PDA

View Full Version : Meet The Lily-Whites



Basil
15-06-2010, 09:08 PM
This might come as a shock to some of you, but I don't have much time for a class of lefty which I call a lily-white.

A lily-white is a left-leaning intellectual who has neither experience nor appreciation of coal-face commerce. They love models. They love big numbers and big oganisations. They love taxpayer funds paying them to chinstroke. And more models. And after their models have crashed (costing someone else a bucket-load of cash), they'll study and recommend on that back of that and so on and so forth until they retire. Having achieved sweet fanny adams, been paid far too much and all the while remaining entirely bereft of any clue or backbone should they ever have to do so themselves (save for what is obvious to blind freddy with a 1/10th of their exposure).

Meet three of Rudd's lily-whites right here. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/novices-at-the-wheel-of-state/story-e6frg6z6-1225879617496)

arosar
15-06-2010, 10:13 PM
Who [cares]? I tell you what mate, there's one lily-white, as you put it, who's an even bigger worry. And this bloke's running a country many times the size of Australia mate.

I'm talkin' about Mark Zuckerberg. He's the biggest out-of-his-depth lily-white of all!

AR

Garvinator
15-06-2010, 10:30 PM
I'm talkin' about Mark Zuckerberg. He's the biggest out-of-his-depth lily-white of all!He is the CEO of facebook. How is that a country?

arosar
15-06-2010, 10:34 PM
He is the CEO of facebook. How is that a country?

Mate, you're an absolute bloody genius you know that?

AR

Basil
16-06-2010, 09:26 AM
Who [cares]? I tell you what mate, there's one lily-white, as you put it, who's an even bigger worry. And this bloke's running a country many times the size of Australia mate.

I'm talkin' about Mark Zuckerberg. He's the biggest out-of-his-depth lily-white of all!

AR
He may well be out of his depth, but he's an entrepreneur! You couldn't have missed the point of what constitutes a lily-white more if you tried.

As to whether he's out of his depth, I think you're fairly well shot there too. I'm no fan or otherwise, but to me it seems ]he's navigating uncharted territory, perhaps moving a little slowly, perhaps making the odd wrong call (then rectified), but doing a better job than many multi-nationals and government agencies would IMO.

arosar
16-06-2010, 10:50 AM
Maaate....mate...it's you who missed the point, right. You got the response you deserved mate. This whole thread is another of your whining about a lost election from fkn 3 years ago! The lot of youse have been spittin' out tantrums since Nov. '07. FFS! Talk about being in a prolonged state of mourning.

Look here right, at the rate that the ALP is currently going, your man Abbott will prolly be in office by the next election.

As for Zuck, don't talk to me about Zuck. He's out of depth. If he's smart, he'll get himself a real CEO.

AR

Basil
16-06-2010, 11:02 AM
Maaate....mate...it's you who missed the point, right. You got the response you deserved mate.
Oh geez you got me a good one there. Plonk.


This whole thread is another of your whining about a lost election from fkn 3 years ago!
Nope. It's about a class of clown that exists, which I loathe, regardless of who's in government. Even when my lot was in, and when your lot is in now, and when my lot gets back in (whenever that is) the lily-whites are around. They make me wanna puke. Pointy-headed parasites.

Apart from that, my left bashing was also alive and well when the Libs were in government. Look, it's a just blood sport, sport. Nothing to do with who's in and who's not. You've missed the point. Save your psycho-assessment for someone else.

TheJoker
17-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Just a minor point but I don't think you've got a handle on the colloquial use of the term lily-white which usually sarcastically means beyond reproach or innocent.

You seem to be talking about naivety or ignorance doesn't seem to fit the language.

From the title I thought you where going to expose some people who put themselves up to be moral bastions but in reality are very immoral.

Interestingly you included the press secretary in that bunch, as being clueless, yet I don't think anybody would doubt the Kevin '07 campaign was bloody great PR, it worked so well that Howard lost his own seat. Anyway I think Rudd tends to be more media savvy than the opposition. I'd say most "coal face" PR professionals would go their entire career without coming up with a campaign anywhere near as successful as that.

I'd be interested to know whether you think Michael Porter was a "lily-white" he was a young intellectual with no "coal-face" commecial experience who based on academic research came up with a number of business models?

Goughfather
17-06-2010, 11:17 PM
Apart from that, my left bashing was also alive and well when the Libs were in government. Look, it's a just blood sport, sport. Nothing to do with who's in and who's not. You've missed the point. Save your psycho-assessment for someone else.

I don't doubt it. When the Libs were in, you played the role of shameless apologist, castigating the Left for their temerity in criticising the Howard government. Now that Labor has assumed the mantle, you've become the aggressive villager in the town square with the flaming torch. Just different sides of the same coin, really.

Your aggressive response seems to be indicative of the fact that arosar has struck a nerve and that his diagnosis of sour grapes is right on the money. Consider this alongside your attention seeking exploits and it also seems to be indicative of your fruitless search for legitimacy. You really want people to take you and your arguments seriously because you honestly believe that you have something important to say. The sad truth is, however, that you're simply part of the lunatic fringe that make the birthers in the Tea Party look like erudite individuals.

I'm sure that you're really a decent guy who just feels a little lonely and simply wants acceptance. But for the sake of us all, please leave the serious topics to the adults.

Capablanca-Fan
18-06-2010, 04:38 AM
I don't doubt it. When the Libs were in, you played the role of shameless apologist, castigating the Left for their temerity in criticising the Howard government.
Justifiably so, considering the elimination of Keating's debt, building up a good surplus, the lowest unemployment in three decades, and halting the invasion of people-smugglers.


Your aggressive response seems to be indicative of the fact that arosar has struck a nerve and that his diagnosis of sour grapes is right on the money.
Of course, plunging Australia into huge debt, throwing money at home insulation resulting in deaths, invasion of people smugglers, wasting money on school buildings of schools that will close, and now delighting other countries eqagerly awaiting at miners relocating there in response to KRudd's impulsive and greedy profits tax grab, has nothing whatever to do with it.


The sad truth is, however, that you're simply part of the lunatic fringe that make the birthers in the Tea Party look like erudite individuals.
What "birthers" exactly? Nothing like the "9-11 truthers", like many Dems (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/birthers_and_truthers_the_poli.html) and even a Tsar appointee Van Jones (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjBkZjk2OGE3OGQ0YTNkNGRmMmFkZTIwZWExOGExYjg=), who think that GWB knew about the attacks in advance.


I'm sure that you're really a decent guy who just feels a little lonely and simply wants acceptance. But for the sake of us all, please leave the serious topics to the adults.
That evidently doesn't include lawyer-types barely out of uni.

Basil
18-06-2010, 04:48 AM
Just a minor point but I don't think you've got a handle on the colloquial use of the term lily-white which usually sarcastically means beyond reproach or innocent.
As you say, a minor point, but seeing as you've raised it, I don't think you've quite got a handle on the fact that I have commandeered the phrase for my own vernacular and given it an all together new meaning.

You seem to be talking about naivety or ignorance doesn't seem to fit the language.


I'd be interested to know whether you think Michael Porter was a "lily-white" he was a young intellectual with no "coal-face" commecial experience who based on academic research came up with a number of business models?
I'm not particularly familiar with Mr White but if you're asking generally whether a black lesbian can vote right, or more specifically whether lily-whites can promote rightist ideals, then the answer is yes.

Basil
18-06-2010, 05:01 AM
I don't doubt it. When the Libs were in, you played the role of shameless apologist
Example?


Just different sides of the same coin, really.
As you know, your habit of marching into other people's conversations with your shoes on the wrong feet while dribbling unsubstantiated rubbish is often met by me with ad hominem attacks largely because your arguments don't even warrant discussion, such is their baselessness.

However, on this occasion, I'll allow you to string yourself up and I'll point out that you haven't made any substantiated comment at all, save for some ad hominem attacks.

You are indeed, as I have suggested previously of other lefties on this board - two-faced in your ability to howl about ad hominen attacks and then proceed to partake yourself (albeit artlessly), as well as lacking in depth by the measure of your argument, let alone your indignation when those evacuations which you pass off as argument are summarily ignored as a waste of bandwidth.

Now, back to your allegation before the hyperbole - an example of my apologist behaviour as described please.

TheJoker
18-06-2010, 12:02 PM
As you say, a minor point, but seeing as you've raised it, I don't think you've quite got a handle on the fact that I have commandeered the phrase for my own vernacular and given it an all together new meaning..

Fair enough.


I'm not particularly familiar with Mr White but if you're asking generally whether a black lesbian can vote right, or more specifically whether lily-whites can promote rightist ideals, then the answer is yes.

I am extremely surprised you are not familiar with Michael Porter.

The point had nothing to do with what you mention above but rather that Michael Porter was a university PhD student who with no "coal face" commercial experience, came up with a number models related to business strategy that are now used almost universally in industry across the globe and revolutionised business strategy apporaches. He seems exactly what you would call a lily-white. Yet his results are remarkable, it sort of defeats your argument that these type people (and models) are useless.

On a separate note I'd like to sincerely suggest you consider familiarising yourself with the work of Michael Porter I think as an entreprenuer you'd really enjoy it.

Basil
18-06-2010, 12:19 PM
I am extremely surprised you are not familiar with Michael Porter.
Don't be. I am not familiar with (m)any layers of political personnel beneath the front line served-up in the mainstream press.


Yet his results are remarkable, it sort of defeats your argument that these type people (and models) are useless.
Well it would if my lambasting of the lily-whites was meant as a proven stereotyping of every person so described. I hardly believe you, or any reader of this thread, believes that my lampooning of this stereotype or any other is a science. It's just fun rubbish. While Arosar thinks he gave me the sort of 'answer' my thread I reckon your presenting a person (and of course there'd be many examples) who refutes the stereotype presented is more in keeping with the answer this thread deserves.


On a separate note I'd like to sincerely suggest you consider familiarising yourself with the work of Michael Porter I think as an entreprenuer you'd really enjoy it.
I might just do that. Lord knows I need all the help I can get atm :wall: He sounds interesting. Thanks.

TheJoker
18-06-2010, 01:09 PM
Don't be. I am not familiar with (m)any layers of political personnel beneath the front line served-up in the mainstream press..

He not political personnel he is arguably the world's most famous expert on business strategy.


Well it would if my lambasting of the lily-whites was meant as a proven stereotyping of every person so described..

Fair enough. I probably agree with you that the majoirty people of straight out of university with no industry experience, have little or no hope of creating effective policies/models that can help improve business. Just wanted to point out there their are a few people who have got the smarts to be able to do just that. I dunno if any those three in the linked article qualify in that regard or not.


I might just do that. Lord knows I need all the help I can get atm :wall: He sounds interesting. Thanks.

You can check out a free article here (http://www.exed.hbs.edu/assets/shape-strategy.pdf)

Goughfather
18-06-2010, 11:58 PM
As you know, your habit of marching into other people's conversations with your shoes on the wrong feet while dribbling unsubstantiated rubbish is often met by me with ad hominem attacks largely because your arguments don't even warrant discussion, such is their baselessness.

However, on this occasion, I'll allow you to string yourself up and I'll point out that you haven't made any substantiated comment at all, save for some ad hominem attacks.

It seems you still don't get it. I initially tried to engage meaningfully with you and your inane commentary in the somewhat naive hope that you would reciprocate. After realising fairly quickly that considered conversation between yourself and anyone was simply impossible, I gave up on that ambition. As such, I don't presume to hold any moral highground with you in relation to our recent conversations. I unashamedly admit that I see you as something of a sideshow amusement whom I toy with as a form of stress relief.


You are indeed, as I have suggested previously of other lefties on this board - two-faced in your ability to howl about ad hominen attacks and then proceed to partake yourself (albeit artlessly), as well as lacking in depth by the measure of your argument, let alone your indignation when those evacuations which you pass off as argument are summarily ignored as a waste of bandwidth.

That presumes a measure of respect for you and esteem for your opinion.


Now, back to your allegation before the hyperbole - an example of my apologist behaviour as described please.

See my first response. I'm not going to waste my time and energy on an individual I don't consider to be a serious partner in conversation. I would note, however, that Jono seems to agree with me, as indicated in his comment "justifiably so".

Basil
19-06-2010, 01:41 AM
It seems you still don't get it.
We all get it. You're a shallow fool, outed regularly as making unsubstantiated allegations in any thread to which you turn your mind. You've now added double-standards to your repertoire. Still giggling at your bungling virgin contribution on the coalition budget reply. What a riot!

I initially tried to engage meaningfully with you
And I keep telling you - your offerings were so sub-standard, they couldn't pass for meaningful contributions now matter how generous one wanted to be. The example above was a perfect display of an assertion made by you where you obfuscated for a week in supplying a citation, only to eventually have your position fall in a heap. Let's be clear, you have no purpose in political threads. You have no clue.

snip
So anyway Mr Ad Hominem Double Standard, regardless of your evasive diatribe (your specialty), on the second asking, please supply an example to support your allegation or withdraw it.

Goughfather
19-06-2010, 11:55 AM
We all get it. You're a shallow fool, outed regularly as making unsubstantiated allegations in any thread to which you turn your mind. You've now added double-standards to your repertoire. Still giggling at your bungling virgin contribution on the coalition budget reply. What a riot!

And I keep telling you - your offerings were so sub-standard, they couldn't pass for meaningful contributions now matter how generous one wanted to be. The example above was a perfect display of an assertion made by you where you obfuscated for a week in supplying a citation, only to eventually have your position fall in a heap. Let's be clear, you have no purpose in political threads. You have no clue.


Speak for yourself. If the other right wing stooges want to criticise me, then let them do it themselves.

Given that you can only speak for yourself (and self-evidently with some difficulty into the bargain) you'll forgive me for not putting too much stock in your opinion.

For what it's worth though, I suspect I have more formal education in politics than yourself.


So anyway Mr Ad Hominem Double Standard, regardless of your evasive diatribe (your specialty), on the second asking, please supply an example to support your allegation or withdraw it.

I've told you already that I'm not going to bring to light your ad hominems in future, if for no other reason than for the fact that it's all par for the course anyway and does not bear repeating.

As previously stated, our Chesschat relationship is one of expedience. I find your clownish antics and attention seeking behaviour to be comic relief. To expect me to waste my time and effort on giving you a serious response is inconsistent with the fact that I find you little more than a running punchline.

Despite the fact that Jono suggested in his last response I'm right about you previously being a shameless apologist for the Howard government (albeit that Jono sees this as a positive thing), I'm sure you'll consider my response as a victory for yourself. So be it.

Basil
19-06-2010, 12:19 PM
For what it's worth though, I suspect I have more formal education in politics than yourself.
Not very much judging by your offerings on this board.


I've told you already that I'm not going to bring to light your ad hominems in future
Good man. Your change of behaviour is best. Claiming ad hominem was always such a flog. Nevertheless, you remain guilty of the double standard.


As previously stated, our Chesschat relationship is one of expedience.
Again, you remain the master of making unsubstantiated allegations and then failing to support them. This thread being another example.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2010, 01:45 PM
I don't doubt it. When the Libs were in, you played the role of shameless apologist, castigating the Left for their temerity in criticising the Howard government.
Justifiably so, considering the elimination of Keating's debt, building up a good surplus, the lowest unemployment in three decades, and halting the invasion of people-smugglers.
That's a problem with the normal forum reply format. My comment was meant to apply to the clause preceding, i.e. "castigating the Left for their temerity in criticising the Howard government." I think more and more people are missing Howard, given KRudd's arrogance, reckless spending, failed projects, shelving the "greatest moral issue of our time", and now driving miners out of Australia with the concommittant slump in the Au$ and ASX.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2010, 04:33 PM
I don't doubt it. When the Libs were in, you played the role of shameless apologist, castigating the Left for their temerity in criticising the Howard government.

Would you be so kind to provide the link to the Howard's post that would justify calling him "shameless apologists"?

Goughfather
19-06-2010, 04:58 PM
Would you be so kind to provide the link to the Howard's post that would justify calling him "shameless apologists"?

No I would not. I've explained why this is the case a number of times. If you are unable to comprehend this, then that's not my problem.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2010, 08:12 PM
No I would not. I've explained why this is the case a number of times. If you are unable to comprehend this, then that's not my problem.

You don't have to. I just wanted to receive a confirmation that your abuse of Howard is completely unwarranted, which you provided. Thanks!