PDA

View Full Version : Questions, the answers on which lefties choke



Pages : [1] 2

Basil
13-06-2010, 07:54 PM
Politics is riddled with questions of double standards that lefties find very difficult to answer (with any degree of satisfaction). I've posed many on this forum - the respondents simply elect not to answer and/ or drift away.

I intend to compile the list here - for posterity.

First:
Abbott (in opposition) is presently being targeted for *insert favourite lefty attack here*. Chose from Abbott being women hating, gay averse or make one up! Are any of these accusations, regardless of their basis in fact as bad as Rudd, in his capacity as Prime Minister, asking


whether the rat-f***ing Chinese (referring to that country's government) intended on rat-f***ing us (the Australian people/ government)?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2010, 10:04 PM
Am I correct that Rudd's comment concerned Rudd's perception of the Chinese government and their approach to climate change negotiations and not the Chinese people as a whole?

Nonetheless I do think the dichotomy between the foulmouthed control freak Rudd now and then evident in internal dialogues and the moralistic everyman Rudd peddled out for interviews is worth noting and frankly if I had the choice I'd ditch the latter one and keep the former. Or better still, bring back Keating! :lol:

Ian Murray
13-06-2010, 11:17 PM
The actual quote is from Page 1 (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/ruddstar/show_comments) of the latest issue of Quarterly Essay, David Marr's 'Power Trip - The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd'.

CU's interpretation is misleading out of context

antichrist
14-06-2010, 12:07 AM
The actual quote is from Page 1 (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/ruddstar/show_comments) of the latest issue of Quarterly Essay, David Marr's 'Power Trip - The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd'.

CU's interpretation is misleading out of context

Hey Capt, I think you must do the honourable thing and resign - that is what happens when journalists get caught out doing such. Especially when you are adopting a holier than thou attitude and accusing leftards of having double standards. Change your handle again and have another go - best of luck in your next life. A bit of Byron Bay karma has decended on you.

Desmond
14-06-2010, 08:45 AM
Politics is riddled with questions of double standards that lefties find very difficult to answer (with any degree of satisfaction). I've posed many on this forum - the respondents simply elect not to answer and/ or drift away.

I intend to compile the list here - for posterity.

First:
Abbott (in opposition) is presently being targeted for *insert favourite lefty attack here*. Chose from Abbott being women hating, gay averse or make one up! Are any of these accusations, regardless of their basis in fact as bad as Rudd, in his capacity as Prime Minister, referring to the Chinese as Rat F8ckers?
Yes quite vulgar isn't it.

Basil
14-06-2010, 09:27 AM
Am I correct that Rudd's comment concerned Rudd's perception of the Chinese government and their approach to climate change negotiations and not the Chinese people as a whole?
Yes. Sloppy. I've fixed the original.


The actual quote is from Page 1 (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/ruddstar/show_comments) of the latest issue of Quarterly Essay, David Marr's 'Power Trip - The Political Journey of Kevin Rudd'.

CU's interpretation is misleading out of context
And with it firmly in context, are you able to answer the question originally posed?

Ian Murray
14-06-2010, 09:49 AM
Yes. Sloppy. I've fixed the original.

And with it firmly in context, are you able to answer the question originally posed?
The question doesn't really make sense. How do you compare a personal trait of Abbott with an outburst in anger by Rudd?

Basil
14-06-2010, 09:59 AM
The question doesn't really make sense. How do you compare a personal trait of Abbott with an outburst in anger by Rudd?
:lol: This is exactly the sort of prevarication and obfuscation I expected with this thread. First, the issue of context is raised as a blocker. Next the the wording is raised as a blocker. Coupled with AC's call for me to resign and CameronD's wish to have the thread buried in CL on the grounds of profanity!!, this has the makings of a classic thread already :lol:

Clearly Rudd is damned. Perhaps you can offer just your assessment of Rudd's 'RF' comment against something, that Abbott has said, on which you marked Abbott down? Or perhaps again just a simple and plain assessment of Rudd's comment without any comparison to anything Abbott has said will force you to confront the central issue - viz Rudd's monumental failings.

Ian Murray
14-06-2010, 10:28 AM
:lol: This is exactly the sort of prevarication and obfuscation I expected with this thread. First, the issue of context is raised. Now the issue of wording. Coupled with AC's call for me to resign and CameronD's wish to have the thread buried in CL on the grounds of profanity!!, this has the makings of a classic thread already :lol:

Clearly Rudd is damned. Perhaps you can offer just your assessment of Rudd's 'RF' comment against something, that Abbott has said, on which you marked Abbott down? Or perhaps again just a simple and plain assessment of Rudd's comment without any comparison to anything Abbott has said will force you to confront the central issue - viz Rudd's monumental failings.
The Quarterly Essay on Abbott has yet to be published, so we don't know yet what he has to say in private

I am disillusioned by Labor's backflip on emissions trading and boat people, but unconcerned by Rudd swearing in private

Spiny Norman
14-06-2010, 10:30 AM
The issue of whether on not Rudd is damned by his words can possibly be answered by asking this question:

Would Kevin Rudd have been prepared to offer his "rat f*ckers" observation during one of his church door-stop interviews?

Right from the very beginning, well before his election as PM, it was obvious to me that there was something very seriously wrong with Kevin Rudd. He was then, and is now, trying to be a chameleon. His inability to answer in the affirmative even basic questions about fundamental tenets of his supposed Christian faith had him pegged (in my mind) as a liar who would do/say anything to get himself elected.

Its the inconsistency of the man that deeply troubles me.

Basil
14-06-2010, 10:57 AM
I am disillusioned by Labor's backflip on emissions trading and boat people, but unconcerned by Rudd swearing in private
#1 It wasn't in private (as in his private life). It was in his PM's suit while on the world stage, but 'off the record'. There's a big difference.
#2 Regardless of whether it was midnight in jammies with Therese (which would be private), or as PM at Copenhagen (which it was), surely you would harangue Abbott for an off-the-record comment about lesbians (say when he thought the camera wasn't running)? Surely!? C'mon. Caaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrn! Convenient double standard! Carrrrn!!!! :lol:
#3 I acknowledge you as a real-deal lefty who had the coglioni to declare disquiet with previous back-flips. Some of your your soft lefty colleagues (you're certainly not one) couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge the shame. And for this, I genuinely respect your political POV.

Ian Murray
14-06-2010, 11:54 AM
#1 It wasn't in private (as in his private life). It was in his PM's suit while on the world stage, but 'off the record'. There's a big difference.
Private, as not in public. It wasn't formally off the record, or it couldn't be quoted by a journo

#2 Regardless of whether it was midnight in jammies with Therese (which would be private), or as PM at Copenhagen (which it was), surely you would harangue Abbott for an off-the-record comment about lesbians (say when he thought the camera wasn't running)? Surely!? C'mon. Caaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrn! Convenient double standard! Carrrrn!!!! :lol:
I would be concerned if I thought Rudd's comments reflected an anti-Chinese bias, but we know he's a long-standing Sinophile. I would be concerned if Abbott demonstrated an anti-lesbian bias, as I am concerned that a football coach voices a racial slur in 2010 Australia.

#3 I acknowledge you as a real-deal lefty who had the coglioni to declare disquiet with previous back-flips. Some of your your soft lefty colleagues (you're certainly not one) couldn't bring themselves to acknowledge the shame. And for this, I genuinely respect your political POV.
After 50-odd years it's hard to consider not voting Labor, but it could happen

Basil
14-06-2010, 12:07 PM
Private, as not in public. It wasn't formally off the record, or it couldn't be quoted by a journo
Whether it should have been quoted is a very good question, but sadly not covered here :lol: Fact is, he said it with his PM suit on.


I would be concerned if I thought Rudd's comments reflected an anti-Chinese bias, but we know he's a long-standing Sinophile.
As to whether he really is a Sinophile given that he's the biggest chameleon that ever walked, we can't know. All that we do know is that his pro-Chinese gesturing preceded his anti-Chinese uttering.


I would be concerned if Abbott demonstrated an anti-lesbian bias, as I am concerned that a football coach voices a racial slur in 2010 Australia.
But what if Abbott had previously 'cycled against homophobia' or the coach had initiated a 'play against racism' campaign? For the record, I have no earthly idea why Abbott is uncomfortable? with homosexuality (I'm assuming its religious); and I can't condone a coach's racial slur (although I'd have to hear the words and context to be sure) - but none of this has to do with lefties and their take on Chairman Rudd's uttering.


After 50-odd years it's hard to consider not voting Labor, but it could happen
Tease.

Ian Murray
14-06-2010, 01:49 PM
As to whether he really is a Sinophile given that he's the biggest chameleon that ever walked, we can't know. All that we do know is that his pro-Chinese gesturing preceded his anti-Chinese uttering.
He was pissed off because the Chinese delegation torpedoed any targets at Copenhagen - the outburst can hardly be interpreted as a new anti-Chinese policy.


But what if Abbott had previously 'cycled against homophobia' or the coach had initiated a 'play against racism' campaign? For the record, I have no earthly idea why Abbott is uncomfortable? with homosexuality (I'm assuming its religious); and I can't condone a coach's racial slur (although I'd have to hear the words and context to be sure) - but none of this has to do with lefties and their take on Chairman Rudd's uttering.
Your inference seems to be that Rudd has now done a volte-face and initiated some sort of foreign policy campaign against China. Too long a chalk for me - our relations with China remain pretty much unchanged since Copenhagen

The words and context have been published (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/inglis-racial-slur-is-unacceptable/story-e6frexv9-1225878945387)


Tease.
I'm serious! The Greens could pick up a vote in Brisbane

Basil
14-06-2010, 02:23 PM
I'm serious! The Greens could pick up a vote in Brisbane
and preferences?

Basil
14-06-2010, 02:26 PM
He was pissed off because the Chinese delegation torpedoed any targets at Copenhagen - the outburst can hardly be interpreted as a new anti-Chinese policy.
I think you've just rationalised the use of Chinese ar*e f*c*ers! Well done :D Now, what would lefties do when presented with the reverse from Abbott? They would hooowl and declare him unfit to govern. Caaarn. Give it up. You know they would.

Rincewind
14-06-2010, 08:24 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudd%27s_Mole_Rat

Ian Murray
14-06-2010, 10:00 PM
I think you've just rationalised the use of Chinese ar*e f*c*ers! Well done :D Now, what would lefties do when presented with the reverse from Abbott? They would hooowl and declare him unfit to govern. Caaarn. Give it up. You know they would.
I've already said I'm unconcerned about the colourful language. Nor I'll wager is the Australian majority - I don't expect a dip in the polls this week.

The loopy left might seize on a similar gaffe by the Mad Monk, as the rabid right will pounce on Rudd's. Nevertheless the Great Australian Apathy will remain undinted - most people don't really care.

antichrist
14-06-2010, 10:42 PM
What about Abbott? He thought he had fathered a child out of wedlock and what did he do? Not the right thing anyway. If it was not for Gough Whitlam's lefty policies that provided social welfare for unmarried mothers that kid would not have had a chance in life. He would probably have been illegally backyarded aborted - just to keep the religious right happy. No legal abortions and no social welfare. And her body would have been hacked and faced death or serious injury. The right's position is completely corrupted.

Other than that there is nothing wrong with Abbot and Gunnar.

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2010, 12:19 PM
What about Abbott? He thought he had fathered a child out of wedlock and what did he do? Not the right thing anyway. If it was not for Gough Whitlam's lefty policies that provided social welfare for unmarried mothers
Forget that and remember Sowell's wise words: forget about the lofty aims like "provided social welfare for unmarried mothers"; rather, consider what the policy actually rewarded and punished, because you'll get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. So when you pay women to have kids out of wedlock, then you'll get more unmarried mothers. It's hardly an accident that this is exactly what happened.

So back to KRudd the Chameleon: when will lefties learn? Do they really think that Australia will be helped by the greedy supertax on miners, when Chile, Canada and South Africa just love it (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ask_our_competitors_why_rudd_makes_them_smile/) for making their own countries better investment prospects.

TheJoker
15-06-2010, 04:34 PM
First:
Abbott (in opposition) is presently being targeted for... women hating, gay averse... Are any of these accusations... bad as Rudd, in his capacity as Prime Minister, asking


whether the rat-f***ing Chinese (referring to that country's government) intended on rat-f***ing us (the Australian people/ government)?

Answer: they are both as bad as each other.

Both will give some BS as to why that wasn't what they really meant. Abbott will continue to pretend not to be anti-gay, and Rudd will continue to pretend not to be a bad tempered foul mouth control freak/racist.

It wouldn't surprise me if Rudd is as ethnocentric as Abbott and Howard.

Ian Murray
15-06-2010, 04:55 PM
Do they really think that Australia will be helped by the greedy supertax on miners, when Chile, Canada and South Africa just love it (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ask_our_competitors_why_rudd_makes_them_smile/) for making their own countries better investment prospects.
Sure, let the overseas-owned mining giants gouge out our resources and ship the lot overseas, along with their profits. Why should we care what happens to our national assets. Look at Nauru, which allowed open slather with its natural resource (phosphate) until the cupboard was bare and the money gone. The country is now destitute.

Or look at Norway, which nationalised and self-developed its natural resource (oil). Norway now has one of the world's highest standards of living (the highest in several years).

www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/think-the-mining-tax-is-unfair-take-a-trip-to-nauru/20100519-vffp.html

Spiny Norman
15-06-2010, 05:25 PM
Our family comprises 4 individuals. I'd happily take my 4/22,000,000ths of the natural resources of Australia if our PM was serious about his statment that "these resources belong to the people of Australia".

Of course, that's just rhetoric. Legally they are owned by the states in which the resources are found. But I'd happily have my share and hand it over to BHP so that they can mine if, take their cut of the profit, and return me the rest. I certainly don't trust this government to spend my money wisely, so why should they have it? In fact, I'd rather the whole profit was kept by the miners and they used it to employ more of my fellow Aussies.

Ian Murray
15-06-2010, 06:14 PM
...I'd rather the whole profit was kept by the miners and they used it to employ more of my fellow Aussies.
When it suits them, of course. The miners shed 15% of their workforce during the GFC to protect profits. Fortunately other industries did not follow suit, or we would have had a recession

Lucena
15-06-2010, 07:45 PM
The issue of whether on not Rudd is damned by his words can possibly be answered by asking this question:

Would Kevin Rudd have been prepared to offer his "rat f*ckers" observation during one of his church door-stop interviews?

Right from the very beginning, well before his election as PM, it was obvious to me that there was something very seriously wrong with Kevin Rudd. He was then, and is now, trying to be a chameleon. His inability to answer in the affirmative even basic questions about fundamental tenets of his supposed Christian faith had him pegged (in my mind) as a liar who would do/say anything to get himself elected.

Its the inconsistency of the man that deeply troubles me.

Do you think Abbott's supposed Christian faith is any better?:eek:
Not to say Rudd is a paragon of virtue himself either.

Edit: This could raise some interesting questions on the interplay between politics and religion. How are we to determine what constitutes "genuine" Christian faith in a politician? I remember someone on here a while back saying US politicians regularly put on an act to charm the voters.

Rincewind
15-06-2010, 08:28 PM
Do you think Abbott's supposed Christian faith is any better?:eek:
Not to say Rudd is a paragon of virtue himself either.

Edit: This could raise some interesting questions on the interplay between politics and religion. How are we to determine what constitutes "genuine" Christian faith in a politician? I remember someone on here a while back saying US politicians regularly put on an act to charm the voters.

Three years, one month and 13 days. I hope we don't have to wait so long for your next post. ;) In other words, welcome back, Gareth.

Lucena
15-06-2010, 08:30 PM
Did you miss me? :D

Rincewind
15-06-2010, 08:33 PM
Did you miss me? :D

Well we didn't quite get to stage of producing "Have you seen garthbcharles?" milk cartoons. But we did discuss the idea. ;)

BTW 45 minutes. between the last two post so you are obviously hooked.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2010, 01:11 AM
Do you think Abbott's supposed Christian faith is any better?:eek:
Not to say Rudd is a paragon of virtue himself either.
I think Spiny's point was how much KRudd made of his alleged Christian faith to dupe gullible churchians. Howard and Abbott didn't.


Edit: This could raise some interesting questions on the interplay between politics and religion. How are we to determine what constitutes "genuine" Christian faith in a politician?
By their actions. I don't actually care much for what a polly claims to believe, but what he does.


I remember someone on here a while back saying US politicians regularly put on an act to charm the voters.
Probably KB, but he is right.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2010, 01:24 AM
Sure, let the overseas-owned mining giants gouge out our resources and ship the lot overseas, along with their profits.
And they pay royalties and employ Aussies. KRudd is just greedy, wanting their money to pay for more disastrous big-spending programs.


Why should we care what happens to our national assets.
They are not assets unless they are mined. A super-profits tax will discourage this. You won't get any assets if big mining corporations decide to mine elsewhere, which is precisely why Canada, South Africa and Chile are so delighted with the economic klutz KRudd's mad tax plan. But diehard leftards who have voted left for more years than I have been alive think only about redistributing wealth that appeared somehow, with no thoughts about how to generate it.


Look at Nauru, which allowed open slather with its natural resource (phosphate) until the cupboard was bare and the money gone. The country is now destitute.

[QUOTE=Ian Murray]Or look at Norway, which nationalised and self-developed its natural resource (oil). Norway now has one of the world's highest standards of living (the highest in several years).
www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/think-the-mining-tax-is-unfair-take-a-trip-to-nauru/20100519-vffp.html
Note that your article admits that now the oil has been partly privatized. Also, it's a somewhat simplistic attitude. Norway’s wealth: Not just oil (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1199) by Icelandic economics professor Thorvaldur Gylfason points out features of Norway's policies that are clearly different from KRudd's: in particular, the oil money is insulated from politicians, and mostly saved rather than spent.

Ian Murray
16-06-2010, 08:01 PM
And they pay royalties and employ Aussies. KRudd is just greedy, wanting their money to pay for more disastrous big-spending programs..
The earnings are earmarked for national infrastructure - 'disastrous big-spending programs' is simply biased speculation on your part


They are not assets unless they are mined. A super-profits tax will discourage this. You won't get any assets if big mining corporations decide to mine elsewhere.
They'll mine wherever there's a dollar to be made - Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela, deep under water, you name it. A politically stable country like Australia, with large easy-to-mine reserves and ready access to deep-water ports, is a bonanza. They're fighting to retain their super profits, but they're not leaving.


Note that your article [re Norway] admits that now the oil has been partly privatized .
After 30 years of full state ownership, Norway's Statoil went public, although a minimum of two-thirds ownership is required to remain in government hands. No other shareholding exceeds 5%, and ethical guidelines apply to corporate shareholders.

Also, it's a somewhat simplistic attitude. Norway’s wealth: Not just oil (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1199) by Icelandic economics professor Thorvaldur Gylfason points out features of Norway's policies that are clearly different from KRudd's: in particular, the oil money is insulated from politicians, and mostly saved rather than spent.
Nor do I claim that Australia relies solely on mineral exports. Most of Statoil's profits are held in overseas reserves, but only after payment of company tax at 28% plus petroleum tax at 50% plus GHG emission taxes. If our proposed Resource Super Profit Tax, ranging from an effective rate, including company tax, from 0 to a maximum of 53.6% on a profit margin (after tax deductions) of more than 50%,,is 'greedy' then the Norwegian rate of 78% is rapacious. But still Norwegians enjoy sometimes the best/sometimes one of the best living standards in the world

Igor_Goldenberg
16-06-2010, 09:17 PM
The earnings are earmarked for national infrastructure - 'disastrous big-spending programs' is simply biased speculation on your part

Earmarked is the key word. In reality they will be used for bribes (or never eventuating promises of bribes) and wasted as Labour government successfully did.


They'll mine wherever there's a dollar to be made - Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela, deep under water, you name it. A politically stable country like Australia, with large easy-to-mine reserves and ready access to deep-water ports, is a bonanza.
The political stability is an asset which this reckless tax is about to damage.
Indeed, Australia had a reputation of a country that shields business from cavalier attack of the government.
Not any more.

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2010, 09:22 PM
Edit: This could raise some interesting questions on the interplay between politics and religion. How are we to determine what constitutes "genuine" Christian faith in a politician? I remember someone on here a while back saying US politicians regularly put on an act to charm the voters.

Yes. Basically in the US you can't be a serious Presidential candidate unless you at least go through the motions of being a Christian of some kind (however odd a kind that is). Out of various candidate attributes (including gender, sexuality, race, denomination, marriage, divorce, age, adultery and so on) atheism continually shows up as the most consistent barrier to being elected US President; more than half of US voters say they would not vote for an atheist.

I find it really hard to tell how devout many Australian politicians really are. They are both under greater pressure to behave contrary to their professed faiths and greater scrutiny if they err than ordinary believers. Some (along the lines of Santamaria, Harradine, Nile, and even Andrews) are obviously the real deal and all the more tedious for it. With Abbott, it's hard to tell if he's a fraud or if he really is a genuine believer along the lines of the whole Catholic sin/repent dynamic in which you can still be somehow considered devout and in the fold even if you're not a very good or consistent specimen of the genre by your own admission.

I don't really care because a politician who espouses political religiosity (ie who attempts to use religion as an argument for a political precept, or advance policies influenced by it) is equally verminous to me whether that espousal is serious or fake.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-06-2010, 02:05 PM
I don't really care because a politician who espouses political religiosity (ie who attempts to use religion as an argument for a political precept, or advance policies influenced by it) is equally verminous to me whether that espousal is serious or fake.
Which Australian politicians, in your view, fall into this category?

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2010, 02:50 PM
Which Australian politicians, in your view, fall into this category?

The easy ones are the specifically Christian parties, so Fielding, Nile, Moyes etc. Within the Liberal Party, there are many. Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett is a particularly extreme example; also Andrews and Abetz, and Abbott on a part-time basis, but there are lots of them.

Within the Labor Party they are there but much more muted and difficult to spot. Conroy is certainly one, there are probably quite a few others.

Greens Senator Christine Milne would be a possible surprise inclusion in my list. Milne is a Catholic who supported retention of the words "Almighty God" in the constitutional preamble, and I believe her approach to environmental issues is informed by a certain mode of religiously based environmentalism. Note that when I say this I am not talking about it in the lazy sense in which people say that "environmentalism" generally is a "religion"; rather I am talking about the interpretation that protecting the environment is a moral obligation derived from God.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-06-2010, 08:43 PM
The easy ones are the specifically Christian parties, so Fielding, Nile, Moyes etc. Within the Liberal Party, there are many. Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett is a particularly extreme example; also Andrews and Abetz, and Abbott on a part-time basis, but there are lots of them.


Any particular policy they advocated based on religion?


Within the Labor Party they are there but much more muted and difficult to spot. Conroy is certainly one, there are probably quite a few others.


Did he try to justify Internet censorship by his religious views?
Where do the Rudd Sunday sermons fit?

Kevin Bonham
17-06-2010, 11:53 PM
Any particular policy they advocated based on religion?

Between them, too many to mention. :lol:


Did he try to justify Internet censorship by his religious views?

Not that I know of, but that is irrelevant. If a policy is influenced by religious views or movements then whether religious views are specifically advanced in favour of it is irrelevant.


Where do the Rudd Sunday sermons fit?

I haven't paid microscopic attention to their content but they seem to be an exercise in religious tokenism, ie Rudd engages in essentially non-religious political behaviour in a religious setting and thus tries to make it look like his rule is more religious than it is.

I do think Rudd has engaged in religious political behaviour now and then, for instance over Bill Henson.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2010, 11:02 AM
Not that I know of, but that is irrelevant. If a policy is influenced by religious views or movements then whether religious views are specifically advanced in favour of it is irrelevant.

How do you know then if the policy(i.e Conroy's internet filtering) is influenced by religious views?

Any policies of Liberal party influenced by religious views?

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2010, 04:10 AM
How do you know then if the policy(i.e Conroy's internet filtering) is influenced by religious views?

It is difficult to be absolutely certain but when the MHA in question is religious and is feeding off a family-values style hysteria usually connected with religion (which is not to say that each necessarily implies the other) then it's highly likely that policy carries religious influences. Especially given Conroy's persistence with it despite the evidence that it doesn't work.


Any policies of Liberal party influenced by religious views?

Changes to film classification standards made by the party in its previous term in government were one example. The standards implemented reflected the preferences of religious moralists rather than objective standards of harm or consent.

Abbott's actions as Health Minister re abortion in the previous term were also an example. I would expect such an approach to continue under whoever he appointed Health Minister if he was elected.

Gay marriage is another issue in which policies (of both parties) tend to be religiously driven. All these issues can be expressed in a secular manner but without religious support the conservative/reactionary position would not have anywhere near as much adherence.

Most of the issues on which political religiosity comes to the fore are not party-policy issues but conscience vote issues. On these the influence of religion on Coalition MPs appears stronger than on Labor MPs but is still strong on many of the latter.

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:55 PM
#2
Was Rudd a good Prime Minister?

Not whether he had communications issues. Not whether he could have done things better (they all could). Simply, 'Was Kevin Rudd a Good Prime Minister?' Ask a rightie about whether John Howard was a good PM and you'll get a 'yes'.

Desmond
28-06-2010, 09:12 AM
#2
Was Rudd a good Prime Minister?

Not whether he had communications issues. Not whether he could have done things better (they all could). Simply, 'Was Kevin Rudd a Good Prime Minister?' Ask a rightie about whether John Howard was a good PM and you'll get a 'yes'.Are two word answers OK? Second one being "house"

Basil
28-06-2010, 10:44 AM
Are two word answers OK? Second one being "house"
:D You don't qualify. I'm now convinced you're not a lefty (notwithstanding you may wish to vote that way).

Any lefties prepared to answer yes or no? :wall:

ER
28-06-2010, 11:06 AM
I don't like polls which categorise people! I don't like yes or no polls! I like multiple question polls! So the answer is

yes

BUT....

Julia is

THE BEST!

Lefty or Righty or whatever my involvement in politics will be analogous to that of Julia's. She stays I stay, she goes I go! I mean Natasha was O.K. but hey! give me a break Julia is a STAR!!!

Basil
28-06-2010, 12:50 PM
I don't like polls which categorise people! I don't like yes or no polls! I like multiple question polls! So the answer is

yes
But are you a lefty? I've seen you thugged into line on this board by a lefty head-kicker :uhoh: so you appear to qualify!

Anyone else? Calling all lefties. Not a difficult question. Come on down. Everyone plays. Everyone wins. Rules of the game are simple. Was Rudd a good PM? No choking on the answer.

Basil
28-06-2010, 12:51 PM
BUT....

Julia is

THE BEST!
Perhaps you should reserve judgement until she's been in teh job longer than a weekend :eek: :D

ER
28-06-2010, 02:17 PM
Perhaps you should reserve judgement until she's been in teh job longer than a weekend :eek: :D

oh my God Howie, a weekend with Julia is like eternity plus one day!!! I am still in cloud nine! :)

Igor_Goldenberg
28-06-2010, 02:52 PM
"Being exited by a politician"
Isn't it a perversion?

Desmond
28-06-2010, 02:53 PM
I don't like polls which categorise people!Oh, so you're one of those people.

ER
28-06-2010, 04:46 PM
"Being exited by a politician"
Isn't it a perversion?
nop, I know lots of ladies who 're getting exited by polies, so why not a man doing so? Besides I am not planning to be Ms Gillard's groupie (yet)! :P


Oh, so you're one of those people.
yep, one of the "don't know / don't care" category, not anymore now that Ms Gillard is leading us! :)

But are you a lefty?
Are you serious? describing a supporter of man worth more than $80m a "lefty"?

I've seen you thugged into line on this board by a lefty head-kicker so you appear to qualify!
Are u blaming me? You wouldn't like one of those types to ask you for a light in a dark alley around midinight! - escecially when you 're not a smoker anymore! ;)

Spiny Norman
28-06-2010, 05:49 PM
I am still in cloud nine! :)
If you're IN a cloud, perhaps your vision is blurred and you're unable to see things clearly? :owned: If you were ON cloud 9, on the other hand, you might have a good view of things.

ER
28-06-2010, 07:21 PM
If you're IN a cloud, perhaps your vision is blurred and you're unable to see things clearly? :owned: If you were ON cloud 9, on the other hand, you might have a good view of things.

hmmm, I can't read that clearly, larger fonts maybe??? :P :lol:

Basil
28-06-2010, 08:07 PM
Come on my confusled little sheep. Mish, you're on record as havin' some Kevin lovin'. Was he a good PM?

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 10:03 PM
With the hope of Gunner's permission:
#3 Rudd and Gillard (and Obama for that matter) oppose gay marriage. Are they homophobes?.

Goughfather
30-06-2010, 10:44 PM
With the hope of Gunner's permission:
#3 Rudd and Gillard (and Obama for that matter) oppose gay marriage. Are they homophobes?.

Is Gillard on the record as opposing gay marriage?

That aside, I suspect that the opposition of Rudd and Obama to gay marriage seems to be motivated in part by an attempt to shore up their "family values" credentials. It could very well be that their political position is at odds with their personal convictions on the subject, although I really wouldn't know either way. Even so, I find the idea that they would exploit the issue at the expense of the gay community for the sake of political expedience to be quite contemptible.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 10:49 PM
Is Gillard on the record as opposing gay marriage?
Gillard against gay marriage (http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-against-gay-marriage-20100630-zkcj.html)


That aside, I suspect that the opposition of Rudd and Obama to gay marriage seems to be motivated in part by an attempt to shore up their "family values" credentials. It could very well be that their political position is at odds with their personal convictions on the subject, although I really wouldn't know either way. Even so, I find the idea that they would exploit the issue at the expense of the gay community for the sake of political expedience to be quite contemptible.
Are they homophobes or not?

Ian Murray
30-06-2010, 10:56 PM
Is Gillard on the record as opposing gay marriage?
Yes - she was ambushed on talk-back radio today actually - http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/5572/Gillard-says-no-to-gay-marriage.htm


That aside, I suspect that the opposition of Rudd and Obama to gay marriage seems to be motivated in part by an attempt to shore up their "family values" credentials. It could very well be that their political position is at odds with their personal convictions on the subject, although I really wouldn't know either way.
The same can be said for 90% of the Senate - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1202552/Gay-marriage-bill-fails-in-Senate - and I daresay a similar or higher proportion of the Lower House

Goughfather
30-06-2010, 11:16 PM
Are they homophobes or not?

You righties like black and white answers, don't you? The world isn't that simple.

I don't know whether espousing a particular line for pragmatic reasons makes one homophobic - perhaps, perhaps not. What I do know is that leaving a group of people high and dry, whether it is refugees (maybe not so high or dry, I'm guessing), Muslims or homosexuals for the purpose of political gain is something that I find deeply troubling.

ER
30-06-2010, 11:19 PM
Why are people interested in typical politicians' opinion on such matters, when people know that politicians' opinion in such matters is based upon what people want to hear and not what they really believe?
Julia, of course, doesn't belong to a typical politician category! She is above and beyond that, so I 'll say what she says! :) :P

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Jak, the topic of the thread is:
"Question, the answers on which lefties choke".
And the reason they choke is quite simple - it shows their hypocrisy.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 12:21 AM
Jak, the topic of the thread is:
"Question, the answers on which lefties choke".
And the reason they choke is quite simple - it shows their hypocrisy.

No it doesn't. If those "conservative" (read: reactionary) pollies who are prone to be called homophobes limited their anti-gay statements to gay marriage it is very unlikely they would attract the label all that much in the first place, or even that the label would even exist.

But, for instance, we have the wannabe Prime Minister on record as saying that he probably feels threatened by homosexuality, and that it challenges "orthodox notions of the right order of things" (orthodox decades ago, maybe!) The funny thing there is that anti-gay activists have frequently and speciously called for the word "homophobia" to be used more tightly to refer only to those who are directly afraid of gays, as distinct from the far commoner usage: those who are prejudiced, hateful or politically illiberal towards them whether this results from fear or not. Yet, as weak as those failed attempts at pedantry are, here we have it direct from the horse's mouth that Tony Abbott pretty much actually fits that stronger definition they are calling for. :rolleyes:

The correct answer to:


#3 Rudd and Gillard (and Obama for that matter) oppose gay marriage. Are they homophobes?

Is most likely:

No, they're just a little bit gutless.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:06 AM
No, they're just a little bit gutless.
More like a lot dishonest.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 02:14 AM
Even so, I find the idea that they would exploit the issue at the expense of the gay community for the sake of political expedience to be quite contemptible.
Agreed.


You righties like black and white answers, don't you?
Of course. The Law of Excluded Middle still applies.


The world isn't that simple.

For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there are simple answers, they just are not easy ones. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.
— Ronald Reagan, the greatest US president since Cal Coolidge.


I don't know whether espousing a particular line for pragmatic reasons makes one homophobic — perhaps, perhaps not.
Yet when a “conservative” says something essentially identical against gay ‘marriage’ as these darlings of the left like Commissar Obamov, Chairman KRudd and Comrade Gillardova, Leftards are quick to squeal with that ridiculous word ‘homophobic’, the etymology of which is ‘fear of the same’.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 02:29 AM
More like a lot dishonest.

Perhaps that too. But that depends on exactly what each individual one says and what their reasons for not supporting it are.

For instance according to the link above Gillard said "We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples". Then when asked if that reflected her personal view, she said it did.

But what exactly does she mean by "appropriate" in this context? It could mean almost anything from optimal to pragmatically bearable, both as a political view and as a personal view about politics.

Also I haven't unpacked Rudd's form on the issue in detail but Rudd was genuinely and probably sincerely "socially conservative" on some issues. Unfortunately so in the case of his inane conformist-wowser comments about Bill Henson and other such episodes.

At least now that Gillard is in charge we no longer have a dreadful contest between the incumbent PM and his opposite to see who can out-wowser the other the most. (That's not to say Gillard is any kind of libertarian and indeed aspects of her take on feminism are a bit paternalistic - especially her comments about tattooing - but compared to Rudd it is a massive improvement.)

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2010, 02:42 AM
Yet when a “conservative” says something essentially identical against gay ‘marriage’ as these darlings of the left like Commissar Obamov, Chairman KRudd and Comrade Gillardova, Leftards are quick to squeal with that ridiculous word ‘homophobic’, the etymology of which is ‘fear of the same’.

Show me an example of a specific "conservative" being called "homophobic" for opposing gay marriage by a prominent activist or politician and I'll see whether (or not) I can find other form that shows it's not just for their gay marriage views.

As for "homophobic" meaning "fear of the same" if the view that a fair proportion of male homophobes have unresolved issues with their own sexuality is true then it might be more appropriate than you think. But I don't know whether there is any hard and fast research on the sexuality of homophobes.

Anyway, the term is now far too well established for strict etymological objections to have much chance of overcoming it, even if something like "homosexophobia" might have been better in the first place, and complaining too much about it just seems silly in a language that is awash with irregularities and exceptions.

The most important thing is the content and views that are being described as "homophobic" and whether they deserve some level of criticism for being unduly discriminatory, illiberal, unfactual or otherwise silly, or else whether the content and views are unworthy of criticism. And sometimes spurious claims of homophobia are made but for the most part there are still far too many people who care far too much about who other people have sex with but would not be so impressed if their own sex lives were the subjects of such interference and discrimination.

pax
01-07-2010, 02:47 AM
#2
Was Rudd a good Prime Minister?

No. That was kind of the whole point of the events of last week wasn't it?

I'm failing to see the point of this thread, to be totally honest.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-07-2010, 10:15 AM
No it doesn't. If those "conservative" (read: reactionary) pollies who are prone to be called homophobes limited their anti-gay statements to gay marriage it is very unlikely they would attract the label all that much in the first place, or even that the label would even exist.

Really? Who was trying to portrait me as a homophobic bigot couple of years ago?(and I am not even a politician).

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 12:11 PM
No. That was kind of the whole point of the events of last week wasn't it?
But when did you realise it? Less than a year ago, the Leftmedia thought KRudd was great (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_the_media_learn_from_rudd/), ruled the Rudd government, and would demolish the Coalition in a double dissolution if they didn't go along with his mad ETS.

I didn't notice many leftards agreeing when a few of us were calling him an even worse PM than Whitlam, but as it turned out, he didn't even last as long.

pax
01-07-2010, 12:26 PM
But when did you realise it? Less than a year ago, the Leftmedia thought KRudd was great (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_the_media_learn_from_rudd/), ruled the Rudd government, and would demolish the Coalition in a double dissolution if they didn't go along with his mad ETS.

I didn't notice many leftards agreeing when a few of us were calling him an even worse PM than Whitlam, but as it turned out, he didn't even last as long.

I've had a problem with Rudd for some time, but it came to a head when Abbott swung the coalition to the right, and Labor promptly followed suit. The cave in on the ETS was a huge blow, and IMO the principal reason for Labor's dive in the polls. I was also quite disgusted by the freeze on processing asylum applications from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan (that home of peace and prosperity).

It is also apparent that Rudd has been a poor manager of people. The public service loathed him, he had a tendency to lecture business (e.g on the RSPT), and was unable to cultivate support and loyalty even within his own party. He continued John Howard's very centralised approach to Government, which is very poor when Ministers find out policy at the same time as the media.

I don't know whether Gillard can do any better on policy in the short term, given that she was in Rudd's very small decision making group. She will definitely be a better manager, and a better communicator, and I hope she will do better on policy over time (hopefully through a more consultative approach with Labor Caucus).

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2010, 12:02 AM
Really? Who was trying to portrait me as a homophobic bigot couple of years ago?(and I am not even a politician).

If you think someone was portraying you as a homophobic bigot then quote where they were doing so instead of just making such a claim. Then (if someone even was doing so) we can look at the context.

Basil
02-07-2010, 12:16 AM
Was Rudd a good PM?
No.
Correct!


I'm failing to see the point of this thread, to be totally honest.
Well the first point is it's taken 65 posts to get a genuine lefty to spit that much out. It's one of the questions on which lefties choke!

pax
02-07-2010, 03:00 AM
Well the first point is it's taken 65 posts to get a genuine lefty to spit that much out. It's one of the questions on which lefties choke!

I seriously doubt that. Maybe the flag waving Kevin07 groupies are a bit disappointed, but most of the lefties I know thought he was pretty poor in the end.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-07-2010, 10:37 AM
If you think someone was portraying you as a homophobic bigot then quote where they were doing so instead of just making such a claim. Then (if someone even was doing so) we can look at the context.
Perhaps looking in the mirror will help you answering the question.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2010, 11:32 AM
Perhaps looking in the mirror will help you answering the question.

I searched for both "bigot" and "homophob*" using the search engine and did not find that I had directed either term at you during the gay marriage thread in late 2008, which is what I suspect you are referring to.

Thus, if you believe I portrayed you as a homophobic bigot you need to say what I said that amounts to such a portrayal and in what posts. We can then check whether your belief is justified and, if so, whether the surrounding posts provide evidence that your attitude towards gay issues goes further than just opposing gay marriage. For your claim above (#66) to be justified, the first needs to be true and the second needs to be false. No one is just going to take your say-so that it was like that and I'm not going to do your research for you.

Goughfather
02-07-2010, 11:51 AM
Perhaps looking in the mirror will help you answering the question.

Perhaps providing a source will help answer Kevin's question. Or not providing a source, as the case may be ...

Igor_Goldenberg
02-07-2010, 01:21 PM
I searched for both "bigot" and "homophob*" using the search engine and did not find that I had directed either term at you during the gay marriage thread in late 2008, which is what I suspect you are referring to.


It was related to discussion, but said in a different thread (and I don't remeber which one). The search of person's post does not go beyond 2000 posts, and you made more then that in the last two years.

Are you saying you directed those terms at someone else?

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2010, 10:03 PM
The search of person's post does not go beyond 2000 posts, and you made more then that in the last two years.

But I have not made 2000 posts that contain the words "bigot" or "homophobe".

Here's how to do it.

Click on the word "Search" (near top right) and up pops a box that says "Search Forums". Don't type anything, click on "Advanced Search". Up comes a box where you can type whatever words you are looking for under "Key Word(s)" and enter the name of the poster under "User Name".

So if you want to search specifically for "homophobic bigot" as used by me you will find that there are only three posts by me in which that phrase occurs. This is one of them and the other two are above. Until you accused me of using it, I have never used the expression "homophobic bigot" in a post on this board.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2010, 10:09 PM
Further to the above I have never used the word "bigot" to refer to another poster on this board in any post. I have accused two posters of being bigoted and displaying bigotry but that was in relation to their posting habits and abusiveness and nothing to do with their political views (indeed both were lefties, of a sort.) Neither are current posters.

ER
03-07-2010, 02:47 AM
I have noticed that in certain postings (particularly in Jono's contributions) there are attempts for Russification of names of politicians who for various reasons, rightly or wrongly, are classified as belonging to the left!

Prime example the President of the USA Mr Obama whose name is referred to as Obamov. A recent addition to that collection was that of our own PM Ms Gillard's name into a Russian version which I cannot really recall!

With all due respect to Dr Sarfati, why does that happen?
Are Russian (or Slavic) surnames synonymous with Communism and the Left in general?
I don't believe this type of onomatopoeia is relevant anymore since modern Russia and the Slavic world are as far apart from Communism as the West itself. It rather belongs to a Mccarthyism era or to some KKK circles of the deep South who still believe that Russians are the enemy!

But even if we accept that certain "cultural" connections of Communism and Eastern Europe still exist, I believe that many victims of the Iron Curtain politics would not like their surnames or the endings of their surnames to be associated with those representatives of oppressive ideologies and movements who forced them into a life of misery!

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2010, 03:13 AM
The popular Australian polling and politics blog Pollbludger bans "nicknaming" of politicians once a nickname becomes too familiar. A few sections of its moderation guidelines are worth mentioning here:


# Those wishing to vent hatred at public figures – for example, by comparing them in unpleasant terms to animals, insects or bodily waste, or (especially) by wishing death or injury upon them – are advised that there are plenty of radical websites out there which are better suited to such comments than this one.

# Further to the above, use of even light-hearted nicknames for politicians is discouraged. The following is a list of nicknames which have been banned outright, primarily due to overuse, which will be added to as future examples emerge: “Rodent”, “Krudd”, “Dudd”, “Oiliness”, “Talcum”.

I expect both "Dillard" and "Dullard" to be added to that list before too long, and perhaps ditto for "Mad Monk".

There are no plans to implement such things here but the tedium factor of repeated nicknaming of politicians is worth noting.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2010, 04:40 AM
I have noticed that in certain postings (particularly in Jono's contributions) there are attempts for Russification of names of politicians who for various reasons, rightly or wrongly, are classified as belonging to the left!

Prime example the President of the USA Mr Obama whose name is referred to as Obamov. A recent addition to that collection was that of our own PM Ms Gillard's name into a Russian version which I cannot really recall!
Gillardova, with the feminine ending. If I wanted to be pedantic, I would have called Obama "Obamin", since words ending in "a" or the soft sign become names ending in "in", e.g. Lenin from the Lena river, Stalin from Stal', but then the recent communist connection would have been missed.


With all due respect to Dr Sarfati, why does that happen?
Are Russian (or Slavic) surnames synonymous with Communism and the Left in general?
I'm old enough to remember Soviet communism, and visited the USSR. And I'm old enough to remember the downplaying of the evils of communism, which exceeded those of the Nazis, and "moral equivalence" nonsense in both the school textbooks and the media.


I don't believe this type of onomatopoeia
It is not onomatopoeia; this means a word that imitates the sound of what it signifies, such as "beep", "boom", "quack", "hiss", "miaow".


is relevant anymore since modern Russia and the Slavic world are as far apart from Communism as the West itself.
I'm not sure that communism has really disappeared, given that Putin was KGB and many in the former union think Stalin was a great leader.


It rather belongs to a Mccarthyism era
In itself, this term is the result of anti-anticommunism. McCarthy was mostly right about the Communist infiltration, as M. Stanton Evans documents in his Blacklisted by History (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23478). Indeed, the Venona transcripts of secretly monitored Soviet communications were released after the fall of the Soviet Union and reveal that McCarthy had understated the problem (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2539.html). But the lefty media and educracy think that anti-communism is a worse threat than communism, and whinge about "innocent lives" ruined by McCarthy although not proving one.

I suspect that the constant whinging about a McCarthy blacklist of the left is just projection. If you want a real blacklist, try genuine conservative republicans at American universities. I've noted before that three political science professors, Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, surveyed 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools, in their paper “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/)”, The Forum 3(1). They found that 72% of teachers describe themselves as liberal, but only 15% are conservative. Only 31% describe themselves as regular churchgoers (and that’s any sort of church).


or to some KKK circles of the deep South who still believe that Russians are the enemy!
The KKK was an organization of black-hating Democrats, so it wasn't against leftist economics.

As someone who has recently moved to the "deep south" (Georgia), I observe an essentially colour-blind society, where blacks and whites mix as customers, servers and managers. In one of the adjoining ex-confederate states (South Carolina), Republican primaries saw two white incumbents ousted in favour of an Asian Indian woman and a black man.


But even if we accept that certain "cultural" connections of Communism and Eastern Europe still exist, I believe that many victims of the Iron Curtain politics would not like their surnames or the endings of their surnames to be associated with those representatives of oppressive ideologies and movements who forced them into a life of misery!
I am well aware of victims of the Iron Curtain, for a long time ignored in the West. I mean, how could I miss Igor Goldenberg's strong defences of a libertarian viewpoint?

Kevin Bonham
03-07-2010, 09:23 AM
They found that 72% of teachers describe themselves as liberal, but only 15% are conservative.

Pretty sure I've pointed out before that this doesn't demonstrate any kind of blacklist or discrimination by itself, since certain vocations tend to attract people of certain political orientations more than others (additionally, the experience of working in a given vocation could also affect a person's politics). As you wrote about gender disparities in politics a few days ago, "disparity in numbers is hardly proof of discrimination."


Only 31% describe themselves as regular churchgoers (and that’s any sort of church).

What is the comparative statistic for the general community, if it is quoted? In Australia, 31% regularly attending church would be viewed as suspiciously high.

Ian Murray
03-07-2010, 12:38 PM
I have noticed that in certain postings (particularly in Jono's contributions) there are attempts for Russification of names of politicians who for various reasons, rightly or wrongly, are classified as belonging to the left!

Prime example the President of the USA Mr Obama whose name is referred to as Obamov. A recent addition to that collection was that of our own PM Ms Gillard's name into a Russian version which I cannot really recall!
Jono has a penchant for preferring derogatory nicknames and buzzwords over orthography (KRudd, feminazi). One wonders why he missed the obvious Coward in lieu of (John) Howard.

In any case the usage is wearisome rather than amusing

Goughfather
03-07-2010, 10:15 PM
In any case the usage is wearisome rather than amusing

Wearisome it might be, but I think we should give Jono a break. In the absence of coherent argument, what else is Jono to rely on if he is to make himself heard? Of course he could go down the road of gratuitous bodily functions a la Mr Duggan, but it's not exactly everyone's style.

Rather than adopting an attitude of annoyance and disdain, perhaps pity is the appropriate response.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 09:31 AM
#4 Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 10:28 AM
#4 Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

Here is the exact words from the initial statement made at the Lowy Institute judge for yourself:


In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing irregular entrants to the region.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 10:33 AM
Here is the exact words from the initial statement made at the Lowy Institute judge for yourself:


In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing irregular entrants to the region.
Thanks, I can judge for myself.
My question is to the leftist:
Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

It's not a loaded question, so I expect simple Yes or No.

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 10:47 AM
Thanks, I can judge for myself.
My question is to the leftist:
Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

It's not a loaded question, so I expect simple Yes or No.

If its a question to which you already know the answer (or at least you think you do) then it is certainly a loaded question, or at least a rhetorical one. :hand:

Of course she never said said she was definately going to send asylum seekers to East Timor for processing. She did say however, that was a preferred option, and was discussing the matter with East Timor. I know you had your share of comprehension problems in the past, but I think even you can understand the difference.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 11:19 AM
If its a question to which you already know the answer (or at least you think you do) then it is certainly a loaded question, or at least a rhetorical one. :hand:

Of course she never said said she was definately going to send asylum seekers to East Timor for processing. She did say however, that was a preferred option, and was discussing the matter with East Timor. I know you had your share of comprehension problems in the past, but I think even you can understand the difference.
OK, so we already have one lefty that chokes on the question..

FYI: Loaded question is the question that presupposed something that the person answering might not agree with. I assumed you know that, but you proved my assumption wrong:owned: :owned:

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 12:29 PM
OK, so we already have one lefty that chokes on the question..:

So providing the correct answer is choking to you, what an a joke.



FYI: Loaded question is the question that presupposed something that the person answering might not agree with. I assumed you know that, but you proved my assumption wrong:owned: :owned:

It might not fit the strict definition of a loaded question, but in my opinion it still is because the simple correct answer of "No", seems absurd without explanation, especially given recent media reports


BTW what's you judgement of the actual statement provided:

Did Gillard say she was definately going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

Try not to choke ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 01:42 PM
So providing the correct answer is choking to you, what an a joke.
Funny choice of words given the nick you are hiding behind.
BTW, you still did not answer the question.




It might not fit the strict definition of a loaded question, but in my opinion it still is because the simple correct answer of "No", seems absurd without explanation, especially given recent media reports

Are you unable to have your own opinion without regards to what media says?



BTW what's you judgement of the actual statement provided:

Did Gillard say she was definately going to send boat arrivals to East Timor?

Trying to slip in compound question?
The answer is no to the first, yes to the second. Explanation given your predisposition to logical fallacies:
She did not say "definitely", but she said she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor.

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 01:56 PM
BTW, you still did not answer the question..

Are you just playing stupid?




Are you unable to have your own opinion without regards to what media says?

Yes.


She did not say "definitely", but she said she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor.

Can you provide a quotation of the alleged remark?

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 02:04 PM
Trying to slip in compound question?

No. It is not a compound question.

If you want I'll rephrase it for you:

Did Julia Gillard make a definite statement that she was going to send asylum seekers to East Timor?

If so, please provide the source of the statement.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:09 PM
No. It is not a compound question.
First we established you don't know what is a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question), now it became evident you don't know what is compound question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_question)

OK, one lefty choked on the question, any other willing to answer simple (not compound, not loaded) question:

Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrival to East Timor? Choices are: Yes/No/Don't know/not sure

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 02:18 PM
First we established you don't know what is a loaded question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question), now it became evident you don't know what is compound question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_question)

I do know what a compound question is and that wasn't one. Ask someone else to judge that if you like.

Desmond
09-07-2010, 02:22 PM
She did not say "definitely", but she said she was going to send boat arrivals to East Timor.Source? Do you refer to the quote theJoker gave before?

Desmond
09-07-2010, 02:30 PM
Did Gillard say she was going to send boat arrival to East Timor? Choices are: Yes/No/Don't know/not sureI think the answer is "no, but she implied it" but since for some strange reason you want a 1 word answer, the answer is "no".

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:32 PM
Source? Do you refer to the quote theJoker gave before?
I refer to her speech at Lowy Institute (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/julia-gillards-speech-to-the-lowy-institute-on-labors-new-asylum-seeker-policy-for-australia/story-e6frgczf-1225888445622), that's how I (and, AFAIK, immigration minister Chris Evans) interpreted her speech. I don't expect everyone to agree, but would like to hear an answer from self-confessed lefties.

TheJoker
09-07-2010, 02:44 PM
I refer to her speech at Lowy Institute (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/julia-gillards-speech-to-the-lowy-institute-on-labors-new-asylum-seeker-policy-for-australia/story-e6frgczf-1225888445622), that's how I (and, AFAIK, immigration minister Chris Evans) interpreted her speech. I don't expect everyone to agree, but would like to hear an answer from self-confessed lefties.

Some serious back-tracking going on here:lol: First she said it, now she didn't "actually" say it, she just implied it.

And when someone provides a decent answer (far better than a simple yes or no):

"she never said she was definitely going to send asylum seekers to East Timor for processing. She did say however, that was a preferred option, and was discussing the matter with East Timor"

You call it choking:rolleyes:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:46 PM
Some serious back-tracking going on here:lol: First she said it, now she didn't "actually" say it, she just implied it.

And when someone provides a decent answer (far better than a simple yes or no):

"she never said she was definitely going to send asylum seekers to East Timor for processing. She did say however, that was a preferred option, and was discussing the matter with East Timor"

You call it choking:rolleyes:
Thanks, your take on the issue has been established already.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 02:46 PM
#5 is coming on Monday (unless Gunner objects). Plenty of time to answer #4.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2010, 02:48 PM
Igor, are you still choking on the question discussed a number of posts back about whether I called you a homophobic bigot or not? I even instructed you on how to use the search function so you can check for relevant terms more precisely. If you don't have any evidence or can't be bothered looking for any then a retraction of your claim would be appreciated. Thankyou. :lol:

As for the Gillard East Timor thing this is the exact quote:


Building on the work already underway through the Bali Process, today I announce that we will begin a new initiative. In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region.

The purpose would be to ensure that people smugglers have no product to sell. Arriving by boat would just be a ticket back to the regional processing centre.

It would be to ensure that everyone is subject to a consistent, fair, assessment processes.

It would be to ensure that arriving by boat does not give anybody an advantage in the likelihood that they would end up settling in Australia or other countries of the region.

It would, of course, have to be a properly run, properly auspiced, properly structured centre.

President Ramos Horta told me that he welcomed the conversation about this possibility and I look forward to further consultation and dialogue on developing this initiative into a proposal that would advance the proper and consistent treatment of people arriving without authorisation in our region.

I have also spoken to New Zealand’s Prime Minister, John Key, about this possibility, and he has said to me that he would be open to considering this initiative constructively.

East Timor and New Zealand are vital countries in this initiative as they are already signatories to the Refugee Convention, and New Zealand – like Australia – is a key resettlement country.

Clearly this does not explicitly state that the centre would be built on East Timor but it is natural to interpret that as its most likely meaning.

Desmond
09-07-2010, 02:51 PM
I refer to
Oh good.

Now the two places East Timor is referred to in the speech are:


Building on the work already underway through the Bali Process, today I announce that we will begin a new initiative. In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region. ...


East Timor and New Zealand are vital countries in this initiative as they are already signatories to the Refugee Convention, and New Zealand – like Australia – is a key resettlement country.


Discussing the possbility of something is not the same as saying you're going to do it.


her speech at Lowy Institute, that's how I (and, AFAIK, immigration minister Chris Evans) interpreted her speech. I don't expect everyone to agree, but would like to hear an answer from self-confessed lefties.Since your question is what was said, not how you may have interpreted it, the answer is obvious.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 03:02 PM
Igor, are you still choking on the question discussed a number of posts back about whether I called you a homophobic bigot or not?
I believe you tried to imply it, but I haven't found that post. If you are touchy on the subject, I'll retract the claim.



As for the Gillard East Timor thing this is the exact quote:

Clearly this does not explicitly state that the centre would be built on East Timor but it is natural to interpret that as its most likely meaning.
If you decide to become a lefty, I'll accept that one lefty gave an answer.:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
09-07-2010, 03:37 PM
I think the answer is "no, but she implied it" but since for some strange reason you want a 1 word answer, the answer is "no".

It's amazing how you say the answer is obvious with actually providing it. What are you afraid of?
I deleted my last post, and I also apologise and retract it, as I haven't noticed your first reply.

Spiny Norman
09-07-2010, 05:49 PM
Boris, technically you are correct. It was not explicit. However when things were looking "good" in the first 24 hours after the speech and everyone asked questions about the new processing centre to be built in East Timor, nobody from the government did anything at all to correct the (now claimed to be false) impression that everyone (left- and right-wing inclined commentators alike) had obviously gotten from the speech.

It is only now, when the whole idea is collapsing like a poorly devised Fuel Watch or Grocery Watch scheme, that Gillard is back-tracking and dragging her confused cabinet with her.

Mate, seriously, we're not fools; and you ought not to be trying to defend this shambles on a technicality ... that's what Gillard is now trying to do, and it just won't wash. She was the primary author of the previous Labor policy; I wonder when the media are going to ask her to take some responsibility for that debacle.

They really need to take a big, deep breath ... and properly develop some decent policy on this issue BEFORE they start making announcements about it.

If, after doing that, and after doing some quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, they come up with their own "Pacific Solution" and are prepared to make at least SOME conciliatory noises about having gotten it wrong previously and about having pilloried the Coalition for an almost identical policy ... then, and only then, will I take them seriously. Without that sort of "mea culpa" moment, its just more bullshit politics that isn't worthy of our serious consideration.

Desmond
09-07-2010, 08:07 PM
Mate, seriously, we're not fools; and you ought not to be trying to defend this shambles on a technicality ... that's what Gillard is now trying to do, and it just won't wash.I'm not trying to defend anything. Just answering a question Igor asked. Perhaps your concern would be better addressed to Igor, not to ask meaningless questions to set traps for people and self-mate in the process.

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2010, 12:48 AM
I believe you tried to imply it, but I haven't found that post. If you are touchy on the subject, I'll retract the claim.

It shouldn't matter whether I am touchy or not. Imagine that a lefty accused you of using a racial insult against someone. You pointed out that you'd never used that specific insult in that form and challenged the lefty to show proof that you had used it. They ignored your challenge and weeks later when challenged about it again, they just said:

I believe you tried to imply a racial insult, but I haven't found that post. If you are touchy on the subject, I'll retract the claim.

... then I think you'd find their response to be a bit feeble.

A quick recap on how this came up. In #60, commenting on the term "homophobe", I said "If those "conservative" (read: reactionary) pollies who are prone to be called homophobes limited their anti-gay statements to gay marriage it is very unlikely they would attract the label all that much in the first place, or even that the label would even exist."

You then tried to portray me as inconsistent by alleging that I had tried to "portrait [sic] me as a homophobic bigot couple of years ago".

Now you've watered that down to that you just believe that I implied it, which could mean anything and isn't all that relevant to the truth of your inconsistency claim. You need to at least show that I have used the actual label "homophobe" towards someone who has done no more to merit it than to oppose gay marriage.

But if you really do believe I implied that then it would be dishonest of you to retract; I'd rather have the record show that you held an inflammatory view of my comments that you couldn't justify by reference to a quote and that on that threadbare basis you accused me of an inconsistency of which I was, of course, completely innocent. :lol:


If you decide to become a lefty, I'll accept that one lefty gave an answer.:lol:

Is my answer that different to that of the "lefties"? If so how?

Incidentally, I'm a leftie when the right is being silly, and in that capacity I will now and then answer questions on this thread. When the left is being silly I'm a rightie, when the centre's being silly I'm an extreme lefty and when I'm being silly I'm a non-left anarchist masquerading as a semi-reconstructed libertarian, whatever that is. I do hope everyone is clear on that. :D

Goughfather
10-07-2010, 12:51 AM
when I'm being silly I'm a non-left anarchist masquerading as a semi-reconstructed libertarian, whatever that is. I do hope everyone is clear on that. :D

You're really Glenn Beck? I never would have guessed!

Desmond
10-07-2010, 07:45 AM
You then tried to portray me as inconsistent by alleging that I had tried to "portrait [sic] me as a homophobic bigot couple of years ago".

Now you've watered that down to that you just believe that I implied it, which could mean anything and isn't all that relevant to the truth of your inconsistency claim. You need to at least show that I have used the actual label "homophobe" towards someone who has done no more to merit it than to oppose gay marriage.Unfortunately it seems to be a recurring theme of Igor's posts of late; bluster in with wild claims then, when asked to substantiate, say they were implied.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-07-2010, 10:05 AM
Is my answer that different to that of the "lefties"? If so how?

Two people (who are, strictly speaking, not lefties) answered "No, but Gillard implied it". That's correct answer.
The only lefty who tried to answer the question was patheticly shifting, dodging and wriggling, was visibly outraged by the question, managed to simultaneously argue Gillard didn't say it and not answer the question.

Is your answer different to that of the "leftist"? Judge by yourself.

Spiny Norman
10-07-2010, 10:11 AM
It seems our PM has changed her mind again ... she really did propose East Timor after all:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/julia-gillard-performs-another-u-turn-on-timor-refugee-processing-centre/story-e6frgczf-1225889907854

What do we call it when someone backflips on a backflip? I'm lost for words ...

Now for my sexist comment of the week. "Its a woman's prerogative to change her mind". :lol:

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2010, 02:40 PM
What do we call it when someone backflips on a backflip?

We call it a media beatup.

I've quoted the text of Gillard's original remarks above.

This was her original "denial"


But quizzed on the impression that Dili would house the processing centre, she told 4BC's Michael Smith: "What I said in the speech was not that, I did not say that.

"I'm not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location," Ms Gillard told 4BC in Brisbane.

Asked where the centre would be, Ms Gillard said: "Well, this will have to emerge from the work with our regional neighbours."

and now we have:


“Earlier this week I made the case that regional processing needs to be part of our long-term solution to unauthorised arrivals. I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor,” she said in a speech in Perth this morning.

Ms Gillard repeated the concession in an ABC radio interview.

“In that speech, I indicated that I believed East Timor was a possibility for the regional processing centre,” she said.

There is actually no backflip here. All her comments are consistent with a consistent line that she is exploring the possibility with regional leaders, that East Timor is a possibility under consideration, and that no commitment to a specific location has been made.

What this really is is just a communication stuffup by Gillard and this backs the point originally made by Peter Brent, and which I have also been running although most of the media have scarcely touched it, that Gillard is actually not a good communicator of policy. She is good at debating policy and negotiating differences but has weaknesses in both formulating and communciating policy.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-07-2010, 11:31 PM
First four question proved to be quite irritating,

#5:
What, in your opinion, were the reasons for the drastic increase in the number of boat arrival in financial year 2009-2010 in comparison to previous years?

Ian Murray
12-07-2010, 12:39 AM
What, in your opinion, were the reasons for the drastic increase in the number of boat arrival in financial year 2009-2010 in comparison to previous years?
Drastic? At the current rate it will take 20 years to fill the MCG

The increase is worldwide, exacerbated this year by the exodus of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka:


UNHCR stats show Iraqis, Afghans and Somalis topping list of asylum-seekers in industrialized world (http://www.unhcr.org/4adf12516.html)

GENEVA, October 21 (UNHCR) – Asylum applications in industrialized nations rose by 10 percent in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2008, according to the UN refugee agency's provisional statistics released today. A total of 185,000 asylum claims were filed in the opening six months of this year across 38 European countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and The Republic of Korea.

Iraq remains the top country of origin of the asylum applicants (13,200 claims) for the fourth consecutive year. Afghans (12,000 claims) and Somalis (11,000 claims) are the second and third largest groups as security conditions continue to deteriorate in large parts of their home countries. The other main countries of origin are China, Serbia (including Kosovo), the Russian Federation, Nigeria, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

"These statistics show that ongoing violence and instability in some parts of the world force increasing numbers of people to flee and seek protection in safe countries," High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said. "There is an acute need for countries to keep their asylum doors wide open to those who are in genuine need of international protection," he added....

Spiny Norman
12-07-2010, 06:51 AM
Asylum applications in industrialized nations rose by 10 percent in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2008
... and at what rate did they increase here ... also around 10% ... ?

Ian Murray
12-07-2010, 07:18 AM
... and at what rate did they increase here ... also around 10% ... ?
More than that. Our borders were open at the time, which did not ipso facto create the push factors.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 09:10 AM
More than that. Our borders were open at the time, which did not ipso facto create the push factors.
So you agree that the rate of the increase (between last and previous financial year) was significant?
And what, in your opinion, made our borders open?

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 09:31 AM
Drastic? At the current rate it will take 20 years to fill the MCG

I expected the argument that increase in the last financial year wasn't drastic (despite it being a trivia).
Here is the link to government site containing statistics (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals.htm#_Toc233686295)

Red line in the graph below depicts the financial year:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals_002.gif

Extract from the table:

Year Number of boats Number of people (includes crew)
2007–08 3 25(excluding crew)
2008–09 23 1033
2009–10 102 4916
(to 19 May 2010)

The number for the full financial year 2009-10 is, obviously, will be even higher.

Let me ask the question #5 again:
What, in your opinion, were the main reasons for the increase?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 12:06 PM
First four question proved to be quite irritating, :lol: lefties don't seem to be the ones choking just lately.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-07-2010, 12:23 PM
:lol: lefties don't seem to be the ones choking just lately.
Really? Care to elaborate?

Desmond
12-07-2010, 12:29 PM
Really? Care to elaborate?
Not really.

Spiny Norman
12-07-2010, 06:21 PM
Our borders were open at the time, which did not ipso facto create the push factors.
I'm confused (not for the first time perhaps). I agree that our borders being open did not create push factors; however I would note that anything at all to do with our borders (open or closed) could have nothing to do with push factors at all ... they could only affect pull factors (from an Australian p.o.v.) ... so I'm wondering why state something that seems to me to be trivially obvious and doesn't seem to explain the observation that arrivals by boat into Australia have gone through the roof, yet arrivals by plane have not increased by anywhere near as much (which fact, on the face of it, makes push factors driving boat arrivals seem rather unlikely)?

In the graph above, the spike in 1998 or thereabouts is most interesting. It didn't coincide with any change of government policy (to my knowledge anyway), so presumably can be predominantly attributed to push factors ... perhaps a combination of a willing pool of refugee candidates, combined with an aggressive group of people smugglers.

The spike in the past couple of years coincides perfectly with Labor's policy changes ... so if someone wants to make a case that the spike is offshore factors unrelated to gov't policy, they would presumably need to show that arrivals here are of a similar number (in growth terms) to those experienced in other countries, or that Australia's situation is quite unique. I've not seen anyone successfully make that case yet, but I am open to the idea if the evidence can be marshalled.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 12:52 PM
I'm confused (not for the first time perhaps). I agree that our borders being open did not create push factors; however I would note that anything at all to do with our borders (open or closed) could have nothing to do with push factors at all ... they could only affect pull factors (from an Australian p.o.v.) ... so I'm wondering why state something that seems to me to be trivially obvious and doesn't seem to explain the observation that arrivals by boat into Australia have gone through the roof, yet arrivals by plane have not increased by anywhere near as much (which fact, on the face of it, makes push factors driving boat arrivals seem rather unlikely)?
Sorry for the confusion. I was responding more to Igor's implied assertion that Labor policy was the cause of the latest spike, and the cause of 170 deaths at sea. In reality of course there are numerous push and pull factors at work, including the policy change

In the graph above, the spike in 1998 or thereabouts is most interesting. It didn't coincide with any change of government policy (to my knowledge anyway), so presumably can be predominantly attributed to push factors ... perhaps a combination of a willing pool of refugee candidates, combined with an aggressive group of people smugglers.
That was a Chinese spike, after Tiananmen

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 01:33 PM
Sorry for the confusion. I was responding more to Igor's implied assertion that Labor policy was the cause of the latest spike, and the cause of 170 deaths at sea. In reality of course there are numerous push and pull factors at work, including the policy change
2008-2009 year on year increase - 40 times. (4000% increase)
2009-2010 year on year increase - 5 times. (500% increase)

10% worldwide increase.

What are "numerous push and pull factors"?

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 02:05 PM
2008-2009 year on year increase - 40 times. (4000% increase)
2009-2010 year on year increase - 5 times. (500% increase)

10% worldwide increase.

What are "numerous push and pull factors"?
Global data are not yet available for 2009-10. For 2008 UNHCR reports:

The trend observed in Australia and New Zealand shows a diverging picture between the two countries. In New Zealand, levels have remained fairly stable in the past years (on average 260 new claims per year) whereas in Australia figures have increased in the past years. The latter recorded approximately 4,700 asylum claims in 2008, 19 per cent more than the year before. Despite this recent increase, figures in Australia are far below the ones observed in 2000 (13,100 claims) and 2001 (12,400 claims).
...
Major asylum-seeker receiving countries reporting a significant relative increase included Italy (+122%), Norway (+121%), the Netherlands (+89%), Turkey (+70%, UNHCR asylum procedure), Switzerland (+53%), Canada (+30%), and France (+20%). Conversely, major decreases were recorded by Cyprus (-42%), Spain (-42%), Sweden (-33%), and Greece (-21%).
http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/49c796572.pdf

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 03:55 PM
Do those UNHCR reports relate to all asylum seekers?
Because stats I posted only refer to unlawful arrivals.

Spiny Norman
13-07-2010, 05:33 PM
One of the problems I see with the whole 'debate' is that people tend toward entrenched positions which are wholly on one side or the other of the argument. Some deny that any push factors exist (which is false); others deny that any pull factors exist (which is also false). The truth is somewhere in there.

One question I asked today: if having a regional processing centre is such a good idea (and I can see the merits of that), and if its best to have such a centre in a country which is a signatory to the refugee convention (which I don't agree with, but will concede for the purpose of the argument, and if its best to have such a centre in a country which is stable, both politically and economically (so as not to subject the asylum seekers to unnecessary stress) ... why is the regional processing centre not being hosted here in Australia?

Anyone? Someone ought to ask Julia that ...

TheJoker
13-07-2010, 05:46 PM
why is the regional processing centre not being hosted here in Australia?

I 'll have crack at that... I'd guess, and it is a guess, that given the that most asylum land in another regional country before coming to Australia (or so I am led to believe) it makes more sense to process them in the country in which they land, at least from a cost point of view. That country being Indonesia (or so I am led to believe). However, if the regional processing centre is to take advantage UNHCR resources that country would need to be a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. The main probelm is that Indonesia is not a signatory, and doesn't seem to have any ambition to become one. Hence, the proposal (I wouldn't go as far to call it a plan) to locate the centre in East Timor.

A regional processing centre in Australia, would require transporting refugees from Indonesia to Australia. Secondly it makes political sense to have the detainees as afar away from the Australian media / public as possible.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 08:09 PM
Do those UNHCR reports relate to all asylum seekers?
Number of asylum claims. The figures are supplied of course by national governments, including the Australian government, in annual returns to UNHCR

Because stats I posted only refer to unlawful arrivals.
Your stats refer to boat arrivals, not unlawful arrivals. You're fixated on 'unlawful'

Note that your source is a parliamentary background brief by the Social Policy Section, not official statistics. In particular recent data (2009, 2010) is derived from media sources, hence of unknown reliability - see footnote:

2008–09 to 2009–10: figures compiled by the authors from ministerial press releases and press reports. Note: not all boat arrivals are reported by the media and not all may be subject to ministerial press releases. As a result, there may be discrepancies with DIAC data by calendar year in the table above. For example, according to DIAC, 16 boats had arrived in 2009 as at 21 June, but only 14 boats were reported in ministerial press releases

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 08:35 PM
... why is the regional processing centre not being hosted here in Australia?
Joker's views are relevant, but there is a more compelling reason. Australian refugee processing can take place onshore or offshore, with differing legal implications. - see http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian.

Once onshore refugees can claim asylum under the Refugees Convention and Australia is bound to provide protection. They also are protected by the courts, as with any other resident. Not so offshore, where Australia can pick and choose its courses of action, including resettlement in third countries.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:10 PM
why is the regional processing centre not being hosted here in Australia?
In addition to what Joker said, there could be another factor that might sound paradoxical.
According to the article I read recently, Australian law are much more favourable then UN convention rules, at least in regards to asylum seekers who are already in Australia. That law, AFAIK, apply equally to lawful and unlawful arrivals.

and if its best to have such a centre in a country which is a signatory to the refugee convention (which I don't agree with, but will concede for the purpose of the argument,
I don't see advantages of having processing centre in such a country either.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 10:22 PM
In addition to what Joker said, there could be another factor that might sound paradoxical.
According to the article I read recently, Australian law are much more favourable then UN convention rules, at least in regards to asylum seekers who are already in Australia. That law, AFAIK, apply equally to lawful and unlawful arrivals.
There are no unlawful/illegal asylum seekers - seeking asylum is lawful/legal

Igor_Goldenberg
13-07-2010, 10:31 PM
There are no unlawful/illegal asylum seekers - seeking asylum is lawful/legalbut there are lawful and unlawful arrivals.

Ian Murray
13-07-2010, 11:05 PM
but there are lawful and unlawful arrivals.
Yes, but you specified "at least in regards to asylum seekers who are already in Australia", which excludes unlawful arrivals

Goughfather
13-07-2010, 11:42 PM
but there are lawful and unlawful arrivals.

No there aren't. Pursuant to section 13 and 14, there are lawful and unlawful non-citizens.

Let me make this clear for the slow-witted:

1. The classification "unlawful non-citizen" is descriptive of an individual's status.
2. The status of an individual is used to determine how they should be processed.
3. To use this classification in any other way than for the purpose of describing the status of an individual is contrary to the intention of the Act.
4. That someone is an "unlawful non-citizen" is not a commentary on the legality or lawfulness of their actions.
5. That is, that a vessel may contain "unlawful non-citizens" is not to say that the vessel or the individuals within the vessel have arrived in Australia unlawfully.


Clear? Can we move on please?

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 09:48 AM
Yes, but you specified "at least in regards to asylum seekers who are already in Australia", which excludes unlawful arrivals
Anyone who arrived to Australia unlawfully is, by definition, an unlawful arrival, and that's how I am going to call them.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 05:01 PM
#6:

In reply to the Howard/Costello budget 2007 then shadow treasurer Wayne Swan replied (09/05/2007):
THE budget's reliance on the continuation of the mining boom was not a safe base for Australia's future economic prosperity (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/praise-and-criticism-for-budget/2007/05/08/1178390314866.html)

Was he right in that criticism?

Rincewind
14-07-2010, 06:02 PM
No there aren't. Pursuant to section 13 and 14, there are lawful and unlawful non-citizens.

Let me make this clear for the slow-witted:

1. The classification "unlawful non-citizen" is descriptive of an individual's status.
2. The status of an individual is used to determine how they should be processed.
3. To use this classification in any other way than for the purpose of describing the status of an individual is contrary to the intention of the Act.
4. That someone is an "unlawful non-citizen" is not a commentary on the legality or lawfulness of their actions.
5. That is, that a vessel may contain "unlawful non-citizens" is not to say that the vessel or the individuals within the vessel have arrived in Australia unlawfully.


Clear? Can we move on please?

I predict this message will be Igored.

Ian Murray
14-07-2010, 10:46 PM
I predict this message will be Igored.
:D

Igor_Goldenberg
14-07-2010, 10:48 PM
It's nice to see so many lefties disturbed by simple innocent questions.

Goughfather
14-07-2010, 11:27 PM
I predict this message will be Igored.

Well, what else do you expect from an Igoramus?

antichrist
15-07-2010, 12:55 AM
Anyone who arrived to Australia unlawfully is, by definition, an unlawful arrival, and that's how I am going to call them.

A bit of an extremist view. My mum was illegal in the manner that she was born on the ship out in the middle of the ocean. My grandparents already had the only-permissible two children with them aged about two and four. What could the immigration officer turn the two-week old baby away? Howard would! John Howard that is. Well the immigration officer turned a blind eye.

When I pointed this out to a current Immigration officer she went off her rocker that my mum entered "illegally" 90 years ago. What is it to her what happened to a little baby 40 years before she was born. What a little Hitler - so be careful Igor you don't lump yourself in with her.

One always has to have compassion no matter who, where, when - in spite of any text, doctine or personal aprehensiveness. The Exodus worked that out.











.

Basil
15-07-2010, 04:45 AM
I'm sure that playing/ insulting people's names was frowned upon by lefties; moral high ground and so forth. In fact I'm certain this board is littered with such declarations and pomposity. In fact I know it. Another shallow, self-serving lefty double standard. Next!

Spiny Norman
15-07-2010, 06:11 AM
I predict this message will be Igored.
:lol: That was a humorous aside ...


Well, what else do you expect from an Igoramus?
... but that was downright rude. :hand:

Desmond
15-07-2010, 09:05 AM
I'm sure that playing/ insulting people's names was frowned upon by lefties; moral high ground and so forth. In fact I'm certain this board is littered with such declarations and pomposity. In fact I know it. Another shallow, self-serving lefty double standard. Next!
In your view Howard who are the greater offenders on this board, the left or the right? Why, only the other day Igar gleefully anouncing his latest pet name Gillrudd, he seemed to think it was pretty apt despite feeling the need to explain it. Jono rarely opens his mouth on a political thread without doing it. If I had to guess, I'd say the right are worse culprits by quite a considerable margin.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 09:17 AM
Jono has a penchant for preferring derogatory nicknames and buzzwords over orthography (KRudd, feminazi). One wonders why he missed the obvious Coward in lieu of (John) Howard.

In any case the usage is wearisome rather than amusing
But not , of course, in this case:


I predict this message will be Igored.:D

Now GF, who does not know how to make a coherent argument:

Wearisome it might be, but I think we should give Jono a break. In the absence of coherent argument, what else is Jono to rely on if he is to make himself heard? Of course he could go down the road of gratuitous bodily functions a la Mr Duggan, but it's not exactly everyone's style.

Rather than adopting an attitude of annoyance and disdain, perhaps pity is the appropriate response.


Well, what else do you expect from an Igoramus?

It vindicates again my statement that leftists are hypocrites.

As for RW, he is just a sorry ass who can't have a meaningful conversation without being rude, obnoxiousness and abusive. He constantly tries to peddle name calling without realising it shows him for the fool he is.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 09:47 AM
In your view Howard who are the greater offenders on this board, the left or the right? Why, only the other day Igar gleefully anouncing his latest pet name Gillrudd, he seemed to think it was pretty apt despite feeling the need to explain it. Jono rarely opens his mouth on a political thread without doing it. If I had to guess, I'd say the right are worse culprits by quite a considerable margin.
Good work Boris, but you are making mountain out of a molehill.
I only once posted that I read about new Gillard nickname, and I didn't use politicians nickname in my other posts.
I wonder if you subject yourself and your leftist colleagues to the same level of scrutiny?

Desmond
15-07-2010, 10:15 AM
Good work Boris, but you are making mountain out of a molehill.
I only once posted that I read about new Gillard nickname, and I didn't use politicians nickname in my other posts.I never said you did it more than once. :rolleyes: But, since you mention it, a simple search of "krudd" by poster "Igor Goldenberg" yields 8 results.

I wonder if you subject yourself and your leftist colleagues to the same level of scrutiny?Well guess what, I do read all the politics threads so I guess that makes it the same level of scrutiny. The main offenders that I observe are righties, for example a quick search of "gillardova" and "Jono" finds 24 hits. Perhaps you could think of a nickname you think I often use and do the same test, or choose a left culprit you think does it a lot. Let me know how you go. I should note that these were the first ones I tried, not the best of numerous tries.

Mephistopheles
15-07-2010, 10:21 AM
It's probably an indication that someone's argument is probably pretty weak if they have to substitute name-calling rhetoric for actual content. Seriously, the net effect of these silly nicknames is to make the user/instigator seem angry and petulant. It's hardly a sin but it doesn't really aid the argument being put forward.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 10:28 AM
I never said you did it more than once. :rolleyes: But, since you mention it, a simple search of "krudd" by poster "Igor Goldenberg" yields 8 results.

Same search by poster "Boris" yields" 7 result, so what is your point?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 10:30 AM
It's probably an indication that someone's argument is probably pretty weak if they have to substitute name-calling rhetoric for actual content. Seriously, the net effect of these silly nicknames is to make the user/instigator seem angry and petulant. It's hardly a sin but it doesn't really aid the argument being put forward.
Using nicknames for politicians, while acceptable, is not the best practice. Trying to do the same with real names of posters is far, far worse.
Of course, many posters don't use their real names and identities, some go to a great length to remain anonymous.

Desmond
15-07-2010, 10:49 AM
Same search by poster "Boris" yields" 7 result, so what is your point?Are you serious? OK I'll explain.

Of the 7:
1 is the post above. :rolleyes:
1 is me having a conversation similar to this one with Jono over 2 years ago http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=183042&highlight=krudd#post183042
3 is me quoting Jono using the word (thanks for proving my point)
2 is me quoting Gunner using the word (thanks for proving my point)

Summary, none of those 7 cases is me using the nickname to substitute for teh real name in conversation.

Now, to your 8:

3 is you quoting Jono using the word (thanks for proving my point)
3 is you using the word to substitute for the real name in normal conversation
1 is you quoting JAK using the word in a joke
1 is you quoting Ian Murray in a similar meta-discussion

So anyway, all of this seems to back my hypothesis that righties are the worse offenders, and adds no weight to your hypothesis that I am just biased.

Do you want to try again?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 10:54 AM
Are you serious? OK I'll explain.

Of the 7:
1 is the post above. :rolleyes:
1 is me having a conversation similar to this one with Jono over 2 years ago http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=183042&highlight=krudd#post183042
3 is me quoting Jono using the word (thanks for proving my point)
2 is me quoting Gunner using the word (thanks for proving my point)

Summary, none of those 7 cases is me using the nickname to substitute for teh real name in conversation.

Now, to your 8:

3 is you quoting Jono using the word (thanks for proving my point)
3 is you using the word to substitute for the real name in normal conversation
1 is you quoting JAK using the word in a joke
1 is you quoting Ian Murray in a similar meta-discussion

So anyway, all of this seems to back my hypothesis that righties are the worse offenders, and adds no weight to your hypothesis that I am just biased.

Do you want to try again?
So my usage is now down to only 3 non-quotation. Two of them were in the thread dedicated to it, and usage was related to the thread. Only one was in different thread.
That's right, we are talking about one genuine usage.

mountain out of a molehill

Desmond
15-07-2010, 10:59 AM
So my usage is now down to only 3 non-quotation. Two of them were in the thread dedicated to it, and usage was related to the thread. Only one was in different thread.
That's right, we are talking about one genuine usage.

mountain out of a molehill
Sorry Igor, but it's not all about you. My comment to Gunner was about left v right doing this.

Did you still want to oppose this point I made or not? Or how about show some cases of me doing it as you impied?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Sorry Igor, but it's not all about you. My comment to Gunner was about left v right doing this
Well, you used my name (misspelled, by the way) as an example. Maybe your case is not as well substantiated as you thought.
And Gunner post was not about using nicknames for politicians, but about real people posting on this board.
And, of course, it was about the characterising trait of the left - hypocrisy.

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 11:23 AM
I quite enjoy a smart play on someone's name/nickname if it's got some wit about it, its just repeated use that gets a bit stale in my books.

For those that feel aggrieved by this i'd say "toughen up princess".

As for the whole left v right insulting other posters thing. I am sure I've called Jono an idiot, Igor a wanker and if I haven't called Gunner the same or worse I bloody well should have;)

Desmond
15-07-2010, 11:35 AM
Well, you used my name (misspelled, by the way) as an example. My misspelling was a mistake not intentional. Unreserved apologies if it offended, although I struggle to imagine how it could have. I also made a grammatical mistake in that same sentence. It happens.

Maybe your case is not as well substantiated as you thought.I mentioned your name and provided one recent, clear, correct example. Of course it contributes to my case. In trying to deflect, you illustrated my point as outlined above.

And Gunner post was not about using nicknames for politicians, but about real people posting on this board.From his post I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. It's not how I read it originally but it could be that you're right.

There was a time when it was pretty widespead on this board to change the name of a quote source but there was a rule implemented to stop this. I'm not sure who were the worse offenders, my recollection is it was pretty well across the board.


And, of course, it was about the characterising trait of the left - hypocrisy.COuldn't be bothered with this claim right now, might address later.

To restate my question you ignored:
Or how about show some cases of me doing it [making mean nicknames] as you implied?

antichrist
15-07-2010, 12:37 PM
I quite enjoy a smart play on someone's name/nickname if it's got some wit about it, its just repeated use that gets a bit stale in my books.

For those that feel aggrieved by this i'd say "toughen up princess".

As for the whole left v right insulting other posters thing. I am sure I've called Jono an idiot, Igor a wanker and if I haven't called Gunner the same or worse I bloody well should have;)

I noticed you wisely refrained from extending your vocabory to any of the mods!

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 12:45 PM
I noticed you wisely refrained from extending your vocabory to any of the mods!

Just by chance I have no idea who and who isn't a mod

Desmond
15-07-2010, 12:48 PM
So my usage is now down to only 3 non-quotation. Two of them were in the thread dedicated to it, and usage was related to the thread. Only one was in different thread.
That's right, we are talking about one genuine usage.

mountain out of a molehillOne other thing that occurs to me is:

The 3 non-quotation references that I pointed out all stick. You try to explain two of them away as being in the thread with "Krudd" in the title, but you still had to use the term yourself. Plenty of other posters managed to use the word Rudd in that thread. So that's three.

Plus the other one which was the Gillrudd thing. So that makes 4.

You called Gillard a liar for saying 4.5 was 1.5; you called 4 was 1. What does that make you?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Or how about show some cases of me doing it [making mean nicknames] as you implied?
Another case when you "can't bother substantiating"?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 01:19 PM
you called 4 was 1
You use very creative arithmetic, I should say.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 01:21 PM
I quite enjoy a smart play on someone's name/nickname if it's got some wit about it, its just repeated use that gets a bit stale in my books.

For those that feel aggrieved by this i'd say "toughen up princess".

As for the whole left v right insulting other posters thing. I am sure I've called Jono an idiot, Igor a wanker and if I haven't called Gunner the same or worse I bloody well should have;)
How do you call a person who hides behind a nick to abuse others?

Desmond
15-07-2010, 01:33 PM
Another case when you "can't bother substantiating"?Another example of not bothering to substantiate your case for you? Yes. Actually I cannot think of any term I used to substitute for a polies' name, but if you can then let's hear it. I made a lot of posts on this site, maybe there are a couple where I did so. I think I made light of Abbott & Costello once or twice but not by changing their names.

You use very creative arithmetic, I should say.In what way?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Another example of not bothering to substantiate your case for you? Yes. Actually I cannot think of any term I used to substitute for a polies' name, but if you can then let's hear it. I made a lot of posts on this site, maybe there are a couple where I did so. I think I made light of Abbott & Costello once or twice but not by changing their names.

Fair enough, but did I accuse you of mean nicknames?

Desmond
15-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Also I found one particular example of a poster using a derogatory name-change over 100 times. Anyone want to guess what side this poster belongs to?

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 01:42 PM
How do you call a person who hides behind a nick to abuse others?

Smart? I fail to see what benefit would be gained by not remaining anonymous. Obviously revealing my identity would open me up to personal attacks from overly sensitive posters;)

Desmond
15-07-2010, 01:55 PM
Fair enough, but did I accuse you of mean nicknames?Accuse? Dunno, does "I wonder" count as accusation or just a convenient way to avoid it.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 02:07 PM
Accuse? Dunno, does "I wonder" count as accusation or just a convenient way to avoid it.
Care to quote the "offending" piece accurately?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 02:08 PM
Smart? I fail to see what benefit would be gained by not remaining anonymous. Obviously revealing my identity would open me up to personal attacks from overly sensitive posters;)
In your case the benefit might be a realisation that you are not a complete prick.

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 02:10 PM
In your case the benefit might be a realisation that you are not a complete prick.

Maybe I am:lol:

Desmond
15-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Care to quote the "offending" piece accurately?I love this game where I answer your questions and you don't answer mine. Maybe I'll collate a list one day.

#147 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=283462&postcount=147)

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Maybe I am:lol:
Do you honestly believe anyone doubts it?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 02:14 PM
I love this game where I answer your questions and you don't answer mine. Maybe I'll collate a list one day.

#147 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=283462&postcount=147)
So, what exactly in this post offended you and require clarification/substantiation?

TheJoker
15-07-2010, 02:16 PM
Do you honestly believe anyone doubts it?

Yep. But then again I am an arrogant prick ;)

Desmond
15-07-2010, 02:35 PM
So, what exactly in this post offended you and require clarification/substantiation?It's really not very complicated, Igor.

In #148 I pointed out that you could search for a term I use and do the same for one of my "leftist colleague"s [your term].

In #150 you offer me saying Krudd.

In #152 I demonstrate that 0 of those search hits are examples of me using the nickname.

This takes us back to #148 because you didn't make the example. You didn't even attempt to make an example of a "leftist colleague". Now, of course you don't have to engage in the conversation, but if you're not going to do so, save the "I wonder"s for yourself.

I think if you read over the last 30 posts or so you'll find that I engage with all the points you made and answered most or all of your questions. In converse you engage with very little, answer little, and offer only mostly just more questions.

Oh and by the way, I'm not offended by your "I wonder"ing in this case. I just thought you might have cared to actually provide some example. Guess I really should have know better. I mean even if you looked and didn't find one, it would have been nice to mention it. Or if you didn't even bother, you could have mentioned that too. It's called engaging, it doesn't take much.

But if you wanted the prize for the prettiest pink writing, then I'll not dispute that.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 02:59 PM
It's really not very complicated, Igor.

In #148 I pointed out that you could search for a term I use and do the same for one of my "leftist colleague"s [your term].

In #150 you offer me saying Krudd.

To show you that number of posts means nothing.



In #152 I demonstrate that 0 of those search hits are examples of me using the nickname.

I know. I even knew it when I suggested to do the search.


This takes us back to #148 because you didn't make the example.
Example of what? That you don't scrutinise other lefties?


You didn't even attempt to make an example of a "leftist colleague".
Do I need to list all self-confessed (and those in denial) lefties on the board?
Sorry, I don't engage in that sort of conduct. It was your who brought my name into unrelated discussion without no reason at all, and now you are playing innocent victim? (of accusation that I didn't actually make)



Now, of course you don't have to engage in the conversation, but if you're not going to do so, save the "I wonder"s for yourself.
Presumably (as you avoids quoting it directly) you are offended by:
"I wonder if you subject yourself and your leftist colleagues to the same level of scrutiny?"

Given that you plucked one example of me posting pollie nickname in the old post (which, obviously, does not reflect my posting habits) , but conveniently overlooked Ian Murray (post 139) and GoughF(post 141) applauding fibble attempts of RW to insult me(post 138), this statement is correct and substantiated.


Or how about show some cases of me doing it [making mean nicknames] as you implied?
Of course you can see implication if you desire so, but it's not there.

And one more thing before we, hopefully, move on:
Look at the posts 119-121.

Desmond
15-07-2010, 03:38 PM
To show you that number of posts means nothing.Well of the 8 hits of the simple search 3 were genuine. I could have argued for more being genuine, since it's basically back-slapping but didn't. 3 are genuine and you have not effectively disputed otherwise.



I know. I even knew it when I suggested to do the search.You also "knew" that none of your other posts (other than the Gillrudd which you have not disputed) contained nicknames. I showed this not to be the case.


Example of what? That you don't scrutinise other lefties?Examples to weigh against my argument that righties do it more than lefties. Byt he way did you want to take a guess at who hit the >100 derogatory references of a single name? You know what, I reckon you'll get it in one.

Do I need to list all self-confessed (and those in denial) lefties on the board?No. I was more interested in what sense you think that they are my colleagues". Coupled with your use of "other lefties" above I guess it means you consider me a leftie.

Sorry, I don't engage in that sort of conduct. It was your who brought my name into unrelated discussion without no reason at all, and now you are playing innocent victim? (of accusation that I didn't actually make)The reason I commited the mortal sin of mentioning your name was to make the point about your comment on Gillrudd. My point was correct. You haven't even disputed it. I'm not saying you are the worst culprit, but it is an example. Also it wasn't an in-passing "Gillrudd did this today" tyoe statement, it was a much more deliberate, " here is a nickname, aren't I the clever one".


Presumably (as you avoids quoting it directly) you are offended by:
"I wonder if you subject yourself and your leftist colleagues to the same level of scrutiny?":lol: I'm avoiding quoting it? You asked for it in contecxt and I gave you a direct link to the post in context. Just no pleasing some people. And I wasn't offended by it, as I already said.


Given that you plucked one exampleStill no comment on the 4 = 1 thing eh?

of me posting pollie nickname in the old post (which, obviously, does not reflect my posting habits) , but conveniently overlooked Ian Murray (post 139) and GoughF(post 141) applauding fibble attempts of RW to insult me(post 138), this statement is correct and substantiated.You really think I need to document examples in the same thread where they occured a few hours before? Anyway as I said my argument was about the re-naming of pollies.


Of course you can see implication if you desire so, but it's not there.Pleased to hear it. Is the implication that lefties do it also not there, beacuse if so I will quite happily rest my case that the right are worse culprits than the left on this board by quite some margin if no one is going to dispute it.


And one more thing before we, hopefully, move on:
Look at the posts 119-121.Igor, allow me to let you in on a little secret. I am quite a genuine person. If I don't know something, I will often just say "I don't know". If I can't be bothered to do something, I will often just say "I can't be bothered". If this is a source of amusement for you, or if you want to bookmark those examples to keep coming back to them, be my guest. I'm not going to change and stop making such admissions because to me they are important. Other people don't do it, prefering to just ignore certain requests, gloss over them, or deflect the conversation and nit-pick something else instead. So when I say "I can't be bothered substantiating" that doesn't mean I never do. It doesn't mean I don't often do it. It doesn't mean that I haven't spent posts doing it on this very issue, and couldn't be bothered to explain it again or give you a link. It is what it is. In the immortal words of Popeye, "I yam what I yam." If that is something you thing helps your case, then by all means collect these little honest statements and use them out of context when it suits you. If that's how you score points, then enjoy them.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 04:19 PM
Examples to weigh against my argument that righties do it more than lefties.
The argument was about lefties being hypocrites (criticising name calling and doing it at the same time). Do you dispute that?
As for who using nicknames for politicians, I don't really care.
Didn't hear them complaining on this board either.


Byt he way did you want to take a guess at who hit the >100 derogatory references of a single name? You know what, I reckon you'll get it in one.
As you said once, I am not going to do your research for you.
And I don't care about using derogatory nicknames for politicians (or anonymous obnoxious posters for that matter).


No. I was more interested in what sense you think that they are my colleagues". Coupled with your use of "other lefties" above I guess it means you consider me a leftie.
Are you saying it's wrong?


The reason I commited the mortal sin of mentioning your name was to make the point about your comment on Gillrudd. My point was correct. You haven't even disputed it. I'm not saying you are the worst culprit, but it is an example. Also it wasn't an in-passing "Gillrudd did this today" tyoe statement, it was a much more deliberate, " here is a nickname, aren't I the clever one".
"aren't I clever one" is of your own making.
And I still see nothing wrong in mentioning it on the board. Unless, of course, Gillard takes offence. In this case Jak will kill me.

Desmond
15-07-2010, 04:40 PM
Igor, before I answer this lot, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to address the questions/points you skipped/ignored/etc. If you chose not to, I might draw conclusions based on that. Up to you. :D

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 04:41 PM
Igor, before I answer this lot, I'm going to offer you the opportunity to address the questions/points you skipped/ignored/etc. If you chose not to, I might draw conclusions based on that. Up to you. :D
Why don't you lead by example?

Goughfather
15-07-2010, 04:52 PM
Igor, I thought I redirect you to this question from Boris so that you are able to provide a response:


Still no comment on the 4 = 1 thing eh?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2010, 05:20 PM
^^^^
Before zeroing in on imaginary non-issues (if you guys think 4=1, it's your problem, not mine), how about addressing own hypocrisies.

Desmond
15-07-2010, 09:22 PM
(if you guys think 4=1, it's your problem, not mine)Alas, Igor, it appears to be you who thinks that 4=1.

#152 I point out the three cases where you used Krudd. There was also the Gillrudd post. Makes 4
#153 You dispute the three, saying it should be one. Even if we accept that, that would be two, counting the Gillrudd post.
#160 I point out why all 3 Krudd comments stand and why it is 4. I point out that you claimed the figure to be 1 when it was 4.

By coincidence, the other day you had a go at Gillard for claiming that a 4.5b reduction was 1.5b. You called her a liar.

So what does that make you?

To be clear, of course I am not claiming you are a liar. I understand that there are mistakes, and contexts and other things that intervene before a charge of liar is brought. But not you. You made it abundantly clear that if teh figure is wrong, it's a lie. So according to your own standard, and by your own logic, you think you are a liar.

To quote you, it's your problem, not mine.

The argument was about lefties being hypocrites (criticising name calling and doing it at the same time). Do you dispute that?As I said earlier I am not currently engaged in debate with you on this. As I said I might come back to this later. At that time you went even further and said that hypocrisy was the characterising trait of the left. You might use this time to build a case for your claim. So far I don't see one.


As for who using nicknames for politicians, I don't really care.Then why engage with me on it? This is what I posted (direct to Gunner) about in #145 and you decided to engage.

Didn't hear them complaining on this board either.Neither did I. However it is rather tedious, bad argument, and a number of posters object to it. I have objected to it before.


As you said once, I am not going to do your research for you.:lol: I have done the research. I have the answer. I'm asking you to guess what it is. I'll give you a clue; it is not a proper noun. Seriously, it's easy.

And I don't care about using derogatory nicknames for politicians (or anonymous obnoxious posters for that matter).Just to be clear, are you puting me in the anonymous basket? You may (or not) recall that I introduced myself to you in person.


Are you saying it's wrong?Well you tell me, is a swinging voter who has voted coalition in the past and intending to vote coalition in the future including later this year a lefty?

But I don't doubt it is your opinion. You are confusing me making a few efforts to ask you to substantiate you claims lately with me opposing those claims.

"aren't I clever one" is of your own making.OK I accept that. So why did you post it? As I said it was not an in conversation swap out of a name, it was a deliberate post dedicated to nothing other than introducing a nickname.


So anyway on to the stuff you avoided in the last reply.

Do you acknowledge that in #147 you said you didn't use poli nicknames in any more than 1 post and that I have shown this not to be the case?
Do you acknolwedge that you were wrong to suggest in #177 that I was avoiding quoting something, which I had provided a direct link to?
Do you acknowledge that your claim that I "conveniently overlooked" earlier posts in this thread was wrong, in light of that they were irrelevant to the point I was making?



Why don't you lead by example?Been addressing all you stuff this whole time. Start to reciprocate whenever you feel up to it.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2010, 09:39 PM
Also I found one particular example of a poster using a derogatory name-change over 100 times. Anyone want to guess what side this poster belongs to?

I had two guesses in mind and one of them was right. :lol:

Basil
16-07-2010, 10:02 AM
In your view Howard who are the greater offenders on this board, the left or the right? Why, only the other day Igar gleefully anouncing his latest pet name Gillrudd, he seemed to think it was pretty apt despite feeling the need to explain it. Jono rarely opens his mouth on a political thread without doing it. If I had to guess, I'd say the right are worse culprits by quite a considerable margin.
My post was not in relation to the name-calling (but as you asked, in matters politics, I think the righties are are worse - the left gives us so much material :lol:). However, this was not my point.

My point was that some lefty posters here make out-of-the-blue haughty claims about playing with politicians/ names (Mephistopheles and Goughfather the two miscreants who come to mind). In this particular thread, GF was guilty of name attacks on a poster here, while only days earlier objecting to name attacks himself. FFS Max!!!

That was the double standard that I was referring to.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 10:07 AM
Alas, Igor, it appears to be you who thinks that 4=1.
No


#152 I point out the three cases where you used Krudd. There was also the Gillrudd post. Makes 4
#153 You dispute the three, saying it should be one. Even if we accept that, that would be two, counting the Gillrudd post.
#160 I point out why all 3 Krudd comments stand and why it is 4. I point out that you claimed the figure to be 1 when it was 4.

Yes, I said I don't use nicknames for politicians. Very few usages you found
does not really dispute this fact (4 out of more then 3500 posts). If you still insist that I use nicknames for politicians and based it on 4 posts out of 3500, you are indeed making mountain out of molehill.
In my post I said I used GillRudd once. Of course I don't remember every word of every post I made. Do you?


By coincidence, the other day you had a go at Gillard for claiming that a 4.5b reduction was 1.5b. You called her a liar.
And rightly so. It now turns out to be $7.5 billion


So what does that make you?
Your attempt to brand me as a liar (i.e. someone who deliberately mislead others) is pathetic.


To be clear, of course I am not claiming you are a liar. I understand that there are mistakes, and contexts and other things that intervene before a charge of liar is brought. But not you. You made it abundantly clear that if teh figure is wrong, it's a lie. So according to your own standard, and by your own logic, you think you are a liar.

You are twisting everything again. The figures are wrong, Gillard and Swan knew it, they deliberately tried to mislead everyone that the revenue reduction is $1.5 billions (only few days ago I heard replay of the Swan saying it).
You attempt to compare two issues is, indeed, pathetic.



As I said earlier I am not currently engaged in debate with you on this.
As I said, you brought my name in response to Gunner post dealing with posters trying to abuse me.


As I said I might come back to this later. At that time you went even further and said that hypocrisy was the characterising trait of the left. You might use this time to build a case for your claim. So far I don't see one.

Then you haven't read the forum, where the examples of leftists hypocrites are brought up constantly. Posts 143 and 146 in this thread shown the posters on this board being hypocritical. But that only latest example.


:lol: I have done the research. I have the answer. I'm asking you to guess what it is. I'll give you a clue; it is not a proper noun. Seriously, it's easy.

Seriously, why do I care? If you have something to say, spit the dummy and say it.



Just to be clear, are you puting me in the anonymous basket? You may (or not) recall that I introduced myself to you in person.

No. Why did you decide it's directed at you?


Well you tell me, is a swinging voter who has voted coalition in the past and intending to vote coalition in the future including later this year a lefty?

That's the impression you made by your posts. I am NOT questioning your voting pattern, it is your private matter.


OK I accept that. So why did you post it? As I said it was not an in conversation swap out of a name, it was a deliberate post dedicated to nothing other than introducing a nickname.
How about conveying some voters perception of Gillard being the same spin master as Rudd was?



Do you acknowledge that in #147 you said you didn't use poli nicknames in any more than 1 post and that I have shown this not to be the case?

Yes.


Do you acknolwedge that you were wrong to suggest in #177 that I was avoiding quoting something, which I had provided a direct link to?

No.


Do you acknowledge that your claim that I "conveniently overlooked" earlier posts in this thread was wrong, in light of that they were irrelevant to the point I was making?
No



Been addressing all you stuff this whole time.
No, and I demonstrated it being incorrect.


I hope this is sufficient for you to move on, I am not interested in debating small non-issues.

Desmond
16-07-2010, 11:23 AM
Yes, I said I don't use nicknames for politicians. Very few usages you found
does not really dispute this fact (4 out of more then 3500 posts). If you still insist that I use nicknames for politicians and based it on 4 posts out of 3500, you are indeed making mountain out of molehill.You may recall that my search was just for 1 specific nickname. If I searched for others I am quite confident I would find more. But whether there are 4 or 20 or more does not really change the fact that I don't consider you to be the worst offender. I already said this.


In my post I said I used GillRudd once. Of course I don't remember every word of every post I made. Do you?No, it didn't refer to that at all. #153 you are clearly referring to 1 being the post you were arguing was a genuie usage of "Krudd".

But anyway this just confirms my point about context. Just as Gillard can correctly say that there was a 1.5b reduction in the current forecast on the current policy, it is also correct to say that it was a 4.5b when compared to something different, or as you point out, 7.5b when compared to something else again. This does not make it a lie, as you argued.


Your attempt to brand me as a liar (i.e. someone who deliberately mislead others) is pathetic. I made no attempt to brand you a liar, my attempt is to show by reductio ad absurdum that your attempt to brand Gillard a liar was wrong.


You are twisting everything again. The figures are wrong, Gillard and Swan knew it, they deliberately tried to mislead everyone that the revenue reduction is $1.5 billions (only few days ago I heard replay of the Swan saying it).Unsubstantiated rubbish. We covered this before. Swan did not make the comparison you say he did. What he said was correct. He provided a number of different figures in number of diffrent scenarios.

You attempt to compare two issues is, indeed, pathetic.No, your inability to see how closely they analogize is. That they are so close together combined with the numbers being so similar (4.5, 1.5 to 4, 1) really just makes it so much the better.

As I said, you brought my name in response to Gunner post dealing with posters trying to abuse me.As I said a few times already, it was just one recent, on-topic example of a rightie using nicknames for polies. I did not participate in the abuse you refer to. I already offered you an apology if you think you needed one.


Then you haven't read the forum, where the examples of leftists hypocrites are brought up constantly. Posts 143 and 146 in this thread shown the posters on this board being hypocritical. But that only latest example.So build a case on it being the defining characteristic then.



Seriously, why do I care? If you have something to say, spit the dummy and say it.Well it is on the topic we were discussing. Anyway you had enough chances, the answer is
"Leftard*" by "Jono" 118 hits.

I'd be interested to know what's KB's other try was. :D
Also interested in similar cases from either side?


No. Why did you decide it's directed at you?I didn't. Just wanted to clarify, mostly for benefit of any readers who may not be sure you know who I am, and also in case you forgot.


That's the impression you made by your posts. I am NOT questioning your voting pattern, it is your private matter.I don't think that is the overall impression of my posts, just your interpretation, which as I said is wrong for an understandable reason.


How about conveying some voters perception of Gillard being the same spin master as Rudd was?Was that the reason? Seems a weird way to achieve that goal, but if that's your reason I accept it.


No.

NoOK well I have demonstrated to my satisfaction.


No, and I demonstrated it being incorrect.Huh?


I hope this is sufficient for you to move on, I am not interested in debating small non-issues.So don't. No one has a gun to your head. I happen to be interested in the topic of those nicknames and other posters probably are too. Also interested in posters who throw around abusive terms like liar and hypocrite without substantiation, and even on occasion when those posters whine about being abused themselves.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 11:30 AM
#6:

In reply to the Howard/Costello budget 2007 then shadow treasurer Wayne Swan replied (09/05/2007):
THE budget's reliance on the continuation of the mining boom was not a safe base for Australia's future economic prosperity (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/praise-and-criticism-for-budget/2007/05/08/1178390314866.html)

Was he right in that criticism?
Back to the topic. Anyone wants to answer this question?

I'll add more background to the story:

Treasurer shows how to cook a magic pudding (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/treasurer-shows-how-to-cook-a-magic-pudding/story-e6frg6zo-1225891823187)


Sit back, hit the snooze button and wait until the numbers turn black

Press release from opposition treasury spokesman Wayne Swan, December 15, 2005:

THE treasurer continues to sit on his hands, content to rely on temporarily high commodity prices as an excuse to dodge the reforms [we] urgently need.

Wayne Swan on February 28, 2006:

I DON'T believe we've had, from the Howard government, a vision as to how we deal with this deeply entrenched problem. They've hit the snooze button, they've become lazy, they're reliant entirely on record commodity prices and they are not putting in place the long-term plan we need to make our economy more competitive and more productive.

The Treasurer yesterday celebrates the fruits of true reform:
THE numbers that I've reported today I think do underscore the success of our strategy to manage the budget responsibly and to strengthen and to secure our economy for the future. When we threw in the commodity price increases, that gave us revenue of $10.5 billion

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Back to the topic. Anyone wants to answer this question?

I'll add more background to the story:

Wayne Swan on February 28, 2006:

I DON'T believe we've had, from the Howard government, a vision as to how we deal with this deeply entrenched problem. They've hit the snooze button, they've become lazy, they're reliant entirely on record commodity prices and they are not putting in place the long-term plan we need to make our economy more competitive and more productive.


Correct me if I am wrong here Igor, but isn't putting a temporary higher tax on mining (while prices are high) in order to give a tax cut other businesses designed to make other business more competitve / attractive / productive, thus potentially shift new investment away from mining towards other business sectors that may (or may not) have more long-term sustainability / profitability.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 11:54 AM
Correct me if I am wrong here Igor, but isn't putting a temporary higher tax on mining (while prices are high) in order to give a tax cut other businesses designed to make other business more competitve / attractive / productive, thus potentially shift new investment away from mining towards other business sectors that may (or may not) have more long-term sustainability / profitability.
The question was about Swan criticising Howard for reliance on tax revenue from the mining industry.

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 12:10 PM
The question was about Swan criticising Howard for reliance on tax revenue from the mining industry.

But the criticism by Swann was about short-term reliance on mining tax revenue without having any long-term reform agenda. That is what has the Howard government done to improve the competiveness of other sectors of the economy in the long-run because eventually the mining boom will subside.

The current government has proposed a reform agenda, which uses the short-term high mining tax revenue to deliver broad corporate tax reductions that as supposed to increased the competitveness and productivity of the rest of the economy as a long-term reform. If the productivity of other business picks-up sufficiently it will generate the same of more tax revenue in the long-run as at the current corporate tax rate.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 12:18 PM
But the criticism by Swann was about short-term reliance on mining tax revenue without having any long-term reform agenda. That is what has the Howard government done to improve the competiveness of other sectors of the economy in the long-run because eventually the mining boom will subside.

The current government has proposed a reform agenda, which uses the short-term high mining tax revenue to deliver broad corporate tax reductions that as supposed to increased the competitveness and productivity of the rest of the economy as a long-term reform. If the productivity of other business picks-up sufficiently it will generate the same of more tax revenue in the long-run as at the current corporate tax rate.
Dropping corporate tax by 1% is not bad, but will hardly have noticeable effect.
And mining tax is used by Swan to cover the holes Labor made with their spending. In fact, Swan relies on mining tax much more then Howard.

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 12:21 PM
BTW You could argue that Howard did indeed use the high tax revenues to deliver income tax cuts that stimulate demand. And also to deliver a surplus that put the government in a good position to be able to temporarily stimulate the economy in the event of a down-turn.

The only thing I would criticise Howard for was delivering income tax cuts over business tax cuts. Since putting extra money in the hands of the consumer causes inflationary pressures, whislt putting extra money in the hands of suppliers means they can deliver products at cheaper prices and should reduce inflation. OF course income tax cuts a vastly more politically popular

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 12:29 PM
Dropping corporate tax by 1% is not bad, but will hardly have noticeable effect..

Can you substainiate the claim that the 1% tax cut won't have a noticeable effect.


And mining tax is used by Swan to cover the holes Labor made with their spending. In fact, Swan relies on mining tax much more then Howard.

I thought, and correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the whole package revenue neutral, that is the corporate tax rate reduction totally offsets the additional mining tax revenue. That is the government doesn't actually getting any addtional revenue to cover "spending holes".

I'll agree labour relies more on mining tax revenue, but they rely on it to deliver "long-term reforms"

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 01:34 PM
Can you substainiate the claim that the 1% tax cut won't have a noticeable effect.
You might as well articulate a reason that it will a significant impact.



I thought, and correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the whole package revenue neutral, that is the corporate tax rate reduction totally offsets the additional mining tax revenue. That is the government doesn't actually getting any addtional revenue to cover "spending holes".
Can you confirm that?


I'll agree labour relies more on mining tax revenue, but they rely on it to deliver "long-term reforms"
What reforms?

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 01:54 PM
You might as well articulate a reason that it will a significant impact.

Why? I never claimed such, you are the one making the claims not me.



Can you confirm that?

I can't personally confirm that, but that is what the Treasury estimates say.

Frankly, I am surprised you would ask for such given your continual quotation of articles that the government is overstating the mining tax revenue by $7.5b and that the new tax package will result in a deficit. Which is at total odds with the statement that the tax package is designed to cover up spending holes.

Perhaps you can clarify what your position is, do you believe the new tax package will result in a revenue deficit or surplus? If a revenue deficit how will such a deficit be used to cover up spending holes?


What reforms?

A reduction in the corporate tax rate.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 02:04 PM
Why? I never claimed such, you are the one making the claims not me.
Will it make a significant impact?



I can't personally confirm that, but that is what the Treasury estimates say.

Source?


Frankly, I am surprised you would ask for such given your continual quotation of articles that the government is overstating the mining tax revenue by $7.5b

Wrong. I did not say that government is overstating the mining tax revenue by $7.5b.


and that the new tax package will result in a deficit. Which is at total odds with the statement that the tax package is designed to cover up spending holes.

Not at all. I don't trust Labor promise to return budget to surplus even with mining tax, and without mining windfall they don't even dare to make such a promise.


Perhaps you can clarify what your position is, do you believe the new tax package will result in a revenue deficit or surplus? If a revenue deficit how will such a deficit be used to cover up spending holes?
I am happy to clarify my position, but it would be good if you sometimes articulate your position. So far you only snipping at every post without putting anything specific forward.

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 02:30 PM
Will it make a significant impact?.

I don't know I am not an economist.


Wrong. I did not say that government is overstating the mining tax revenue by $7.5b.

You're right you didn't claim $7.5b. My mistake.


Source?

http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/economic_statement/html/economic_statement-08.htm



Not at all. I don't trust Labor promise to return budget to surplus even with mining tax, and without mining windfall they don't even dare to make such a promise..

But according to the Treasury for the new tax package the incoming tax revenue is going out in tax cuts to other areas. So the mining tax has no impact on surplus or deficit



I am happy to clarify my position, but it would be good if you sometimes articulate your position. So far you only snipping at every post without putting anything specific forward.

Then please do. What is your position, will the new tax package (not the entire budget) result in a revenue deficit or surplus.?

I don't have a position as I am not an economist, I try not to engage in economic quackery where possible.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2010, 02:46 PM
I don't know I am not an economist.

I don't have a position as I am not an economist, I try not to engage in economic quackery where possible.
Goes contrary to majority of your posts here.

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 03:23 PM
Goes contrary to majority of your posts here.

I don't think so.

BTW you said you'd be happy to provide your position on whether you thought the new tax package was going to be revenue neutral, or create a revenue deficit or surplus.

Or are you with me now, in that you don't have a clue and the statement that the mining tax is designed to cover spending hole is baseless.

TheJoker
16-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Next question please Igor, given the last one has well and truly been put to bed ;)

Goughfather
16-07-2010, 03:41 PM
My point was that some lefty posters here make out-of-the-blue haughty claims about playing with politicians/ names (Mephistopheles and Goughfather the two miscreants who come to mind). In this particular thread, GF was guilty of name attacks on a poster here, while only days earlier objecting to name attacks himself. FFS Max!!!

That was the double standard that I was referring to.

What double standard are you talking about?

Firstly, you allege that my comments regarding Jono objected to his name attacks. You don't seem to recall all that accurately, because while I conceded that I personally found Jono's use of name attacks to be inane, that we should be sympathetic to Jono in light of the various challenges that he faces.

With respect to my own subsequent comments, I'll say in my defence that I was only participating because all the other boys were doing it and I wanted to fit in. More seriously though, it was a throwaway line and was not used in the context of any argument I was making. Whenever I am trying to make a substantive argument, I endeavour not to use any derogatory names - quite simply because I consider it to be bad academic practice and even if this is not an academic board, I still think it is a bad habit and one not befitting a serious attempt at argument. Furthermore, I certainly don't plan to recycle the term another 112 times.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 04:13 PM
Firstly, you allege that my comments regarding Jono objected to his name attacks. You don't seem to recall all that accurately, because while I conceded that I personally found Jono's use of name attacks to be inane, that we should be sympathetic to Jono in light of the various challenges that he faces.
Yes, it is a challenge to try to instill reason into a leftard, for the simple reason that if he starts to think rather than emote, then he will no longer be a leftard.

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2010, 04:20 PM
Well it is on the topic we were discussing. Anyway you had enough chances, the answer is
"Leftard*" by "Jono" 118 hits.

I'd be interested to know what's KB's other try was. :D

Actually that was neither of my tries. "KRudd" by Captain Underpants strikes out with less than 50 but my "winner" was "Obamov" by Jono with 161!

Desmond
16-07-2010, 04:27 PM
Actually that was neither of my tries. "KRudd" by Captain Underpants strikes out with less than 50 but my "winner" was "Obamov" by Jono with 161!
Ah, of course. Thanks!

Goughfather
16-07-2010, 06:01 PM
Yes, it is a challenge to try to instill reason into a leftard, for the simple reason that if he starts to think rather than emote, then he will no longer be a leftard.

The first of Jono's challenges, I should point out, is that he is oblivious to the real challenges he faces and prefers to blame everyone but himself for his own inadequacies.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2010, 11:33 PM
The first of Jono's challenges, I should point out, is that he is oblivious to the real challenges he faces and prefers to blame everyone but himself for his own inadequacies.
Projecting again, GF? Typical leftard tactic. Nothing shakes his blind faith in "Big Government Knows Best". In reality, a conservative view is that people are responsible for their own actions, and the country would be better if the government stuck to enforcing contracts and protecting life and property. Leftards blame "society" for their problems and those of their mascots, like minorities and criminals.

Goughfather
17-07-2010, 01:02 AM
Projecting again, GF? Typical leftard tactic. Nothing shakes his blind faith in "Big Government Knows Best". In reality, a conservative view is that people are responsible for their own actions, and the country would be better if the government stuck to enforcing contracts and protecting life and property. Leftards blame "society" for their problems and those of their mascots, like minorities and criminals.

No prize for second best, Jono. I'm not projecting on this occasion, let alone repeatedly, as you allege. Nor do I excercise a blind faith in "Big Government Knows Best". You're very good at doling out accusations, but incredibly poor at substantiating them. Again, I ask you to cite one instance which demonstrates that I believe that big government knows best. It'll be a nice piece of homework for you, along with my request for you to cite one post which demonstrates in any way that I was in thrall to Kevin Rudd, a request you quite conveniently seem to have ignored.

The reason I feel so sorry for you is that your self-delusion knows no bounds. You fraudulently claim to be a "logician" without the slightest of formal training in the subject, yet your reasoning process is frequently inferior to some of the 10 year olds students I taught in the five years before I entered legal practice. Admittedly, these were quite gifted kids, but it is sad to see your hubris at work, considering that it exists without the slightest basis in reality.

As I've come to become more accustomed to Jono's arguments, I've noticed that the similarities with Fox News presenter Glenn Beck are quite startling. Like Beck, Jono refers to himself as a "Conservative Libertarian". Like Beck, Jono seems to suffer from "Nazi Tourette's", a disorder in which the subject feels the compulsive need to breach Godwin's Law by drawing isolated and somewhat irrelevant comparisons between his ideological enemies and Hitler/Nazism. And like Beck, Jono's arguments seem to be abounding in strawperson representations, which Jon Stewart brilliantly illustrates in the following clip:

9JnDY2Gv5YQ

I found the following extract quite enlightening with respect to the style of argument employed by both Beck and Jono:

This is Glenn's blackboard, so we have to play by Glenn's rules, which are "If you subscribe to an idea, you subscribe to that idea's ideology and to every possible negative consequence that that ideology remotely implies when you carry it to remote extremes".

For instance - Progressives, if you believe in a minimum safety net for this nation's neediest, you believe in absolute and total government control.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2010, 02:41 AM
No prize for second best, Jono. I'm not projecting on this occasion, let alone repeatedly, as you allege. Nor do I excercise a blind faith in "Big Government Knows Best".
Given your constant support of left-wing ideas and rejection of the free market, showing little understanding of it, e.g. blaming it for the Dickensian poverty.


You're very good at doling out accusations, but incredibly poor at substantiating them. Again, I ask you to cite one instance which demonstrates that I believe that big government knows best. It'll be a nice piece of homework for you, along with my request for you to cite one post which demonstrates in any way that I was in thrall to Kevin Rudd, a request you quite conveniently seem to have ignored.
He could apparently do no wrong, and he was the hero for toppling Howard.


The reason I feel so sorry for you is that your self-delusion knows no bounds. You fraudulently claim to be a "logician" without the slightest of formal training in the subject,
But plenty of informal training as well as writing on this. In any case, this claim was made about me not by me, and sufficiently annoys whiny atheopaths and their liberal churchian allies that it's fun to keep it.


yet your reasoning process is frequently inferior to some of the 10 year olds students I taught in the five years before I entered legal practice.
Not that you'd know. Teachers are usually not that bright these days, since the bright students are repelled by the fad-ridden content-free pap that passes for education courses these days. In America, as Frederick Hess (with a Harvard master's in education himself) points out:


Undergraduate education majors typically have lower SAT and ACT scores than other students, and those teaches who have the lowest scores are the most likely to remain in the profession. The lower the quality of the undergraduate institution a person attnds, the more likely he or she is to wind up in the teaching profession. [Teacher quality, teacher pay, Policy Review, 1 April 2004.


As I've come to become more accustomed to Jono's arguments, I've noticed that the similarities with Fox News presenter Glenn Beck are quite startling.
I've never watched him, although my wife recently bought me one of his books which I'm enjoying reading. I also almost never watch Fox, although it's decimating the leftard-dominated news networks.


Like Beck, Jono refers to himself as a "Conservative Libertarian". Like Beck, Jono seems to suffer from "Nazi Tourette's", a disorder in which the subject feels the compulsive need to breach Godwin's Law by drawing isolated and somewhat irrelevant comparisons between his ideological enemies and Hitler/Nazism.
More projection, given that leftards loved to compare Bush with Hitler, to give but one example. And of course, they falsely claim that Nazism was a right-wing movement, when in reality the Nazis and Communists squabbled over the same left-wing ideological territory. E.g. both believed in big government, control of the economy, minimum wage laws, mobilizing the youth ideologically, and rigidly secular public schools. And both hated free markets and traditional Judeo-Christian morality.


And like Beck, Jono's arguments seem to be abounding in strawperson representations, which Jon Stewart brilliantly illustrates in the following clip
Trust a rabid leftard like GF to trust a twit who describes himself as "more socialist or independent" than Democratic.


I found the following extract quite enlightening with respect to the style of argument employed by both Beck and Jono:

This is Glenn's blackboard, so we have to play by Glenn's rules, which are "If you subscribe to an idea, you subscribe to that idea's ideology and to every possible negative consequence that that ideology remotely implies when you carry it to remote extremes".

For instance - Progressives, if you believe in a minimum safety net for this nation's neediest, you believe in absolute and total government control.
A gross dishonesty in itself. Would that progressives believed only in a minimal safety net, as per the LDP platform that I've defended, similar to Milton Friedman's negative taxation. In reality, progressives don't support such safety nets but a bloated welfare bureaucracy that keeps people dependent.

The real problem is when a conservative libertarian objects to a government program, he is accused of hating the people that the program purports to help.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2010, 04:18 PM
In reality, a conservative view is that people are responsible for their own actions, and the country would be better if the government stuck to enforcing contracts and protecting life and property.

Then why do moral conservatives continue to adhere to views that people are not sufficiently responsible for their own actions and need protection from them, and that just about the worst thing that could happen to the country would be if the government stopped interfering in people's private lives, viewing habits, marriages and reproductive decisions and stuck to enforcing contracts and protecting (actual) life and property?

The above view isn't any kind of conservatism at all, but rather radical mini-state libertarianism.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Then why do moral conservatives continue to adhere to views that people are not sufficiently responsible for their own actions and need protection from them, and that just about the worst thing that could happen to the country would be if the government stopped interfering in people's private lives, viewing habits, marriages and reproductive decisions and stuck to enforcing contracts and protecting (actual) life and property?

The above view isn't any kind of conservatism at all, but rather radical mini-state libertarianism.
The only consistent political parties by your standard are probably the DLP for the authoritarian and the LDP for the libertarian.

I think KB's post somehow got into the wrong thread.

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2010, 06:31 PM
The only consistent political parties by your standard are probably the DLP for the authoritarian and the LDP for the libertarian.

I'm not talking about consistent parties. I'm talking about the inaccuracy of claiming "conservatives" (whether they are party members or not) know better than lefties when it comes to the whole question of government intervention in the lives of citizens, when in fact many so-called "conservatives" support intervention on moral issues and are hence no better.

Maybe that should be a question righties choke on. :lol:


I think KB's post somehow got into the wrong thread.

It was in reply to your #208 which appeared out of nowhere in a mini-flamewar you were having with Goughfather.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Nicola Roxon was asked on the radio whether Abbott was a health minister at the time when Labor claims he ripped one billion dollars out of the hospital system. Despite being asked this question directly many times she kept evading the question.

Does any of the Labor supporters want to answer this question?

Basil
06-08-2010, 08:41 AM
#772

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

Notes: students will be marked down for waffle, misdirection and excessive use of the phrase 'utterly incompetent'.

ER
06-08-2010, 11:56 AM
what's that bloke doing there?
P4zmwqbBKYY&feature=related
Oh I know he's thinking of possible answers to silly short essay questions!

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2010, 06:26 PM
#772

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

I've got a six-word answer that's not too bad but I want to see the "lefties" (if any) have a bash at this one first.

Goughfather
06-08-2010, 06:54 PM
Given that according to his own criteria of contradiction and hypocrisy, Igor is the biggest leftie on this board, I think he should go first.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Given that according to his own criteria of contradiction and hypocrisy, Igor is the biggest leftie on this board, I think he should go first.
Another case of GF running his running with completely unfounded and laughable accusation. BTW, your own hypocrisies were quoted and documented, and awaiting a reply.

Goughfather
06-08-2010, 08:57 PM
Another case of GF running his running with completely unfounded and laughable accusation. BTW, your own hypocrisies were quoted and documented, and awaiting a reply.

That laughing you hear is people laughing at you, not with you ...

Max Illingworth
06-08-2010, 09:16 PM
#772

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

Notes: students will be marked down for waffle, misdirection and excessive use of the phrase 'utterly incompetent'.

Leaks.

Basil
06-08-2010, 09:19 PM
Leaks.
Sir, are you a lefty!? And in any event what was being leaked? Not ... gasp ... {foreboding music} the truth! *gasp* :D

Goughfather
06-08-2010, 09:30 PM
Sir, are you a lefty!? And in any event what was being leaked? Not ... gasp ... {foreboding music} the truth! *gasp* :D

What? That disagreement occasionally occurs in cabinet? How terrible. I'm sure that that has never happened in Coalition ranks.

Spiny Norman
07-08-2010, 06:32 AM
In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?
Buyer's remorse.

Basil
07-08-2010, 09:56 AM
Buyer's remorse.
:D

pax
08-08-2010, 12:02 PM
#772

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

Notes: students will be marked down for waffle, misdirection and excessive use of the phrase 'utterly incompetent'.

Jees, that's like a Dorothy Dixer for genuine lefties. Most lefties I know are thoroughly appalled by the current state of the Labor party and would happily write an essay on the topic.

pax
08-08-2010, 12:12 PM
#772

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

Labor have allowed Tony Abbott to set the policy agenda, and have not had the courage to lead a genuine debate on difficult issues.

Basil
08-08-2010, 12:13 PM
Jees, that's like a Dorothy Dixer for genuine lefties. Most lefties I know are thoroughly appalled by the current state of the Labor party and would happily write an essay on the topic.
And that is why you belong with Ian Murray as a genuine lefty with whom I have very little argument, save of course on matters ideology.

ER
08-08-2010, 01:53 PM
The question is did the Libs really wanted to replace little johnny liar with phoney tony? lol

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2010, 04:05 PM
As threatened, my offer for:


In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls?

Because they are obsessed with them. :lol:

pax
09-08-2010, 11:36 AM
And that is why you belong with Ian Murray as a genuine lefty with whom I have very little argument, save of course on matters ideology.

Aww, shucks. I'm such a lefty I'm seriously considering directing my preferences the other way :eek:

pax
09-08-2010, 11:37 AM
Because they are obsessed with them. :lol:

Well put.

ER
09-08-2010, 12:17 PM
I am expecting a short (not more than 25 words) reasoning of how Julia Gillard kicks Rabbotoir Phony Tony's arse in the polls again! Winner receive's a pair of Howie's underpants (soiled)!

Goughfather
09-08-2010, 02:18 PM
I am expecting a short (not more than 25 words) reasoning of how Julia Gillard kicks Rabbotoir Phony Tony's arse in the polls again! Winner receive's a pair of Howie's underpants (soiled)!

I certainly wouldn't call it an arse kicking. All the results are within the margin of error and seem to suggest a stabilising week for Labor, but nothing more. I still think this is Labor's election to lose, but it certainly wouldn't take too much to tilt the election in Abbott's favour.

At the moment, what will probably save Julia is that the public seems to have responded in a fairly lukewarm fashion to Abbott. While Abbott has outcampaigned Julia, it seems that his heavily moderated approach has merely managed to change the mood of the electorate from being antagonistic to him to merely being underwhelmed.

ER
09-08-2010, 03:43 PM
I certainly wouldn't call it an arse kicking....
Hang on boss, if them mongrels can call a bit of a drop of your mob a plunge

In 25 words or less, why has Labor plunged in the polls? .... so can we give' me a bit of their own medicine!

While Abbott has outcampaigned Julia,...
You 're joking, A-boot cannot outcampaign his out daughter who called him "a lame churchie out of touch loser" - not sure about the order but all of the above were included in the statement.
Also what do you mean outcampaigned Julia? look at the polls who's the preferred leader? Julia kicks his arse there easy....
So to cut this short, they did a bit well last week, we just took it on the chin, we went back to the streets and parks and schools and showed the bastards what we' re made of. Now wait till the end of the week and then come and talk to me about polls!
Now I let you have a few more gos at Howie and Jono, you 're doing well!!!

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 03:46 PM
Also what do you mean outcampaigned Julia? look at the polls who's the preferred leader? Julia kicks his arse there easy....

Did she negociate?;) :lol:

ER
09-08-2010, 03:48 PM
Did she negociate?;) :lol:
negotiate maybe, negociate impossible! :P

Igor_Goldenberg
09-08-2010, 03:54 PM
negotiate maybe, negociate impossible! :P
I beg to differ! (James posted it before, but I couldn't resist:D)
t6zkZ6Fo95c

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2010, 03:55 PM
Also what do you mean outcampaigned Julia? look at the polls who's the preferred leader? Julia kicks his arse there easy....

As I have mentioned many times the preferred leader score is not a good indicator of how well a party or its leader is going. In 1993, 1996 and 1998 the party whose leader was supposedly the preferred Prime Minister in the final poll before the election lost the election!

ER
09-08-2010, 04:00 PM
As I have mentioned many times the preferred leader score is not a good indicator of how well a party or its leader is going. In 1993, 1996 and 1998 the party whose leader was supposedly the preferred Prime Minister in the final poll before the election lost the election!

Undoubtedly, but we are talking polls here, not election outcomes! BTW why this lady reporter on ABC 24 keeps on claiming that 52-48 on party preferred basis is a winning margin? Most (if not all) other commentators keep on referring to the Greens preference factor!

ER
09-08-2010, 04:03 PM
I beg to differ! (James posted it before, but I couldn't resist:D)
If Boris doesn't tell you off for that then Boris is biased caus he told me off when I posted a Rabbotoir's video twice!

Goughfather
09-08-2010, 04:05 PM
Hang on boss, if them mongrels can call a bit of a drop of your mob a plunge
.... so can we give' me a bit of their own medicine!

You 're joking, A-boot cannot outcampaign his out daughter who called him "a lame churchie out of touch loser" - not sure about the order but all of the above were included in the statement.
Also what do you mean outcampaigned Julia? look at the polls who's the preferred leader? Julia kicks his arse there easy....
So to cut this short, they did a bit well last week, we just took it on the chin, we went back to the streets and parks and schools and showed the bastards what we' re made of. Now wait till the end of the week and then come and talk to me about polls!
Now I let you have a few more gos at Howie and Jono, you 're doing well!!!

Perhaps Abbott has outcampaigned Julia by default? I think that there would be few who disagree that the second week of the campaign was horrific for Labor and that Labor were justifiably smacked around in the polls because of the way they performed. Some of it was bad fortune on Julia's part, such as the cabinet leak. To Abbott's credit, his small target strategy has worked well thus far and he has not self-destructed as I expected.

Contrary to many pundits writing for The Australian, I believe that Labor successfully managed to get the train back on the tracks this week when it could have well and truly derailed. The low point was probably the unconvincing reunion of Julia and Kevin, who couldn't even pretend to like each other when their stage managed meeting was filmed. Kevin agreeing to campaign for Gillard is still a positive though and still undoes a lot of the damage inflicted by the leadership change.

I think that the Latham incident really is a non-issue. Julia handled Latham extremely well and even though Latham's attack was seen as friendly fire, it's been made clear for quite some time that the Labor party has thoroughly disowned him. Latham is Labor's equivalent of Wilson Tuckey, pure and simple, except that he is not in parliament.

Although Abbott's small target strategy has worked well for him thus far, I suspect that continuing in that way will be insufficient to get the Coalition across the line. Rightly or wrongly, Labor are starting to cut through on the economy and I think Abbott knows that. He knows that Labor is trying to bait him, but he knows that he cannot afford to decline the bait and ignore Labor's accusations of his economic illiteracy. If he can navigate the issue well, he has every chance to win the election, but in navigating the issue, Abbott runs the very real risk of letting the real Abbott out of his cage for the Australian electorate to see.

I'd also point out that the "lame, gay, churchie loser" comment by his daughter shouldn't be seen as a liability at all. It's basically just saying that she thinks that her dad is "daggy". Far from being a liability, it's indicative of a normal father-daughter relationship and could even be regarded as somewhat endearing.

Desmond
09-08-2010, 05:10 PM
If Boris doesn't tell you off for that then Boris is biased caus he told me off when I posted a Rabbotoir's video twice!Yeah I'm totally biased, I would never argue with Igor.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:11 AM
Julia Gillard said at press conference (22nd of august, the day after election) that Labor formed a minority government because they have higher share of 2PP vote.

Do you agree with that statement?

(Note - on current count Liberal is slightly ahead, by less then 2000 votes).

pappubahry
31-08-2010, 11:06 AM
(Note - on current count Liberal is slightly ahead, by less then 2000 votes).
This is an illusion. The Coalition is slightly ahead in the 142 seats for which the AEC currently shows Coalition v Labor two-party-preferred counts. Once the eight remaining seats are re-counted for Coalition v Labor, Labor will probably be slightly ahead on TPP.

Desmond
31-08-2010, 11:12 AM
Julia Gillard said at press conference (22nd of august, the day after election) that Labor formed a minority government because they have higher share of 2PP vote.

Do you agree with that statement?

(Note - on current count Liberal is slightly ahead, by less then 2000 votes).IIRC one side is claiming the high ground due to 2PP and the other due to higher primary vote. Both are pretty much irrelevant.

Desmond
31-08-2010, 12:47 PM
This is an illusion. The Coalition is slightly ahead in the 142 seats for which the AEC currently shows Coalition v Labor two-party-preferred counts. Once the eight remaining seats are re-counted for Coalition v Labor, Labor will probably be slightly ahead on TPP.
Antony Green wrote on this topic.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/who-won-the-national-2-party-preferred-vote.html#more

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2010, 01:10 PM
I don't agree with Gillard and I think it is also silly of her to be using 2PP as a criterion when it is not even clearly established that Labor has won it, and when the margin will be tiny if they have.

An interesting point in Antony's article is this:


The result could eventually be so close that whether the AEC chooses to re-count the seat of O'COnnor for 2-party preferred between Labor and Liberal or Labor and National could have an impact on who wins the national 2-party preferred vote.

That is, the concept of a national 2PP vote is not even unambiguously defined.

By the way I believe Antony is incorrect when he writes:


On the same day in Tasmania, the Bartlett Labor government lost its majority. Premier Bartlett had promised before the election that if he finished in minority with fewer seats than the Liberal Party, or with equal seats but fewer votes, he would resign his commission as Premier.

Bartlett promised to resign his commission if Labor won fewer seats than the Liberals. To the best of my knowledge, all he said about finishing with equal seats but fewer votes was that he would offer the other party the first chance to form government. Which he did.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 01:44 PM
Personally I don't think 2PP vote, or primary vote or even number of seat for a particular party is relevant for forming the government. The only relevant thing, IMO, is the ability to command majority on the floor of the lower house of the Parliament.

However, Gillard claimed a mandate based on a 2PP vote, hence my question to Labor supporters:
Do you agree with Gillard?

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 02:11 PM
However, Gillard claimed a mandate based on a 2PP vote, hence my vote to Labor supporters:
Do you agree with Gillard?

Do you have the verbatim Gillard quote in context? If not, perhaps you should waddle off and get it.