio giving the Senators a
    >> >>>drubbing but we didn't hear much of what they said, mind you,
    >> >>>hard to get a word in with Gorgeous George!
    >> >>
    >> >>For those who missed it
    >> >>http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8868.htm
    >> >
    >> >Superb reading. Let's see who I can forward it to.
    >> >
    >> >Jay? JBK? Rod? Gunner?
    >> >--
    >> >---
    >> >DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
    >> >---
    >>
    >> Don't bother. I can read.
    >I don't think he can though or has a comprehension problem, as what is
    >quoted there is ONLY his prepared "Opening Statement" not his response
    >to direct questioning, under oath.
    >Not understanding that, is very, very telling...

Comprehension being your problem apparently, since the poster was
referring to the link to read. Which I did and it is quite obvious
what he was saying wasn't it?

jbk

On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:49:13 +0000 (UTC), BB
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:46:57 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
    >> It didn't make the major headlines on CNN's web site, so I guess
    >> their relative victory isn't enough for them to brag about. I saw it
    >> on BBC world news and he certainly let them have it.
    >There have been several news items that were strangely missing from U.S.
    >commercial news stations since the Bush administration took office, but do
    >show up on public broadcasting. Here is a 3-minute discussion on Galloway:
    >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...sourceCode=RSS

Right. The great Bush press suppression campaign strikes! What a
load of crap.

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:33:55 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:04:05 GMT, Charles Hawtrey
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>In article <[email protected]>, dontuse@fell-
    >>walker.co.uk says...
    >>> Out of curiosity what sort of reaction is his appearance before a
    >>> senate committee getting in US. Do people believe him and suspect
    >>> smears against those who didn't like the war or do they generally
    >>> believe the Senators?
    >>Depends on who you ask. People who were anti-Bush and anti-war to begin
    >>with thought he gave a great performance. Those in the other camp
    >>thought he was a loudmouth trying to bluster his way out of a sticky
    >>situation. I doubt anyone's mind was changed.
    >I changed my mind about him.

Big surprise since you're anti-Bush and anti-war isn't it? Just like
the man said.

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:44:40 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Bonzo <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:07:51 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >>>>Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >>>>one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >>>>to highlight her ethnic origin to his largely Muslim and asian
    >>>>electorate. She is half Jewish, half Afro-caribbean. it seems he
    >>>>emphasised the jewishness of his oponent. Shame.
    >>>Like outright racists do you?
    >>Does anyone else understand what point jbk is trying to make??
    >Does jbk understand what point he is trying to make? Just asking.

Let me make it perfectly clear for the simpletons among you. This guy
moans about how Galloway used outright racist tactics to smear his
opponent to win the election BUT in the same sentence talks about how
he was a star in the Senate. Would you call Hitler the star of the
Reichstag given his views on Jews as well because he was a
spellbinding orator to the Germans?

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:37:45 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Bonzo
    >>>>Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >>>>Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >>>>one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >>>>to highlight her ethnic origin to his largely Muslim and asian
    >>>>electorate. She is half Jewish, half Afro-caribbean. it seems he
    >>>>emphasised the jewishness of his oponent. Shame.
    >>>Like outright racists do you?
    >>Does anyone else understand what point jbk is trying to make??
    >makes no sense to me, he couldn't have read the post properly.


Sure did. And there's lots in his statement to fault, btw, starting
with all his one sided rantings about Iraq, etc. But, of course, not
to the left who skim right over all of this because they agree with
his blathering without ever presenting the positive side of what has
happened (as they always do because it undercuts their mindless little
prejudices) and say, gee, didn't he give a cute little speech about
not having been questoned, beforehand,etc. If the latter is right, as
I said, he would certainly have a case, but that hardly justifies his
other rantings which are irrelevant to the charges in any case. Miss
all that did you? And you're telling me I didn't read it properly?
It's all over everything he said.

Padraig Breathnach

[email protected] wrote:

    >On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:44:40 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Bonzo <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:07:51 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>>Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >>>>>Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >>>>>one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >>>>>to highlight her ethnic origin to his largely Muslim and asian
    >>>>>electorate. She is half Jewish, half Afro-caribbean. it seems he
    >>>>>emphasised the jewishness of his oponent. Shame.
    >>>>Like outright racists do you?
    >>>Does anyone else understand what point jbk is trying to make??
    >>Does jbk understand what point he is trying to make? Just asking.
    >Let me make it perfectly clear for the simpletons among you. This guy
    >moans about how Galloway used outright racist tactics to smear his
    >opponent to win the election BUT in the same sentence talks about how
    >he was a star in the Senate. Would you call Hitler the star of the
    >Reichstag given his views on Jews as well because he was a
    >spellbinding orator to the Germans?

Not the same sentence.

Let me make something clear for simpletons: a person can be wrong in
one thing, and right in another. Further, you don't have to like or
dislike a person in order to judge whether a particular behaviour was
good or bad.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

jbk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:14:47 +0000 (UTC), "ALAN HARRISON"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected] roups.com...
    >> Excellent - Hitchins is a prime shit.
    >> Gallowaywas a star in the senate and it's hard to fault his words. pity
    >> one of the methods he used to unseat Oona King in Bethnal and Bow was
    >> to highlight her ethnic origin
    >More accurately, Ms King ALLEGED that Mr Galloway did so, and he denied it.
    >It may also be worth noting that Mr Galloway is a famously successful libel
    >litigant, and that he has recovered damages from - among others - Ms Oona
    >King.
    >Alan Harrison

Apparently, everyone on earth accuses him of tons of things that he
always denies. Were these damages he got from her for her saying that
she was Jewish or for something else?

jbk

    >>I don't know if Galloway was directly responsible for the nastiness in
    >>the campaign or not, but it _was_ an exceedingly nasty campaign, and
    >>some of the things Galloway is on _record_ as saying didn't were
    >>troubling. I can't think of a good reason why he had to say "including a
    >>lot of women who had blacker faces than hers" (referring to murdered
    >>Iraqis)? It certainly seems like code to me. The only highlight was when
    >>he was visibly frightened when some whackos invaded a press conference
    >>he was giving and almost went as far as issuing death threats against
    >>him.
    >I think it's time the truth was told about Galloway, and I'm wondering
    >if this article was co-written by JBK and Figgers?
    >http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/200...-galloway.html
    >>But- I do agree with him on his position over the Iraq war- and thought
    >>he gave an excellent performance.

Why you think I give one shit about this moron is totally beyond me.
He is completely irrelevant to our politics and will be completely
forgotten by next week if not sooner. Though I do find the babblings
in this cite about as accurate as the ones Evleth and the coterie of
idiots post.

Nitram

On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:56:10 GMT, Charles Hawtrey
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    >says...
    >> On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:04:05 GMT, Charles Hawtrey
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Depends on who you ask. People who were anti-Bush and anti-war to begin
    >> >with thought he gave a great performance. Those in the other camp
    >> >thought he was a loudmouth trying to bluster his way out of a sticky
    >> >situation. I doubt anyone's mind was changed.
    >>
    >> I changed my mind about him.
    >As mentioned above, were you anti-Bush and anti-(Iraq) war to begin
    >with?

Depends when. Initially I was open minded about the war, until the WMD
dossier was presented and strongly biased against Gorgeous G. Like
most people I know, I foresaw the outcome of the war. W.r.t GG I now
believe he has been stitched up.

My feelings about GWB are about the same, as they have been about
every other US president, with the exception of Clinton.

Nitram

On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:54:20 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, nitram
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:38:30 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <[email protected]>,
    >> ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:18:31 GMT, Deep Foiled Malls
    >> >> <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:42:57 +0200, nitram <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >>On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:12:46 +0100, The Reids
    >> >> >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>>Out of curiosity what sort of reaction is his appearance before a
    >> >> >>>senate committee getting in US. Do people believe him and suspect
    >> >> >>>smears against those who didn't like the war or do they generally
    >> >> >>>believe the Senators?
    >> >> >>>So far he has been portrayed on UK radio giving the Senators a
    >> >> >>>drubbing but we didn't hear much of what they said, mind you,
    >> >> >>>hard to get a word in with Gorgeous George!
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>For those who missed it
    >> >> >>http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8868.htm
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Superb reading. Let's see who I can forward it to.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Jay? JBK? Rod? Gunner?
    >> >> >--
    >> >> >---
    >> >> >DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
    >> >> >---
    >> >>
    >> >> Don't bother. I can read.
    >> >
    >> >I don't think he can though or has a comprehension problem, as what is
    >> >quoted there is ONLY his prepared "Opening Statement" not his response
    >> >to direct questioning, under oath.
    >> >
    >> >Not understanding that, is very, very telling...
    >>
    >> The video includes the whole thing.
    >That is not the point, but I think you knew that.

I assumed you hadn't watched the video.

The video does contain "his response
to direct questioning, under oath".

So what's your point?