George Galloway = Twat Page 3

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • Khanivor 8 Aug 2006 18:57:03 40,808 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    As do I. It's always some small minority that fucks things up for the majority.

    I do however, think that if the terror ggroups stopped the terror Israel would stop the bombimng and the grossest elements of the occupation. Saying that, the terror will probably not stop till Israel stops the bombings and the occupation. Terrible chicken and egg situation which is so often embrassingly simplified to all being Israel's fault.
  • Deleted user 8 August 2006 19:00:14
    Khanivor wrote:
    As do I. It's always some small minority that fucks things up for the majority.

    I do however, think that if the terror ggroups stopped the terror Israel would stop the bombimng and the grossest elements of the occupation. Saying that, the terror will probably not stop till Israel stops the bombings and the occupation. Terrible chicken and egg situation which is so often embrassingly simplified to all being Israel's fault.
    For what it's worth; I agree with this.
  • Khanivor 8 Aug 2006 19:16:43 40,808 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Hmm, if the US wanted to control the oil in the ME then surely it would be wiser to support countires that, er, actualy have some?

    Oh, maybe that's why they support and arm the largest Muslim nation in the region, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of smaller ones.

    I also happen to think that doing what can be done to control oil is a 'good thing'

    /does not like plowing fields with oxen or reading by candle light

    Anyway, OPEC controls the oil in the region and you'll notice a stark lack of Americans or Israelis in OPEC.
  • MetalDog 8 Aug 2006 19:23:33 23,697 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The oil /is/ going to run out, no matter how many people are killed over it. Slaughtering people for resources is fairly sickening. I'd rather read by candlelight.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Deleted user 8 August 2006 19:30:29
    Post deleted
  • kalel 8 Aug 2006 19:54:53 87,775 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ahab wrote:
    I'll be honest with you, this is my opinion: I think the US wants to control the oil in the middle east, that's actually a conscious and announced base of its foreign policy, and Israel is a good ally, but they do anything they can to fuck stuff up using anyone else, even against their allies. That's it, in a nutshell - they don't want democracy, which is why they like the least democratic countries ("New Europe"), they don't care about Human Rights or that kind of crap, only control over the oil. Simplistic, but I think it's mostly well supported :-)

    I think it's a few things, not just the oil, but I totally agree that Human Rights is right at the bottom of the list. If there was oil in Nepal I suspect their plight would be of more significance.
  • Khanivor 8 Aug 2006 20:07:49 40,808 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    The oil /is/ going to run out, no matter how many people are killed over it. Slaughtering people for resources is fairly sickening. I'd rather read by candlelight.

    Sure, the oil will run out but till it does let's use the stuff. Hopefuly to power computers and communications and factories and transport which will allow us to create alternative sources of energy before it does all run out.

    I'm still not convinced about the controlling oil aspect of foreign policy. Maybe supporting regimes which are happy to sell us oil at a reasonable price but I fail to see any country in the ME where western governments have direct control over any resource. Where, for example, are the US government drilling and pumping facilities in Iraq, or anywhere else?

    Over here in the US the biggest debate at the moment concerning oil is over decreasing the reliance on foreign oil by increasing the amount drilled from the US's own stocks and increasing the amount of alternative fuel use. Of which, when it comes to powering vehicles, there's a fuck load more of then in any European country, btw.

    No, if US foreign policy was all about kicking A-rab butt to steal their oil then the only people to benefit are the shareholders of oil companies, who are benefitting from the sky-high price of oil. Politicians sure aren't enjoying the result of, er, politicaly driven policy as the population is mighty pissed at high petrol prices and the negative impact high oil prices have on the economy as a whole.
  • Freek 8 Aug 2006 20:16:23 7,687 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's not direct control but they are a massive influence. That's what it's about, spreading democracy but in such a way that the governments installed are friendly to the US. Lets also not forget that the oil being traded is done so in Dollars, a huge boost to US economy.

    They way they are going about it is causing conflict and raising oil prices. But hey nobody said they were any good at it, just that they need it.

    Edited by Freek at 20:17:55 08-08-2006
  • Khanivor 8 Aug 2006 20:32:34 40,808 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well oil is traded in dollars because that is the closest thing to an international currency there is, not because of some US plot.

    Yes the conflict is raising oil proces but most of the recent increases in oil proce have little to do with the ME and more to do with rising demand from countries like China and India as well as concerns about supply from (and to) countires as diverse as the US itself (witness today's massive increase) and Nigeria.

    US = blood for oil is just way too simplistic, as is connecting Israeli violence in the Lebanon to Exxon's share price.

    A huge amount of the oil that is pumped from the ME is done by indigenous companies or European ones, in addition to an American presence. Many governments in the region are hostile to the US and have been so a lot longer then 2003.
  • Youthist 8 Aug 2006 20:40:53 10,018 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its still bothering me that this post has a classification of Gaming!

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • Mho7276501 8 Aug 2006 21:11:35 383 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Well oil is traded in dollars because that is the closest thing to an international currency there is, not because of some US plot.

    Yes but a lot of OPEC countries want to change to euros. Iraq did, erm, just before the war in fact. They arent doing that anymore. Iran is changing to euros also, may have done so already. Venezuela is very in favour of this also. This is a big deal to the american ecomony as has been stated before many times.
  • Freek 8 Aug 2006 21:33:36 7,687 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    They want to change to euros becuase they hate the US. How do you change that? By having a government that likes you.

    Seeing it as solely being about oil is simplistic, I agree, but it is a factor in the greater picture.
    Governments don't act out of the goodness of thier heart, there's interests to protect over there.
  • Latin 8 Aug 2006 22:37:45 3,699 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Well the thing is Israel is a state and is not on any international sanctyion list so is fully justified in purchasing weapons to stock its armed forces with.

    Hezbollah are not even supposed to be armed anymore as per a UN resolution (passed in connection with Israel pulling out of southern Lebanon) and Syria are not allowed to supply weapons to Hezbollah.

    Leave out the distastefullness and zealousness of Israeli action and there's no comparrison. OK, quite an admission, but Israel and Hezbollah are not comparable in terms of what they are and are not allowed to do.

    The western media, from what I can detect, are using up all the back on the Israeli sideo fht epicture and the white on the Lebanese. There's a bias here but it's not pointed in the direction of what Galloway and those here seem to think it is. Claiming such, in the face of the reality of the facts, suggests to me a more sinister reason for saying what is being said.

    If you're accusing me of anti semitism or whatever go ahead and say it, but i'm not and have never made any such remarks.

    It's amazing to me that you did not get my main point, probably not made clear enough, i.e. that this problem has not existed for the last four weeks only, it has been going on for decades. Only for the last few weeks have the media been less bias and in some cases maybe even taking the side of the Lebanese. But what about before this? What about every time we heard about problems in this area, it was almost always pro Israel, even when they were illegally occupying Lebanon. We have been told that Israel have been in the right for so long, but, look at the history of the situation objectively and without bias and maybe you will see a different situation.

    Your point about Hezbollah and UN resolutions is void, look at this link: http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm . Israel haven't listened to many of these and I don't think they particularly care as whenever a major decision is made, the US just veto it.

    To make it clear I am not supporting Hezbollah in everything they do i.e. bombing innocent civilians is unjustifiable, I am just trying to understand their situation and it seems to me that Israel are clearly the worse offenders (although two wrongs don't make a right). For example look at the demands that Israel made for a cease fire to happen; they are very unlikely to be met and involve such absurdities such as wanting to occupy more parts of southern Lebabanon.

    Sorry about the late reply, had to go for dinner.

    Note: I did not say anything anti semitic, or anti zionist or whatever the hell you guys are discussing, if you want to twist my words, go ahead, then you'll be the one with sinister motives.

  • Khanivor 8 Aug 2006 23:15:33 40,808 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I only bring up the point about Hezbollah and UN resolutions to try and inform peeps that it ain't all about the evil, UN-ignoring Israel. I know fine well that Israel are in breach of more UN resolutions then probably any other country on the planet and certainly any nation that is not a pariah regime. It's a mess and a situation that only helps to make the UN seem even less potent.

    Nor do I think the percieved bias against Arab deaths in relation to Israeli ones is something that has been reversed in the last few weeks as I don't beleive it is a bias that has been that strong at all. Sure, when the terrorists first started their shit all eyes were on the Israeli victims. But Israel has gotten a whole shedload of shit for its actions in the last few years and much of this is related to the disproportionailty in the number of dead on each side of the conflict. How many pictures of exploded Israeli chilldren do the rounds on the internet or feature on the cover of glossy news magazines?

    If there is a bias against Palestinian/Arab deaths then it may well have more to do with the sad fact there are so many more of them and hence the impact of the individual losses are weaker. I also think there's an element of access, as in it's easier for western news agencies to report from and about Israel then Gaza or suchlike. Again, the reasons for this are not very palatable but I don't think they amount to some grand, callous conspiracy by western media outlets to diminsh the deaths of non-Israeli victims, which is what twat-boy is getting at.

    And I'm not accusing anyone in particular of anti-semitism. Rather I am expressing dismay that the actions of Israel seem to be the victim of more one-sided recriminatory accusations and disgust then any other nation on the planet, including the USA. And I really don't think, taken as a whole, that's a coincidence. Just as I believe the subtext of the message delivered by Galloway in particular is that the reason there's a western bias against Arab deaths is because the dirty Jews own all the media and are trying to downplay the horror of their war as part of their global zionist conspiracy.

  • Mho7276501 9 Aug 2006 08:39:24 383 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    If Hezbollah had caused as many deaths of civilians as Isreal has, if they had killed all the those kids in one hit. If they had killed those 9 UN folk and leveled whole towns, would the situation be different? I think so. I think the whole thing would have been over by now, america would have made sure of it.

    Israel have got away with murder, kidnapping and oppression for so long they don't know how to stop. They may have given back part of the gazza strip but they still controlled all the natural resources for that area, still went in and arrested anyone at random. Still bombed whole roads to get 1 man in a car.
  • zErOb_cOOl 9 Aug 2006 09:01:13 3,237 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    boabg wrote:
    "George Galloway = Twat"

    Correct.
    I concur.
  • blueseagull 9 Aug 2006 09:45:04 43 posts
    Seen 6 years ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm no fan of his but that was a brill performance.

    And he's right in this instance.
  • Youthist 9 Aug 2006 09:46:40 10,018 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    He was funny in Big Brother

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • Ecanem 9 Aug 2006 09:53:03 5,035 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I've no idea who he is, but what he's saying is making sense to me..
  • Youthist 9 Aug 2006 15:01:41 10,018 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Waheey! Someone changed the category! I will sleep well tonight.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • darkmorgado 9 Aug 2006 15:07:48 15,543 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    zErOb_cOOl wrote:
    boabg wrote:
    "George Galloway = Twat"

    Correct.
    I concur.

    I am in agreement.

    The only thing i want to hear coming from his mouth is the rasping wheeze of his agonizing last breath.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • chacha 9 Aug 2006 15:32:03 249 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro
    Re-denominating Iraqi oil in U. S. dollars, instead of the euro
    by Sohan Sharma, Sue Tracy, & Surinder Kumar
    Z magazine, February 2004


    What prompted the U.S. attack on Iraq, a country under sanctions for 12 years (1991-2003), struggling to obtain clean water and basic medicines? A little discussed factor responsible for the invasion was the desire to preserve "dollar imperialism" as this hegemony began to be challenged by the euro.
    After World War II, most of Europe and Japan lay economically prostrate, their industries in shambles and production, in general, at a minimum level. The U.S. was the only major power to escape the destruction of war, its industries thriving with a high level of productivity. In addition, prior to and during WWII, due to extreme political and economic upheaval, a considerable amount of gold from European countries was transferred to the U.S. Thus, after WWII the U.S. had accumulated 80 percent of the world's gold and 40 percent of the world's production. At the founding of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944-45, U.S. predominance was absolute. A fixed exchange currency was established based on gold, the gold-dollar standard, wherein the value of the dollar was pegged to the price of gold-U.S. $35 per ounce of gold. Because gold was combined with U.S. bank notes, the dollar note and gold became equivalent, which then became the international reserve currency.
    Initially, the U.S. had $30 billion in gold reserves. But the United States spent more than $500 billion on the Vietnam War alone, from 1967-1972. During these years, the U.S. had over 110 military bases across the globe, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These expenses were paid in paper dollars and the total number given out far exceeded the gold reserve of the U.S treasury. By then (1971-72), the U.S. Treasury was running out of gold and had only $10 billion in gold left. On August 17, 1971, Nixon suspended the U.S. dollar conversion into gold. Thus, the dollar was "floated" in the international monetary market.
    Also in the early 1970s, U.S. oil production peaked and its energy resources began to deplete. Its own oil production could not keep pace with growing home consumption. Since then, U.S. demand for oil continually increased, and by 2002-2003 the U.S. imported approximately 60 percent of its oil-OPEC (primarily Saudi Arabia) being the main exporter. The U.S. sought to protect its dollar strength and hegemony by ensuring that Saudi Arabia price its oil only in dollars. To achieve this, the U.S. made a deal, some say a secret one, that it would protect the Saudi regime in exchange for their selling oil only in dollars.
    Throughout the late 1950s and 1960s the Arab world was in ferment over an emerging Nasser brand of Arab nationalism and the Saudi monarchy began to fear for its own stability. In Iraq, the revolutionary officers corps had taken power with a socialist program. In Libya, military officers with an Islamic socialist ideology took power in 1969 and closed the U.S. Wheelus Air base; in 1971, Libya nationalized the holdings of British Petroleum. There were proposals for uniting several Arab states-Syria, Egypt, and Libya. During 1963-1967, a civil war developed in Yemen between Republicans (anti-monarchy) and Royalist forces along almost the entire southern border of Saudi Arabia. Egyptian forces entered Yemen in support of republican forces, while the Saudis supported the royalist forces to shield its own monarchy. Eventually, the Saudi government-a medieval, Islamic fundamentalist, dynastic monarchy with absolute power-survived the nationalistic upheavals.
    Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer with the largest known oil reserves, is the leader of OPEC. It is the only member of the OPEC cartel that does not have an allotted production quota. It is the "swing producer," i.e., it can increase or decrease oil production to bring oil draught or glut in the world market. This enables it more or less to determine prices.
    Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars.
    Fiat money or currency (usually paper money) is a type of currency whose only value is that a government made a "fiat" (decree) that the money is a legal method of exchange. Unlike commodity money, or representative money, it is not based in any other commodity such as gold or silver and is not covered by a special reserve. Fiat money is a promise to pay by the usurer and does not necessarily have any intrinsic value. Its value lies in the issuer's financial means and creditworthiness.
    Such fiat dollars are invested or deposited in U.S. banks or the U.S. Treasury by most non-oil producing, underdeveloped countries to protect their currencies and generate oil credit. Today foreigners hold 48 percent of the U.S. Treasury bond market and own 24 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market and 20 percent of all U.S. corporations. In total, foreigners hold $8 trillion of U.S. assets. Nevertheless, the foreign deposited dollars strengthen the U.S. dollar and give the United States enormous power to manipulate the world economy, set rules, and prevail in the international market.
    Thus, the U. S. effectively controls the world oil-market as the dollar has become the "fiat" international trading currency. Today U.S. currency accounts for approximately two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all the world exports are denominated in dollars and U.S. currency accounts for about two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. The fact that billions of dollars worth of oil is priced in dollars ensures the world domination of the dollar. It allows the U.S. to act as the world's central bank, printing currency acceptable everywhere. The dollar has become an oil-backed, not gold-backed, currency.
    If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance-dollar imperialism or hegemony-would be seriously challenged. More and more oil importing countries would acquire the euro as their "reserve," its value would increase, and a larger amount of trade would be transacted and denominated in euros. In such circumstances, the value of the dollar would most likely go down, some speculate between 20-40 percent.
    In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq's oil for food account at the UN was also in euros and Iraq later converted its $10 billion reserve fund at the UN to euros. Several other oil producing countries have also agreed to sell oil in euros-Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Indonesia, and Malaysia (soon to join this group). In July 2003, China announced that it would switch part of its dollar reserves into the world's emerging "reserve currency" (the euro).
    On January 1, 1999, when 11 European countries formed a monetary union around this currency, Britain and Norway, the major oil producers, were absent. As the U.S. economy began to slow down during mid-2000, Western stock markets began to yield lower dividends. Investors from Gulf Cooperation Council nations lost over $800 million in the stock plunge. As investors sold U.S. assets and reinvested in Europe, which seemed to be better shielded from a recession, the euro began to gain ground against the dollar .
    After September 11, 2001, Islamic financiers began to repatriate their dollar investments-amounting to billions of dollars-to Arab banks, as they were worried about the possible seizure of their assets under the USA PATRIOT Act. Also, they feared their accounts might be frozen on the suspicion that such accounts fund Islamic terrorists. Iranian sources stated that their banking colleagues felt particularly hassled as Washington heated up its war of words and threats of military intervention. This encouraged Tehran to abandon the dollar payment for oil sales and switch to the euro. Iran also moved the majority of its reserve fund to the euro. (Iran is the latest target of the U.S., which has interfered by stirring up opposition forces, and making covert threats.)
    OPEC member countries and the euro-zone have strong trade links, with more than 45 percent of total merchandize imports of OPEC member countries coming from the countries of the euro-zone, while OPEC members are the main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. The EU has a bigger share of global trade than the U.S. and, while the U.S. has a huge current account deficit, the EU has a more balanced external accounts position. The EU plans to enlarge in May 2004 with ten new members. It will have a population of 450 million; it will have an oil consuming-purchasing population 33 percent larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. In order to reduce currency risks, Europeans will pressure OPEC to trade oil in euros. Countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia-which export oil and natural gas to European countries and in turn import goods and services from them-will have an interest in reducing their currency risk and hence, pricing oil and gas in euros. Thus momentum is building toward at least the dual use of euro and dollar pricing.
    The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.
    The U.S. also wants to create a new oil cartel in the Middle East and Africa to replace OPEC. To this end the U.S. has been pressuring Nigeria to withdraw from OPEC and its strict production quotas by dangling the prospects of generous U.S. aid. Instead the U.S. seeks to promote a "U.S.-Nigeria Alignment," which would place Nigeria as the primary oil exporter to the U.S. Another move by the U.S. is to promote oil production in other African countries-Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Angola, from where the U.S. imports a significant amount of oil-so that the oil control of OPEC is loosened, if not broken. Furthermore, the U.S. is pressuring non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market control and challenge the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro.
    To break up OPEC and control the world's oil supply, it is also helpful to control Middle East and central Asiatic oil producing countries through which oil pipelines traverse. The first attack and occupation was of Afghanistan, October 2001, in itself a gas producing country, but primarily a country through which Central Asia and the Caspian Sea oil and gas will be shipped (piped) to energy-starved Pakistan and India. Afghanistan also provided an alternative to previously existing Russian pipelines. Simultaneously, the U.S. acquired military bases-19 of them-in the Central Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in the Caspian Basin, all of which are potential oil producers. After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. controlled the natural resources of these two countries and, once again, Iraq's oil began to be traded in U.S. dollars. The UN's oil for food production program was scrapped and the U.S. Iaunched its Iraqi Assistance Fund in U.S. dollars. In December 2003, the U.S. (Pentagon) announced that it had barred French, German, and Russian oil and other companies from bidding on Iraq's reconstruction.
    How would a shift to the euro affect underdeveloped countries, most of which are either non-oil producing or do not produce enough for their home consumption and development? These countries have to import oil. One of the advantages that may accrue to them is that they are likely to earn more euros than dollars since much of their trade is with the European countries. On the other hand, a shift to euro will pose a similar dilemma for them as dollars. They will have to pay for oil in euros, have enough euros deposited-invested in EU treasuries, and borrow euros if they do not have enough for their oil purchases. If, as is projected, the dollar and euro are in a price band (that is, prices will stay within an agreed upon range), they may not have much of a bargaining position.
    Oil for euros would be far more helpful if oil-importing underdeveloped countries could develop some form of barter arrangement for their goods to obtain oil from OPEC. Venezuela (Chavez) has presented a successful working model of this. Following Venezuela's lead, several underdeveloped countries began bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals, and commodities are now traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela's oil. President Chavez has linked 13 such barter deals on its oil; e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban doctors and paramedics who are setting up clinics in shanty towns and rural areas. Such arrangements help underdeveloped countries save their hard currencies, lessening indebtedness to international bankers, the World Bank, and IMF, so that money thus saved can be used for internal development.

    Sohan Sharma is a professor emeritus at California State University in Sacramento. Sue Tracy is a hazardous waste material scientist in Sacramento. Surinder Kumar is professor of economics In Rohtak, Inala.
  • kalel 26 Feb 2013 14:00:36 87,775 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    BUMP

    Bit of a mega bump, but my god he is being a twat at the moment.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mahmood-naji/george-galloway-israel-debate_b_2750167.html
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 26 Feb 2013 14:09:18 6,652 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I saw him on Question time a couple of weeks ago. Serious twat.
  • DFawkes 26 Feb 2013 14:13:26 22,987 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Wow. What a bellend. He basically trots off in a big huff and tries to blame this "deceitful" event organiser. I don't see why it'd be to his benefit to keep pushing the stance that he was misled. Just drop it and move on.

    Oh for goodness sake, I've caught my scrotum in my zip again - Margaret Thatcher, 1986

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 26 Feb 2013 14:23:06 6,652 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    All these two bit, Socialist when it suits them, men of the people do my head in tbh.

    Like Union Leaders, they justify their comparatively extravagant existence by presenting themselves as champions of a society that is too stupid to comprehend when they are being manipulated.
  • kalel 26 Feb 2013 14:26:24 87,775 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm fairly sure he realised he was up against a serious heavyweight debater that was going to utterly destroy him, and that was the best excuse he could come up with for running out.
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply