Should TV hosts debate guests or interview them ?


http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/vi...060806,00.html

Debate? He gave the poor girl a history lesson and she pretty much just quivered and changed the subject each time.

When your guest is a moron its unavoidable.

Why do you think he's a moron, other than you obviously disagree with him about this? (seriously, I don't want to get into it, I'm just curious if you always felt that way?)

I kind of liked it when he came over here and gave our govt a lesson on profiting from the oil for food program.

__________________

I've tried to ask knowledgeable, passionate people about what they think of the history of the region, using facts the same as that Galloway fellow did, and people have utterly failed to rebut with anything except "Hez are terrorists" and "both sides are at fault".

There's just NOTHING there, exactly the same as with this interviewer. She had absolutely nothing to say when her historical scope was challenged. And of course Galloway is right--it's subhuman levels of RETARDED to pitch this as nothing but an Israeli reaction to kidnapping when they are militarily occupying south Lebanon and torturing thousands. Laugh or cry, folks, laugh or cry?

Again, the pro-Israelis have NOTHING to say to the fact that they've done nothing but skewed the news and been armed by the U.S., or that they and not Hez are considered by MANY to be the dominant terorrists in the region.

Really, what would you expect the wounded fox to say in regards to the wounded porcupine?

I'm talking about people not personally involved, same as me, and intellectuals who I read up on. They've got no rebuttal. Same as the one you're giving--it has no history, and no justification for the encroachment, occupation and slaughter.

I don't expect any counter-history lessons in this thread, either.

Are liberals pro-Israel in the current dispute ?


I ask this honestly.


I assummed they were pro-Lebannon and I was going to start a thread entitled "The End of the Myth of the Liberal Media" seeing at how slanted the western media in regards to Isreal/Lebannon.

The average U.S. liberal right now is what I'd call a soft Zionist, unfortunately. Whose historical perspective ranges from "well, they shouldn't have kidnapped those soldiers! You can't expect Israel to do NOTHING in response, can you?!" to "they're both acting wrong. They should both stop. (But Israel aren't terrorists, Hezbollah are.)"

Media watchdog groups have found that most people aren't likely to even understand the nature of the conflict (e.g. that south Lebanon and the areas left to Palestinians in the Gaza are militarily occupied; that civilians are routinely kidnapped, brutalized or murdered; Palestinian water has been stolen; and that settlements built by Jews encroach on Palestinians ever further with each passing day) because, unlike the BBC, they don't use any relevant terminology. You saw that documentary, google, you were the one who posted that link. That whole "4% of all stories in the U.S. actually bothered to describe Israel as an occupying army in an occupied country" thing?

It's repulsive.

Oh yeah. And also all the Democrats in office are goosestepping along. The same way Clinton went along with everything imperialist. When push comes to shove, all the Dems will take the cash and sign NAFTA. It's the same with this.

You sound very Marxist to me, bunny gamer. Are you in any party/group?

What website is this? I didn't take the time to look at it thoroughly; my apologies.

They misspelled "Hezbollah." They spelled it with an "i." Really takes away from their credibility, to me.

Can you spell it both ways?

No, 'Hizbollah' is just a valid spelling, as in Hizb-ut-Tahir (party of liberation) etc.

Oh I agree. But you misunderstood my aim. Perhaps it was off. I was only commenting on how it's difficult for one person to justify the actions of a culture, especially when that culture has just been bombing the shit out of it's neighbour.

I'm not sure. No secret about the leftist position, but I'm not sure about the liberal side. They might be pro Israel, but are wishy-washy about the subject. I was that way to before 2000. After 2000 I became ultra pro Israel.

Well, the whole "liberal media" thing is a myth. I posted quotes from neo conservatives who admitted they made up the idea of liberal media. They did it to fire up their base. Its a rallying cry for the GOP to use that has no basis in reality.

Nope. Never read Marx, either. I've read a bunch of philosophy, but it's such a peevish experience for me. Just don't see the point. Some people I met the other day want me to join a Trotsky study group this Wednesday but I feel pretty certain I'll be annoyed out of my mind. I'm going anyway since I like being annoyed out of my mind.

I was radicalized by intense racism in my junior high school. I'm a pretty firm believer that everything's just really fucked up and wrong and we can change it. I wouldn't really say I'm pro-labor necessarily, just anti Big Corporate Bloodmoney Assholes.

I came across this text of Galloway versus the US Senate for those who might be interested. Check out his opening statement.

Galloway ........ 1

US Senate ..... no score.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8869.htm

Fucking brilliant. Thanks, google. I also like this quote, so blatantly and utterly true:

"The conclusion from the four-week-old war against Lebanon is that the US would have defended the Lebanese had Syria assaulted them, but Israel can create havoc in the country and destroy the nation with full backing from the US." —Duraid Al Baik, Foreign Editor of Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)

LOL!!!!!!