What delightful news for conservatives the world round. Sadly, the left in England has turned this once proud and free country into the first world's number one police state.
Posted at 2008-05-03 15:27:59 [PermaLink]How nice. London gets its very own Larry O'Brien.
[External Link]
Only O'Brien to my knowledge is not a raging homophobe and racist:
[External Link]
Congratters, conservatives! You landed one prize fish. "Watermelon smiles," eh? Yowza!
Looks and sounds like a okay kinda guy to me. The left wing elite's don't approve of them so you automatically agree ? I'd check to see if someone has spiked your kool-aid.
Cheers !
"Congratters, conservatives! You landed one prize fish. "Watermelon smiles," eh? Yowza!"
Well, it is the Guardian after all - and Red Ken is OK?
Somewhere Jeremy Clarkson is on a multi day celebration and Porsche shares likely just went up a tick.
Cheer up Dawg - here are both London's new mayor and Clarkson.
[External Link]
BTW - here are some of Ken's staunchest supporters:
"With nearly 1 million Muslim Londoners our leaders should have mobilised the Muslim vote to stop the rise to power of a Zionist Islamophobe. But they stood back and watched as Ken Livingstone, the most pro-Palestinian and pro-Muslim elected politician we’ve ever had, was hounded from power."
[External Link]
"Congratters, conservatives! You landed one prize fish. "Watermelon smiles," eh? Yowza!"
Oh FFS, read the quote in context, it was quite obviously used in a satirical context.
"Oh FFS, read the quote in context, it was quite obviously used in a satirical context."
Is this the new alibi when one of your own embarrasses you? Just yesterday at my place, when I posted about Mark Steyn's vicious attack on Obama's wife, I was told that he was merely being "satirical" too. (Maybe Bruce will be around to tell me it's "tangential" instead.) Some folks ought to check out what the word "satire" means.
Face up to it, folks, and be proud: your new hero is a racist nutter.
Dr Dawg:
Isn't it funny how "racist nutters" can turn into "a bit racist" cranks whose racism we can sever and ignore when we like what they say?
[External Link]
Shhh! People here *like* John Derbyshire, Peter. And his views on creationists are well-stated. Nevertheless, were he running for political office, I'd foreground his racism, no mistake.
Posted at 2008-05-04 07:07:57 [PermaLink]Dawg, it would really help your arguments if you'd stop quoting the Guardian. Especially its paranoid, ranting hard-left columnists.
"He is no more honest than any other philanderer before him. He has lied flagrantly, flamboyantly, to save his marriage, and given how little else he's prepared to do for it, one must conclude that he doesn't put a very great premium on telling the truth."
Funny how we never heard remarks like this from the left when good ol' Bill was in the White House, isn't it? It was all about his unwarranted persecution by that mean old Ken Starr. Now leftists are suddenly the new Puritans?
And I'm sorry, Dawg, but it's getting harder to take words such as "racist" or "homophobe" seriously after years of their persistent misuse by the left. Nowadays anyone who supports the millennia-old traditional understanding of marriage is a "homophobe", while anyone who criticizes Islamic extremism is a "racist" -- even though Islam isn't even a race.
You're going to have to come up with some new words, because those ones are plumb worn out.
Funny how even Dawg isn't attempting to defend Ken Livington, merely throw out blanket allegations of racism and homophobia.
And what the racism of a minor columnist like John Derbyshire (whose wife, paradoxically, is Chinese and children are biracial) has to do with this thread remains a mystery. It's just another of his tangents, I suppose.
"Is this the new alibi when one of your own embarrasses you?"
*Yawn*
The smear campaign began months ago and on Thursday was shown to have failed utterly.
If you want to keep digging a hole for yourself be my guest but the smears backfired badly for Livingstone.
I didn't bring up Derbyshire, Bruce. That was someone else's tangent.
If the usage of terms like "watermelon smiles" and stupid references to cannibalism don't make one racist, then I wonder what Ellie *would* call racist? No doubt she'd even explain away burning crosses, robes and pointy hoods.
Plenty of stuff around on Johnson's homophobia, too:
[External Link]
Why do so many conservatives want to have their cake and eat it too?
I call racism "racist". Dawg -- or would, if the term hadn't been worn to tatters by frivolous overuse.
'These include the suggestion that if gay marriage is acceptable so too should be a union between "three men and a dog".'
You saying there's something WRONG with zoophilia, Dawg? Don't you know that it's legal in many countries, and that leftist filmmakers have made "beautiful, lyrical" movies about it? [External Link]
I'd really hate to think you're some kind of intolerant zoophobe!
The Respect party of Galloway got more votes than the BNP yet no one is shocked at that, yet Respect is just as intolerant and extrmist as the BNP, having lived in East London, I can tell you that those who vote BNP are doing so in reaction to the dreadful attitude the Left has had towards the white working close over there, and the tolerance the mainstream media has towards the extremists in the Respect party.
Posted at 2008-05-04 13:41:55 [PermaLink]Livingstone was well know for befriending homophobic and racist religious extremists, of course they were Muslim clerics, so the left and the Guardian had no problem with that.
Posted at 2008-05-04 13:49:54 [PermaLink]Now that Dawg & Co. have informed us of how awfully homophobic and racist the new Mayor of London is, let's take a peek at the outgoing mayor, shall we? Here's an interesting piece from, of all places, a columnist at the Observer explaining why "Why Ken Livingstone is not fit for office." [External Link]
"Ken Livingstone began by travelling with the sickest sect of them all: the Workers' Revolutionary party... It took money from Saddam Hussein as he was preparing to gas 'impure' ethnic minorities. In London, WRP photographers spied on Iraqi democrats.
In return for supporting the Arab dictatorships, it embraced the fascist conspiracy theory. Its newspaper announced that Jews secretly controlled American foreign policy, the Labour party, Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, the BBC and bureaucracies as obscure as the Manpower Services Commission."
Lingston advisor Atma "Singh walked out when the supposedly left-wing leader made common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood, which carries all the standard prejudices about democracy, freedom of speech, women, Jews and homosexuals..."
Livingstone's "London Development Agency is described by insiders as the 'mayor's piggy bank'. It has thrown millions at companies that were then struck off or, in the case of 20 firms, weren't even registered at Companies House."
Bruce:
Lots here about the Healyites, most of it true, no doubt--not much about Livingstone, though, except the usual guilt-by-association McCarthyist smear job. In fact, this sentence stuck out:
"At Healy's funeral in 1990, he dismissed all the accusations of collaboration with Saddam and attacks on women as lies spread by MI5 agents who wanted to 'smash the organisation'."
If Livingstone were indeed some kind of fascist/Islamist/[insert démon du jour here], why was the thrust of his speech a defence of Healy against these charges instead of a cheerful embrace?
Dawg,
Why would Livingstone want to admit being a member of a group funded by a foreign power and headed by a rapist? He apparently didn't have a problem with it, as the facts were well-documented at the time, but he must have known it would not help him politically. Better to blame it on a conspiracy of MIS agents.
Or is it your contention that Healy didn't sexually abuse women and the WRP didn't take money from, and spy for, Saddam?
As for the alleged McCarthyism, there's nothing any more unscrupulous about pointing out that Livingstone was active in an odious group than there is in pointing out that Richard Barnbrook is a member of the BNP.
Bruce:
It just seems to me like you folks want it both ways. 1) You object to Ken for being too left-wing, but b) underneath it all, he's really a far-right wing Islamist-lover as well, and you don't like that either.
I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I don't hold a brief for Gerald Healy. Never have. But Livingstone is not Gerald Healy. And just about every accusation wrt Lvingsone in Cohen's sleazy red-baiting article you linked to is indirect. It's all about what his friends did, or are said to have done, or what his allies think, or are said to think.
In fact the quotation I provided is the most damning criticism of Livingstone, if indeed he was wishing away Healy's sexual behaviour as alleged.
Anyway, nice diversion. Now we have the watermelon smiles, piccanninnies and cannibals guy instead. Your cross to bear.
Oh I see Dr Dawg is still trying to pretend that the 'watermelon smiles' stuff is anything other than satire.
Here is the thing, this is the age of the internet, people can look up the original article and see that you are a liar. [External Link]
Unless of course you also believe that Johnson was also serious when he suggests that Tony Blair had narrowly averted World War 3.
No one doubts that his intent was hyperbolic. But the "watermelon smiles" reference was gratuitous, not satirical. I'll forbear from calling you a liar, though, Ross. You're simply illiterate.
Posted at 2008-05-04 17:11:27 [PermaLink]"But the "watermelon smiles" reference was gratuitous, not satirical."
At the start of the thread he was a 'raging racist' now he's down to making 'gratuitous' references. Soon the accusation is going to be reduced to 'insensitive remarks' isn't it?
This is the exact same pattern that occurred in London a few months ago. Initially Livingstone's smear merchants started throwing around the accusations of racism, with the out of context quotes. Once voters read the original articles and saw the quotes in context, they swiftly downgraded his supposed trangressions.
"Your cross to bear."
Not mine, I'm American.
Anyway, I find it interesting that you damn Boris Johnson for alleged racism and homophobia, and yet it is Ken Livingston who has pandered to the Muslim Brotherhood.
"It just seems to me like you folks want it both ways. 1) You object to Ken for being too left-wing, but b) underneath it all, he's really a far-right wing Islamist-lover as well, and you don't like that either."
Not at all, red-brown alliances are hardly anything new. It's an example of Blair's Law. [External Link]
Dr Dawg wrote: 'But the "watermelon smiles" reference was gratuitous, not satirical.'
Surely the two categories are not imperatively exclusive?
Mark
Ottawa
Ross makes my point about his illiteracy yet again. Perhaps he should at least look up the word "gratuitous" before venturing into public view.
Mark:
Something can be gratuitous but not satirical. Good grief, is there something in the drinking water over here?
I must be illiterate, because I had thought that illiterate meant unable to read but Dr Dawg appears to think it means beating him in an argument.
Posted at 2008-05-05 02:32:45 [PermaLink]You have to be more understanding, Dawg. The Brits haven't yet got speech-controlling kangaroo courts like ours. Until they do, people will keep on saying things you don't like. Awful, isn't it?
Posted at 2008-05-05 07:50:24 [PermaLink]I have no problem, Ellie-Mae, with people saying things I don't like, or I wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't tolerate it at my place. But I insist on a minimal standard of literacy/reading comprehension in exchanges. Poor Ross, for example, seems to think that the world "gratuitous" is a move backwards from "raging racist." Uh, no. And he's hell-bent on explaining away Boris Johnson's remarks by calling them "satirical," which they were not. (Sarcastic, yes. But he went a bit further than mere sarcasm.)
Posted at 2008-05-05 12:07:23 [PermaLink]"Poor Ross, for example, seems to think that the world "gratuitous" is a move backwards from "raging racist." Uh, no."
Uh, yes. 'Gratuitous' is a nice nebulous phrase that enabled you to still claim that there was something outrageous about Boris's article without actually repeating your earlier accusation.
Look face it, people can see the article for themselves so they can see that you either a barefaced liar or someone so utterly credulous that he was fooled by the Livingstone smear machine that everyone else had managed to see through last summer when these accusations first got made.
Ross:
"Gratuitous" means "unncecessarily overdone; over the top."
Reference:[External Link]
Next time do your own homework, or ask your parents to help you.
"But I insist on a minimal standard of literacy/reading comprehension in exchanges."
How elitist!
So illiterates aren't worth listening to?
They're half the world's population and mostly very poor, the prime consituency of The Left.
Yes, I can see why Livingstone would resonnate with you, Dawg.
It's the champagne, isn't it?
And the accompanying canapé of socialism absolving all the bubbly.
Dawg, I realise why you want to have a debate on something about which there is no dispute, the meaning of gratuitious, but anyone who is reading the thread can see that there is no dispute over that and that you are simply trying to shift the discussion away from your dishonesty.
This entry is drifting towards the bottom of the page therefore this will probably be my last post on the subject so I'll give you some advice. If you intend to misrepresent what someone has said don't choose something that can easily be looked up online. If you get caught out don't start digging yourself in deeper by telling more lies.
Ross, your capacity for self-delusion is evident, I think, to any sane reader of this thread. Anyone with the blithering stupidity to imagine that I have retreated in my opinion of Boris Johnson needs his afternoon milk and cookies. I think I hear your mother calling.
Posted at 2008-05-06 14:57:30 [PermaLink]