Things you DON'T like about George

nekokate · Post by **nekokate** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:22 pm

I thought it would be interesting to discuss things you don't like about George, or things you disagree with him on. My personal list would go like this:

The over-use of the phrase "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." etc: It irritates me and I don't think it's even a very effective analogy considering that there are plenty of things in this world that really aren't as they appear.

His seemingly zero-tolerance opinions on drinking and gambling: I love a drink and I love to play poker online. I'm responsible about it, though; I think George sometimes (perhaps deliberately) blurs the line between when something is done for fun and in moderation and when something is clearly an addiction, an illness, or starts to become out of control. I'm not an alcoholic or a problem gambler so I wouldn't want my right to enjoy those passtimes removed simply because some people abuse them. I am, however, against super-casinos and the deliberately addictive slot machines - but a civilised game of poker can't be compared to their cynical, subliminal manipulation.

Religion: I'm not a religious person and I don't believe there is an afterlife, so technically I would disagree with him on that, although of course I respect anyone with a faith and believe in the right to be free to practice any religion you choose, so this is a minor point.

His common retort to pro-war callers "are you going to collect your tin hat tomorrow?": I understand the point he is making, and the people he makes it to are often imbecilles, but I don't believe at all that you're only allowed an opinion on something if you are involved directly in it. For instance, if I was slagging off a band that I hated, it would irritate me if someone replied "well, can you play guitar any better?" because that would be completely arbitrary to my opinion of the band.

Finally, I guess I'd have to include general over-use, over-repetition of phrases:

"my great grandmother was the only etc etc... I think she got on the wrong boat..."
"two cheeks of the same backside" (I actually like that one, but he still says it too much)
"a shiver running along, looking for a spine..."
"the most inappropriate appointment since Caligula appointed his horse a proconsul of Rome" (at every mention of Margaret Beckett)

That's about it, I think

mickyv · Post by **mickyv** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:55 pm

Kate,

Re the "are you going to collect your tin hat tomorrow?" quote, I think that maybe you are confusing rather than missing the point here. Just like the decision to go to war is not comparable to normal politic decisions, such as putting up taxes, raising the age of consent, whetever to outlaw strikes or not, etc, so too is the decision to advocate what is basically the murder of other people, it is simple not comparable to whetever you can express an opinion about a particular band. The former in both cases places the ultimate responsibility of life or death on the decision makers or in the case at hand, on the pro-war advocates. Because of the serious consequences, both for those who will be killed, and for those who will do the killing, there is no graver responsibility, and should therefore never ever be taken lightly, and for most people unless you have a personal stake or risk or responsible, it is far too easy to become an armchair general advocating actions that although will mean the lives or deaths of others, in reality these considerations are tainted by having no person risk. A real case of “do as I say but not as I do”, which sums up almost all the pro-war armchair generals who like to indulge in macho self-righteousness by acting out their gung-ho military fantasies, but if they were forced to think about the cost to themselves of what they are calling for, they will have the realization that living is far more important than some self-righteous nonsense based on an immoral & illegal war, and they will then be able to relate their desire to live to the desire to live of the people who may die otherwise as a consequence of what they are calling for or supporting. Its no accident that many General & soldiers who have experience war, are the ones that are most anti-war.

I probably have made this far too complicated, so I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t make sense !

nekokate · Post by **nekokate** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:12 pm

You make an excellent point, mickyv, but I've already conceded that I agree with the quote in principle. It's just that in practice it seems to labour a little. It's very convenient in any argument to say that unless you have walked a mile in the shoes of the person or people you are talking about you don't deserve an opinion, but in practice that would disqualify most people from most arguments. I have a very strong opinion about the Iraq war, but if I was sent out there to fight, I would probably just curl up in the corner of the tank and wet my pants.

I'm not defending these moronic armchair generals who call George on his show, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't need to be a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan to have an opinion on Iraq or Afghanistan - infact, as George himself has said, so few of the young soldiers out there really know why they are there, who they are killing, for what reason, or anything about the history of the countries they are being commanded to burn. My point is that, while these pro-war people are misguided and wrong, it's a little redundant that he seems to immediately reach for the "tin hat" put down each time he speaks to them.

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:50 pm

Nice idea, Kate. Afterall, we're not all GG fanboys, are we?

I think his dismissivness of "conspiracy theories" is particularly close-minded. After all, there are conspiracies, aren't there? Before Iran Contra was brought out to the public eye, it was just a theory, and anyone raising it in the early 80's was probably similarly dismissed as a "nutter."

Granted, some are outlandish, but those with at least a grain of truth/fact deserve consideration. Plausible does not mean conclusive.

The only other phrase he uses a bit too often is "...after this." 'Course it makes identifying the commercials a tad easier.

Post by **faceless** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:51 pm

major.tom wrote:The only other phrase he uses a bit too often is "...after this." 'Course it makes identifying the commercials a tad easier.

I'm like pavlov's dog - waiting for that sound to jump to the pause button...

as far as things I don't like about Galloway I have to say that he is a bit liberal with insults referring to people's physicality which I'm not a fan of at all. In last night's show he mentioned Hazel Blears (sp?) being 4'10... so what?

Also, mocking Diane from Finchley - she's great!

behroze · Post by **behroze** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:24 pm

I agree with Kate on GG's views on religion (as I mentioned elsewhere in the forum).

Recently I got irritated by his refusal to admit that he just might be wrong on the issue of legalization of drugs.

Almost no one agreed with his stance, with good reason. Most of these people agree with GG on many, if not all, other issues. He kept ignoring or tried to diminish the argument that there is a huge demand for illicit drugs and people are finding ways to get the drugs they want. Demand drives supply. End of the story.

He is great man but sometime I want to grab him and shake him a bit.

harry perkins · Post by **harry perkins** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:31 pm

"Demand drives supply. End of the story."

A lot of George's supporters wouldn't believe that, even a lot of those who would legalise drugs.

Sheffman · Post by **Sheffman** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:21 pm

... I agree with a good proportion that he says, he takes most arguments in the correct direction, although I'm probably more left than he.
I thought he got a hammering on the drugs debate recently, dismissing the positive drug programmes going on in several European countries was wrong. Weaning addicts of the evil stuff slowly and with plenty of support works.
The God thing worries me a bit, but I can understand everyone needs their comfort blanket, ... especially as we get older.

Sheffman · Post by **Sheffman** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:44 pm

There was a classic moment on GG’s Friday (23rd Feb) show, the aforementioned Diane from Finchley (also known as Joan Of Arc) came on and said;

… “I’d be very surprised if there is a war on Iran, International wars all over the world came to an end four years ago when a group of 16,000 yogic flyers was established in India, we haven’t had international wars since then, we've had plenty of terrorism and that has to be dealt with by setting up groups in individual countries” … ???!!! … GG stopped her in her tracks and said … “do you know what Diane? You are simply barking, you are barking” … and moved quickly onwards.

til661 · Post by **til661** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:33 pm

As with some of the rest of you I disagree with his views on Religion and Drugs. I would also add that I don't like the way he refuses to admit problems with Castro and Chavez. A few weeks ago a nice sounding guy (lefty, well-informed etc) who said that when Galloway went to Venezuela he should ask Chavez and/or castro if they could improve their human rights record. George dealt with him pretty severly i think he called him a 5th columnist or something, which was unneccesary.

major.tom · Post by **major.tom** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:08 am

He can be dogmatic, this is true.

In my opinion, his derision of Diane's delusion about yogic flying having brought wars to an end was well deserved. I mean, go ahead and believe you're Joan of Arc, but don't try to tell me the reality we've all witnessed doesn't exist. Jeesh!

popinjay · Post by **popinjay** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:53 pm

I've caught him in a lie before. He said a month or two ago that the coalition troops were responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq. The caller corrected him by saying he was using a figure from 2004, then said something along the lines of this:

"The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition"

Source.

George accepted that fact. The next week, he repeated his mistake, and quoted the 2004 figure again, which said that coalition troops were responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq, instead of the most recent one. That's a bit too convenient for me to think it was a mistake.

There was another one when somebody corrected him about Britain having the 4th largest economy in the world, rather than being the 4th richest country, which he also repeated a week or so later. I don't think that one is really worth splitting hairs over.

Sheffman · Post by **Sheffman** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:26 pm

Popinjay wrote:I've caught him in a lie before. He said a month or two ago that the coalition troops were responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq. The caller corrected him by saying he was using a figure from 2004, then said something along the lines of this:

"The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition"

Source.

George accepted that fact. The next week, he repeated his mistake, and quoted the 2004 figure again, which said that coalition troops were responsible for most of the deaths in Iraq, instead of the most recent one. That's a bit too convenient for me to think it was a mistake.

There was another one when somebody corrected him about Britain having the 4th largest economy in the world, rather than being the 4th richest country, which he also repeated a week or so later. I don't think that one is really worth splitting hairs over.

... as you can see from our comments on GG, nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes and sometimes our passion for what we believe in and what we think is best for humanity can sully our judgement. I think GG does a great job in trying to educate folks who have gained their warped understanding of the world from a right wing media, which is very powerful (don't underestimate this)
I'm not sure how much GG appreciates how important his voice is to us on the left, most of us are desperate to see a better world and we are not going to see it with the likes of Bush and Bliar.
I just hope George doesn't think he can do it on his own, ... I'm sure he doesn't.

popinjay · Post by **popinjay** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:27 pm

Sheffman wrote:I just hope George doesn't think he can do it on his own, ... I'm sure he doesn't.

He has all of us behind him.

Mandy · Post by **Mandy** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:58 am

Agreed .. He has us all behind him ... otherwise we wouldn't be spending time on this forum.

Just as in any political party, there are discussions, and the leader might not agree with every supporter all the time (which would be impossible due to differences of views), but I am sure the above issues would be carefully considered by George (maybe even a personal reply to this forum .. though he is v. busy .. indeed, I do wonder how he fits it all in to 24 hours in a day).

George does the show standing up for hours on end .. so exhaustion and tiredness does come in. He naturally has to rely on memory a lot .. and he does a fantastic job.