On 19 June, 10:12, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)

John B wrote:
You're still putting stuff which is utterly trivial and irrelevant
ahead of policies, whether the trivial thing is "is a drunken tit",

If getting cheap oil from a would-be dictator isn't a policy then I'd be
interested in your definition of the word. But if thats not enough for you
how about Ken welcoming that piece of scum al-Qaradawi as an "honoured guest"
a few years back? Whatever planet Livingstone lives on its not the same as
most of the rest of us in this country, left or right wing.

B2003

What are you on about? Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? This is the kind of dictator who
allows opponents who organised a military coup against him to continue
broadcasting criticism until their licence is due for renewal (and
they still whinge about being suppressed). Anywhere else on the
continent they'd have been executed for the attempted coup.

It's probably the most democratic country in South America, even if
not everything that goes on there is nice.

On Jun 19, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:

On 19 June, 10:12, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

You're still putting stuff which is utterly trivial and irrelevant
ahead of policies, whether the trivial thing is "is a drunken tit",

If getting cheap oil from a would-be dictator isn't a policy then I'd be
interested in your definition of the word. But if thats not enough for you
how about Ken welcoming that piece of scum al-Qaradawi as an "honoured guest"
a few years back? Whatever planet Livingstone lives on its not the same as
most of the rest of us in this country, left or right wing.

B2003

What are you on about? *Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? *This is the kind of dictator who
allows opponents who organised a military coup against him to continue
broadcasting criticism until their licence is due for renewal (and
they still whinge about being suppressed). *Anywhere else on the
continent they'd have been executed for the attempted coup.

It's probably the most democratic country in South America, even if
not everything that goes on there is nice.

Woah there! Now that's a rose tinted view.

On 19 June, 15:57, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 19, 3:37*pm, MIG wrote:





On 19 June, 10:12, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

You're still putting stuff which is utterly trivial and irrelevant
ahead of policies, whether the trivial thing is "is a drunken tit",

If getting cheap oil from a would-be dictator isn't a policy then I'd be
interested in your definition of the word. But if thats not enough for you
how about Ken welcoming that piece of scum al-Qaradawi as an "honoured guest"
a few years back? Whatever planet Livingstone lives on its not the same as
most of the rest of us in this country, left or right wing.

B2003

What are you on about? *Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? *This is the kind of dictator who
allows opponents who organised a military coup against him to continue
broadcasting criticism until their licence is due for renewal (and
they still whinge about being suppressed). *Anywhere else on the
continent they'd have been executed for the attempted coup.

It's probably the most democratic country in South America, even if
not everything that goes on there is nice.

Woah there! Now that's a rose tinted view.-

OK, the competition is pretty dire.

On Jun 19, 3:15*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:46:21 -0700 (PDT)

John B wrote:
Eh? Qaradawi has horrible social views [see also: the Pope] but he's a
strong *opponent* of terrorism.

Oh really? I guess your definition of terrorism doesn't include suicide
attacks against isreali civilians then because he's been quite happy to
condone those in the past.

someone who's by no stretch of the imagination a moderate, but is
nonetheless willing to speak out against Al Qaeda and its imitators.

And Stalin wasn't exactly fond of Hitler. Just because 1 evil person or group
hates another doesn't give the former any more moral high ground than the
latter.

So presumably you'd have voted Churchill out for meeting with Stalin?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

What are you on about? Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"?

Well obviously if he was in power by means other than democratic
election then he /would/ be a dictator! Obviously that isn't the
case, so perhaps "not-a-dictator" would be a more helpful description.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On 19 June, 16:49, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
What are you on about? *Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"?

Well obviously if he was in power by means other than democratic
election then he /would/ be a dictator! *Obviously that isn't the
case, so perhaps "not-a-dictator" would be a more helpful description.


True. Maybe any elected leader should be described as a "failed
dictator".

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
And Stalin wasn't exactly fond of Hitler. Just because 1 evil person or g=
roup
hates another doesn't give the former any more moral high ground than the
latter.

So presumably you'd have voted Churchill out for meeting with Stalin?

That was an expedient arrangement to prevent the annihilation of europe.
Churchill had little choice. Couple of slight differences - ken livingstone
wasn't a prime minister fighting a war, Qaradawi has no way of preventing
al quaeda doing anything and being a hypocrite its unlikely anyone on either
side would listen to him anyway so therefor the whole exercise was pointless
with livingstone yet again grandstanding with some fairly unpleasent people
just to get noticed.

Its good to see you're as biased as all the rest of the political polemicists.
I wonder if you'd be so sanguine about it if Boris invited a member of the
jewish national front over for a public debate. Somehow I think not.

B2003

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIG wrote:
What are you on about? Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? This is the kind of dictator who

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6277379.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...elections.html

Good enough for you?

B2003

On 19 June, 21:07, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
What are you on about? *Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? *This is the kind of dictator who

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...venezuela/3496...

Good enough for you?

B2003

Must be true then. I note that these opponents are still alive,
unlike the opponents of governments who share their views and have the
same kind of support from the USA.

On 19 June, 21:07, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:37:22 -0700 (PDT)

MIG wrote:
What are you on about? *Why do you describe a repeatedly-elected
president as a "would-be dictator"? *This is the kind of dictator who

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...venezuela/3496...

Good enough for you?

And I should have said, how does this story relate to the time when
Ken was meeting him?

(Not that I have any time for Ken, a cynical opportunist who decided
to abandon his politics to get the resources of New Labour behind his
campaign, only to lose next time round because of his association with
New Labour.