On Jun 18, 5:01*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
wrote:

Who said it was anything to do with personalities??
As a person Ken comes across fine,

It's been said that everyone likes him until they know him. AFAIK he is the
only person in public life whose repeated drunken abuse led to him being
boycotted by so many of London's 20000+ taxi drivers that he ended up
completely incapable of successfully booking one. (This happened before he
became mayor and gained control of them.) No rock star or catwalk model has
achieved that.

Yup, I'm sure it had *everything* to do with his drunken abuse, and
*nothing* to do with the fact that he was always an outspoken
supporter of public transport and liberal values (neither, IMX, things
that a randomly selected London cabbie will be fond of).

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

Tom Barry wrote:

Abe Lincoln was well known to have freed the slaves

Lincoln did not free any slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation is full of
exceptions that basically boil down to "all slaves in the Union are free
except those in the part of the Union we control" - i.e. no-one was freed.
The last slaves to be eventually freed were in Union states.

On Jun 18, 4:37*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:58:20 +0100

Tony Polson wrote:

wrote:

Speaking for myself and a few other people I know who voted for Boris, it
wasn't so much a case of voting for him , more a case of voting against Ken.

How sad that people should put personalities before policies, and elect

Who said it was anything to do with personalities?? As a person Ken comes
across fine, its his moronic politics I can't stand. Chavez and Lee Jasper
were the final straw for me.


Like a Heat magazine journalist, leaving aside the politics and being
superficial by looking at the public personalities, Ken always amused
me with his direct approach and abrasive humour, whereas Boris' desire
to be liked and his court jester act just comes across as a bit
trying.

A blunt speaking friend's take meanwhile was something like 'blimey,
Ken Livingstone was a complete dickhead, but look at this Boris
character, what an utter **** he is'. He is the antithesis of a
political animal, but it amused me nonetheless - not quite the
chattering classes verdict, more the swearing classes (arses?) verdict.

John B wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:01 pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
wrote:

Who said it was anything to do with personalities??
As a person Ken comes across fine,

It's been said that everyone likes him until they know him. AFAIK he
is the only person in public life whose repeated drunken abuse led
to him being boycotted by so many of London's 20000+ taxi drivers
that he ended up completely incapable of successfully booking one.
(This happened before he became mayor and gained control of them.)
No rock star or catwalk model has achieved that.

Yup, I'm sure it had *everything* to do with his drunken abuse, and
*nothing* to do with the fact that he was always an outspoken
supporter of public transport and liberal values (neither, IMX, things
that a randomly selected London cabbie will be fond of).

So you are seriously suggesting that the entire taxi workforce of a city
would boycott some irrelevant backbench MP just because he supported public
transport. Crazy.

IIRC Livingstone was also at one point the only MP who wasn't allocated an
office in parliament... maybe you'll tell us that his own party whips'
unique hatred for him stems from his support for public transport too. His
own party leader Neil Kinnock said, "Everyone likes Ken, except those who
know him".

Tony Polson wrote in
:

This is a government that makes a virtue out of doing nothing

No, the Tories are the "do nothing" party. Gordon says it; it must be true.

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

On Jun 19, 10:12*am, 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.

Again, I'm not seeing "met a ****" as a particularly important
criterion for judging a politician.

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

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
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 yo=
u
how about Ken welcoming that piece of scum al-Qaradawi as an "honoured gu=
est"
a few years back? Whatever planet Livingstone lives on its not the same a=
s
most of the rest of us in this country, left or right wing.

Again, I'm not seeing "met a ****" as a particularly important
criterion for judging a politician.

Why do I get the feeling you put your blinkers on when discussing left wing
politicians? If a tory had invited Joerg Haider or Le-Pen over for a nice
little tete-a-tete you'd probably be the first to bang your drum about it
and start foaming at the mouth on your blog. Yet livingstone inviting a
known supported of terrorism over doesn't even seem to merit a shrug of
the shoulders.

If you don't think that appalling judgement on his part reflects on his
ability to do the job of politician which is all about making judgement
calls then you're obviously not quite so politically sharp as you like to
make out.

B2003

On Jun 19, 12:57*pm, wrote:
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 yo=
u
how about Ken welcoming that piece of scum al-Qaradawi as an "honoured gu=
est"
a few years back? Whatever planet Livingstone lives on its not the same a=
s
most of the rest of us in this country, left or right wing.

Again, I'm not seeing "met a ****" as a particularly important
criterion for judging a politician.

Why do I get the feeling you put your blinkers on when discussing left wing
politicians? If a tory had invited Joerg Haider or Le-Pen over for a nice
little tete-a-tete you'd probably be the first to bang your drum about it
and start foaming at the mouth on your blog. Yet livingstone inviting a
known supported of terrorism over doesn't even seem to merit a shrug of
the shoulders.

If you don't think that appalling judgement on his part reflects on his
ability to do the job of politician which is all about making judgement
calls then you're obviously not quite so politically sharp as you like to
make out.

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

That's why he was invited to the meeting in the first place: he's
someone who's by no stretch of the imagination a moderate, but is
nonetheless willing to speak out against Al Qaeda and its imitators.

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

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.

B2003