PDA

View Full Version : Stuff the message - It depends on who is delivering it



Pages : [1] 2

Basil
15-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Message: Sorry can't afford that (yet, now, in full)
If delivered by Coalition:
Criticised as: Mean, tight, rich protecting evil.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Oh OK, if you think so daddy. We're glad that you're an economic conservative.

Message: We must wipe out terror. It is the one of the biggest challenges of the of the 3rd millenium
If delivered by Coalition:
Self-serving fear mongering and Johnny was the cause of it anyway.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Oh OK, if you think so daddy. What should we do?

Message: Sweeping statement such as record interest rates or no child etc..
If delivered by Coalition:
Lies. Bloody misleading evil lies.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Oh daddy, you missed. But you're an ace guy for trying, unlike those heartless Liberals.

Message: Too much union power is bad for the country
If delivered by Coalition:
Yeah, that's right - you don't like the unions coz they fight for the rights of the working family.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
OK Kevin. We trust you to get the balance right.

Message: This union boss is a clown and he is an embarassment
If delivered by Coalition:
Keep your nose out of it you lying rodent.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Yeah, I guess. We don't want that sort of behaviour.

Message: The (various) cases for funding of both private and public schools
If delivered by Coalition:
Same ol usual claptrap - I couldn't be bothered writing :lol:.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Yeah, I guess.

I'll add more later.

Basil
15-11-2007, 06:21 PM
Message: It is important that all countries should be part of Kyoto for it to be workable
If delivered by Coalition:
Rubbish! Yank-loving old-school. Asleep at the wheel.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Rock on. You go Kevin and show some balls. *Please be quiet Peter Garrett, you're upsetting the mystique*

Axiom
15-11-2007, 06:32 PM
Gunner(your last 2 posts)- great evidence that we are mass brainwashed and grossly ill-informed, as ive been banging on about here for the last 2 years !

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Gunner, the Libs get no sympathy at all from me on this one. Double standards may well abound but the Libs themselves have thrived off them throughout their terms in office (even having the cheek to pretend to be economically liberal while using excessive tax to raise excessive surpluses). If they are now being hoist on their own petard (and in so many ways I think they are), then they deserve it. :)

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 10:10 PM
Gunner, the Libs get no sympathy at all from me on this one. Double standards may well abound but the Libs themselves have thrived off them throughout their terms in office (even having the cheek to pretend to be economically liberal while using excessive tax to raise excessive surpluses). If they are now being hoist on their own petard (and in so many ways I think they are), then they deserve it. :)

Go a step further and agree that Gunner is correct.
What the Gunner says of the majority of population views on his itmes listed is the perception that will lead to the reality of election defeat.

Thus two future choices for the LNC .1 Spin harder. OR 2 Become less mean and more honest.
How long will it take them to wake-up to trying 2?

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 10:16 PM
Thus two future choices for the LNC .1 Spin harder. OR 2 Become less mean and more honest.
How long will it take them to wake-up to trying 2?
How long will it take you to avoid the very spin Gunner was talking about!! He has documented promises by Labor that are at least as rash, like "No child in poverty", as well as "The recession we had to have".

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 10:18 PM
Double standards may well abound but the Libs themselves have thrived off them throughout their terms in office (even having the cheek to pretend to be economically liberal while using excessive tax to raise excessive surpluses).
You think that taxes are too high?! I happen to agree, of course. But do you think that the other lot would have supported any attempt to lower them, or just used the usual envy-mongering leftist demagogery of "tax cuts for the rich".

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 10:19 PM
He has documented promises by Labor that are at least as rash, like "No child in poverty", as well as "The recession we had to have".

The former was indeed a remarkably stupid promise which should have done a lot more electoral damage than it did, except that it was made at a safe point in the electoral cycle.

As for the latter, what's the evidence - how avoidable was it? Or was it more that it was a true thing to say, but a stupid one?

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 10:27 PM
You think that taxes are too high?! I happen to agree, of course. But do you think that the other lot would have supported any attempt to lower them, or just used the usual eny-mongering leftist demagogery of "tax cuts for the rich".

Well, the other lot certainly have supported some attempt to lower them, by matching nearly all the Coalition's tax cuts.

And there is something worse about the Coalition overtaxing than Labor doing it, because the Coalition have historically made more noises about being against that sort of thing.

And yes, I do think taxes are too high (not only for lowish income earners but probably for more or less everybody). This is not a difficult position for me to argue, since while I do support increased expenditure in some areas, on the whole I support reductions and in some cases abolitions. The tricky bit though is that in my case the reductions in some areas are conditional on the increases in others. :lol:

Basil
16-11-2007, 12:16 AM
Message: I believe in budget surpluses
If delivered by Coalition:
You are over-taxing the people. Howard and Costello are out of touch and they don't get that WORKING FAMILIES need that money in their pockets.

Same message delivered by Rudd (this month!!!!!!)
Good 'ol Kevin. He's an economic conservative. He'll see us right and make sure there's always enough money in the tin.

Basil
16-11-2007, 12:21 AM
Gunner, the Libs get no sympathy at all from me on this one.
Don't want sympathy.


Double standards may well abound but the Libs themselves have thrived off them throughout their terms in office
You've missed the point. My post is not about the politicians. It's about the facile open-mouthed voters who (genuinely :eek:) view a policy differently depending on whose gob it comes out of.


pretend to be economically liberal while using excessive tax to raise excessive surpluses).
Huh? I think we best leave that one alone. Perhaps allow yourself a little teensy peek at post 10 and then turn away quickly.

Garrett
16-11-2007, 06:19 AM
I don't see why the evil right winged conservatives dont just go the whole hog and re-introduce slavery. It would :-

- Reduce unemplyment to nil.
- Reduce inflation (slaves don't spend much).
- Reduce interest rates (due to reduced inflation).
- Increase productivity.
- Induce slaves to take up cheap pastimes like chess.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 08:11 AM
I don't see why the evil right winged conservatives dont just go the whole hog and re-introduce slavery. It would :-

- Reduce unemplyment to nil.
- Reduce inflation (slaves don't spend much).
- Reduce interest rates (due to reduced inflation).
- Increase productivity.
- Induce slaves to take up cheap pastimes like chess.
Slavery would violate the free market though. And historically, they did NOT raise productivity. They were the result of wealth not the cause of it in Greece Rome. And the Union defeated the Confederacy in the US Civil War largely because of the economic superiority of the Free States.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2007, 09:46 AM
You've missed the point. My post is not about the politicians. It's about the facile open-mouthed voters who (genuinely :eek:) view a policy differently depending on whose gob it comes out of.

Many voters on all sides are like that, so you're not telling anyone the news on that front. It's just like many sports fans who find exceptional skill on their own team admirable and exceptional skill from the other team either boring or suspect. I guess it is worth stating now and then, but perhaps a coverage across all parties would be more illuminating. (Greens supporters in particular should be a fertile harvest. :lol: )


Huh? I think we best leave that one alone. Perhaps allow yourself a little teensy peek at post 10 and then turn away quickly.

Naaah, I'd rather respond to it by pointing out that it's one thing to say you believe in budget surpluses, and they are a good thing - in moderation.

It's another altogether to say you believe in budget surpluses but then deliver one massively larger than expected because your forecasting is horrendously out of whack and has been so throughout the tenure of your regime, even though your side is supposed to be the one that is good at these things.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 10:12 AM
It's another altogether to say you believe in budget surpluses but then deliver one massively larger than expected because your forecasting is horrendously out of whack and has been so throughout the tenure of your regime, even though your side is supposed to be the one that is good at these things.
I'd rather have pessimistic economic forecasting resulting in larger-than-expected surpluses, than have optimistic economic forecasting resulting in unexpected budgets. In business, in running a chess club, in managing my own household, I *always* forecast pessimistically on both revenue and expenses. This tends to result in better-than-expected results, which is always a very pleasant feeling. ;) Of course, you can simply point out that "they should get their forecasts right", but if they did that we'd probably accuse them of being witches and burn them all at the stake. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2007, 10:24 AM
I'd rather have pessimistic economic forecasting resulting in larger-than-expected surpluses, than have optimistic economic forecasting resulting in unexpected budgets.

I agree with this, but only to a degree. If you budget for a small surplus and end up with a moderate one, that's good, and certainly better than budgeting for a very small surplus and ending up with a deficit. But if you balance for a rather large surplus then end up with a truly enormous one then (a) could it really have hurt you to be quite a bit more optimistic and (b) dishing out the profits later won't help anyone who could have used them earlier.

Eurotrash's comments on inaccurate forecasting backed up something I'd been familiar with for a while - for someone who seems to think he is a remarkably good Treasurer, Costello's track record on predicting budget outcomes is remarkably inaccurate.

Sam
16-11-2007, 10:33 AM
Thus two future choices for the LNC .1 Spin harder. OR 2 Become less mean and more honest.
How long will it take them to wake-up to trying 2?

This is like asking a leopard to change its spots.
Howards success has been built on him telling major lies.

Sam
16-11-2007, 10:37 AM
Slavery would violate the free market though. And historically, they did NOT raise productivity.

Slavery was the most free market of all. Total unfettered trade.
And if you think they didnt raise productivity,well then you are totally insane.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 10:37 AM
... Costello's track record on predicting budget outcomes is remarkably inaccurate.
I would have thought that this would have been a Finance Department / Treasury issue, not a ministerial issue? If they're not good enough, shake them up. If its because of government policy, then change policy. But I'm still having 'nightmares' about the former Labor government's budget deficits and the $10B+ 'black hole' that Keating left us with. It will take a few more election cycles before I have forgiven Labor for that...

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 10:47 AM
Slavery was the most free market of all. Total unfettered trade.

Don't stay stuck on stupid all your life. Slavery is the antithesis of freedom. George Reisman pointed out in Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (1998):


“the difference between freedom and slavery is as sharp as day and night, even when a worker must work to avoid the pain of hunger. For even in this case it is not the capitalist employer who causes the worker’s hunger. On the contrary, he provides the means of satisfying the worker’s hunger.”

Slavery occurs only when a worker chooses not to work but is physically forced to. But in the West, workers can always choose not to work for a particular employer, whenever another employer offers them better wages and/or conditions.

Put it another way, a slaver owner restricts the choice of a slave. But in a free economy, if a new prospective employer appears, then the choice of a worker is expanded.


And if you think they didnt raise productivity,well then you are totally insane.
Then prove your case. Why was the American South way behind the North when the South had slavery? Why was Brazil so economically backward although they retained slavery for longer than any other country in the Americas? It happens to be a fact that slaves in ancient Rome were not the source of their wealth but a demonstration that the owner was wealthy enough to own slaves. This is documented in Conquests and Cultures by Thomas Sowell (himself black).

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 10:52 AM
This is like asking a leopard to change its spots.
Howards success has been built on him telling major lies.
Look, troll, you're missing your meeting of the Young Communists. We've been through this already. What lies? You mean like "no child will be in poverty"? What about Keating proposing the GST, but totally opportunistically using this very GST for demagogery against Hewson? At least Howard went to the 1996 election promising no GST, and he kept that. In the 1998 election, he made it clear that he would introduce GST if he won, and he kept to his word there as well, despite the Dems ruining it somewhat.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 11:02 AM
Howards success has been built on him telling major lies.
All politicians' success tends to be built on telling major lies. Its ingrained in their DNA. To make your argument compelling for me, you'll need to point to something Howard has done which is both negative AND out of character for politicians generally. Then I'll sit up and take notice. Otherwise its just as helpful as those mindless drones that wander around the city with a can of white paint and a little template, spraying "Howard Lies" on the footpath.

Take the current argy-bargy over the alleged pork-barrelling in the regional partnerships program. I'm old enough to remember Ros "Whiteboard" Kelly, so I'm just not impressed. As John Fain pointed out on ABC Radio this morning, when interviewing Wayne Swan (I paraphrase): "Tell me EXACTLY how you're going to prevent this from happening, and tell me NOW before YOU get into office, don't tell me you'll tell me after you're elected, otherwise its all just meaningless political posturing ... all politicians of all persuasions stick their party-political snouts in the public purse when they're elected ... and besides which, your party (Labour) has "got form" for this very thing".

Fain is exactly, precisely, correct.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2007, 11:24 AM
I would have thought that this would have been a Finance Department / Treasury issue, not a ministerial issue?

Ministers are responsible for the output of their employees by convention in our system. If the employees do poorly, they need to rectify it.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 11:33 AM
... Ministers are responsible for ...
I wish ... precious little evidence of that over the past 25+ years in Australian politics ...

Basil
16-11-2007, 01:50 PM
This is like asking a leopard to change its spots.
Howards success has been built on him telling major lies.

Sam quite apart from this being a whopping statement that wouldn't pass the lips of any serious commentator (regardless of their political proclivities) I would like you to list the lies (as you and the left like to howl). I'll start, coz I know the pet ones:

1. Children Overboard (6 years ago)
2. Record Interest Rates (for a period of two days in the last campaign - 3 years ago)

Now please complete the list that you have said is the foundation of Howard's record of success on low interest rates, low unemployment, low IR disputes.

I'm expecting a quality list of say 20? That would be a measly 2 lies a year. Over to you.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 02:18 PM
... Costello's track record on predicting budget outcomes is remarkably inaccurate.
Incidentally, just after I'd written my previous repy, I popped down the street for a hamburger and a coffee, and picked up a copy of the Melbourne Herald/Sun. Once of the articles noted that our VIC government had, in their most recent budget, under-estimated the revenues from land/property stamp duty by 25%. Come on now ... 25%? Makes Costello's team's under-estimation of the budget surplus look positively accurate in comparison. I also note that there's no sign of VIC Labor giving most of that money back via cuts to stamp duty rates. They're addicted to money, just look at how they've reneged on their agreement to cut out things like payroll tax.

Sam, want to talk about lies? Lets talk about that ...

See how its not all one-sided. The one thing in common: politics. Opportunistic bunch of b*******.

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 02:28 PM
Given that I work in tax revenue forecasting, I can attest to the fact that it is virtually impossible to accurately predict property stamp duty in the current environment. It's just too volatile. For example, in my jurisdiction, since the last two interest rate rises, we've had a phenomenal increase in property market activity. Forecast that! :eek:

FWIW, Jono's 100% correct on the economics of slavery. BTW, a little known fact: economics is known as the "dismal science" not because of recessions and so on, but because this phrase was used as propaganda by the slavers when economists in the 19th Century advocated the abolition of slavery on economic grounds - claiming that the abolition of slavery would ruin the nation... sound familiar? :hmm:

On the subject of Budget surpluses, both parties are practising misdirection in terms of their slavishness to "1% surpluses forevermore". Economic theory advocates surpluses in boom times, and deficits during recessions. If anyone's interested in the reasoning for this, I'll expand on it, but otherwise I won't bore you. FWIW, trust me - if when we go into recession, then we'll see deficits. They're not a bad thing in this context.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 02:35 PM
BTW, did anyone hear Rudd's comments the other day about how he plans to slash the size of the public service. He even used the words "razor gang". If the Coalition had said that, we'd hear the union howling clear across the galaxy. This is all VERY confusing. I perceive an almost complete absence of integrity in this election, pretty much across the board.

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 02:41 PM
BTW, did anyone hear Rudd's comments the other day about how he plans to slash the size of the public service. He even used the words "razor gang". If the Coalition had said that, we'd hear the union howling clear across the galaxy. This is all VERY confusing. I perceive an almost complete absence of integrity in this election, pretty much across the board.
It's funny: Labor is advocating a reduced government, and the Coalition has expanded government!

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 02:41 PM
FWIW, Jono's 100% correct on the economics of slavery. BTW, a little known fact: economics is known as the "dismal science" not because of recessions and so on, but because this phrase was used as propaganda by the slavers when economists in the 19th Century advocated the abolition of slavery on economic grounds — claiming that the abolition of slavery would ruin the nation... sound familiar? :hmm:
I didn't know that, thanx :clap:

Basil
16-11-2007, 04:38 PM
Two crackers from Spiny presented in the requisite form.

Message: Our forecasts are out
If delivered by Coalition:
Yeah right. That's because you're incompetent, or you lied to us to extract more cash. How the bloody hell can you get it that wrong?

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd
Tell me about it brother. Forecasting is a difficult science. But better to have a forecast than no forecast at all.

Message: We want to slice the public service right up!
If delivered by Coalition:
Hooooooooooooooooooooooowl! FFS. Typical. Screw the basic services and basic service delivery until it's on its knees. You've never cared how long people have to wait in a queue.

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd
All together now!!! "We are economic conservatives. That's how we will make this country grand ... for ALL Australians ... Hooray!!!"

Basil
16-11-2007, 04:41 PM
And one more from moi.

Message: Poli seen lunching with big business
If delivered by Coalition:
Typical. Out of touch with WORKING FAMILIES. I bet they were talking about ways top screw workers' entitlements - which paid for the lunch!

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Normal and good. Labor is in touch with everyone. It talks to WORKING FAMILIES and understands business, too.

Axiom
16-11-2007, 06:49 PM
And one more from moi.

Message: Poli seen lunching with big business
If delivered by Coalition:
Typical. Out of touch with WORKING FAMILIES. I bet they were talking about ways top screw workers' entitlements - which paid for the lunch!

Same message delivered by Hawke/ Keating/ Rudd:
Normal and good. Labor is in touch with everyone. It talks to WORKING FAMILIES and understands business, too.
and you still buy into this whole charade ??!! :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 06:56 PM
and you still buy into this whole charade ??!! :lol:
OK, but it still makes sense to choose which one of these you like best so you can list them in order of your preference after your LDP vote. ;)

Axiom
16-11-2007, 08:57 PM
OK, but it still makes sense to choose which one of these you like best so you can list them in order of your preference after your LDP vote. ;)
You mean like your preference for deckchair placement ? ;)

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 10:38 PM
You mean like your preference for deckchair placement ? ;)
No, between high taxes and higher taxes, for example.

Axiom
16-11-2007, 11:29 PM
No, between high taxes and higher taxes, for example.
As wel as ,big government and bigger government ?

Desmond
19-11-2007, 06:54 PM
Message: I went to a strip club.

If delivered by JH: hahahahaha ROFLMAO did you take a manual?

If delivered by KR: meh

Basil
19-11-2007, 07:02 PM
Message: You would you turn gay for?

If answered 'my wife' by JH: Nerd. Fool. Clown. Idiot. Crusty. Get off.

If answered 'my wife' by KR: Cool. Sweet. Right-onz dude.

ElevatorEscapee
19-11-2007, 08:45 PM
What answer does Howard have to his own question? :eek:

pax
20-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I fail to see who you are having a go at Howie.. Is it the Labor spin merchants? If so, do you see the Liberal spin machine behaving any differently when it suits them? Is it left-wing pundits in the press? If so, do you see the right-wing pundits behaving any differently?

Basil
20-11-2007, 10:49 AM
What answer does Howard have to his own question? :eek:
I fail to see who you are having a go at Howie.
All these Kevins and Howards! Enough already :P
Am I in the firing line? Do I have to answer a question? I'd like to. What question is being asked of me?

pax
20-11-2007, 10:53 AM
All these Kevins and Howards! Enough already :P
Am I in the firing line? Do I have to answer a question? I'd like to. What question is being asked of me?

Who is the target of this thread? See above.

Basil
20-11-2007, 11:23 AM
Who is the target of this thread? See above.
:hmm: There is no target per se. More of a commentary on communications. If you'd care to join the dots for this simple Englishman, I'd be most obliged.

pax
20-11-2007, 11:25 AM
:hmm: There is no target per se. More of a commentary on communications. If you'd care to join the dots for this simple Englishman, I'd be most obliged.
I'll just say that the spin is not all coming from one direction.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:06 PM
I fail to see who you are having a go at Howie.. Is it the Labor spin merchants? If so, do you see the Liberal spin machine behaving any differently when it suits them? Is it left-wing pundits in the press? If so, do you see the right-wing pundits behaving any differently?
No, I see supposed reporters behaving as leftist pundits.

Basil
20-11-2007, 12:30 PM
I fail to see who you are having a go at Howie.
Cha ching! Now this is embarrassing. I understand the reason for the confusion (which I have single-handedly caused) on account of my being an utter utter utter utter utter ... :P Here goes ...

When I first read your quote above, for reasons quite inexplicable, I read the "who" as "why" - which would make the sentence "Why are you having a go at Howie?" which I thought was being asked of EE. But of course, as most pre-schoolers would have picked, the letter 'O' does not look like the the letter 'Y' :doh:

*ahem* your question ... Who Am I having A Go At?

I am having a (good) go at some elements of the left support base. Talking to them (and I get to do that at work and at home) is like to talking to planks. Their ideas are formed depending on the last dribble that was spoon-fed to them in the last 5 minutes.

Spin doctors? For sure. Both the left and right's ability to answer a direct question indirectly and then attack the other side (avoiding the issue) is banal. I still can't believe it works in the answerer's favour.

As to degree, I genuinely believe the left has a trickier line to walk for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I'd be happy to have you or others post some in reverse. I'll let you know if they're plausible. With possibly one or two exceptions, all the ones posted in this thread are laughable because they are true of what is heard from voters around the traps.

pax
20-11-2007, 12:33 PM
No, I see supposed reporters behaving as leftist pundits.

Even Howard is a Lefty compared to you (both of them) ..

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:35 PM
Even Howard is a Lefty compared to you (both of them) ..
In context, I was talking about Left of Centre, not left of me. Surveys of academe and media show that most of them are more left than the general public.

pax
20-11-2007, 12:37 PM
As to degree, I genuinely believe the left has a trickier line to walk for all the reasons outlined in this thread. I'd be happy to have you or others post some in reverse. I'll let you know if they're plausible. With possibly one or two exceptions, all the ones posted in this thread are laughable because they are true of what is heard from voters around the traps.

Must depend who you talk to. Most Labor voters that I talk to are extremely cynical about Rudd - but generally hope that he can't be any worse than Howard.

pax
20-11-2007, 12:44 PM
Surveys of academe and media show that most of them are more left than the general public.

So? What would you do about it? Enforce affirmative action for right-wing hacks?

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:53 PM
So? What would you do about it? Enforce affirmative action for right-wing hacks?
No, make unis pay their own way, instead of getting funding coerced from taxpayers. Also, try to make parents and donors aware that the university they are paying big bucks to is leftist indoctrination camp.

But to you, everyone right of Comrade Gillardova is a 'right wing hack'. And the above would be about the only sort of affirmative action you would hate, even though it would be towards diversity of opinion.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:54 PM
So? What would you do about it? Enforce affirmative action for right-wing hacks?
No, make unis pay their own way, instead of getting funding coerced from taxpayers. Also, try to make parents and donors aware that the university they are paying big bucks to is leftist indoctrination camp. It's no accident that the media and academe often supported Soviet tyranny as equal or even superior to the West.

But to you, everyone right of Comrade Gillardova is a 'right wing hack', And the above would be about the only sort of affirmative action you would hate, even though it would be towards diversity of opinion.

pax
20-11-2007, 12:58 PM
But to you, everyone right of Comrade Gillardova is a 'right wing hack', And the above would be about the only sort of affirmative action you would hate, even though it would be towards diversity of opinion.

You keep debating against your favourite phantom socialist chimera. What would you know what I think of affirmative action?

pax
20-11-2007, 12:59 PM
No, make unis pay their own way, instead of getting funding coerced from taxpayers.

Nice. Back to the good old days of education as an exclusive domain for rich people. Way to destroy Australia's productivity.

Basil
20-11-2007, 01:01 PM
Must depend who you talk to. Most Labor voters that I talk to are extremely cynical about Rudd - but generally hope that he can't be any worse than Howard.
Yes it does depend. I think that is a reasonable summary.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 01:02 PM
You keep debating against your favourite phantom socialist chimera.
It's a fact that Leftacademe loved the Soviet Union.


What would you know what I think of affirmative action?
You whinge whenever I criticise female quotas in Labor and supported AA when it came to Weetbix IM titles.

Basil
20-11-2007, 01:03 PM
Surveys of academe and media show that most of them are more left than the general public.
If this is true, it confirms my suspicions. You can chuck in teachers, too. In fact just about anyone who gets to talk, guess, read and commentate ... as opposed to you know ... actually ... ummm ... DO!

Coz the models look so appealing don't they? It's just that they don't blinking work!

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 01:09 PM
Nice. Back to the good old days of education as an exclusive domain for rich people. Way to destroy Australia's productivity.
Not at all. There could be private scholarships and loans, which historically is how many poor people became educated. And if government must fund education, I've already pointed out that this funding should go to the consumers, so the institutions would have to perform to attract students.

And it is hardly productive for Australia to fund feminazi Women's Studies departments; degrees in homeopathy; and even English degrees where if Shakespeare is studied at all, it's so show what a sexist, racist gaybasher he was.

It's also notable that many of the leaders in post-independence Africa who brought such disaster to the new countries were academics educated in soft subjects in Europe. So they learned nothing of real value, and everything about socialism and racial demagogery. There was also the problem of a class of 'educated' unemployed, 'solved' by expanding government bureaucracies to employ them, meaning that they could make more mischief.

Spiny Norman
20-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Spin doctors? For sure. Both the left and right's ability to answer a direct question indirectly and then attack the other side (avoiding the issue) is banal.
Gunner, I've occasionally been tempted to form a new political party. It would accept into membership people from both left and right (Jono and Pax both welcome!). The main criteria would be that any candidates it puts up for election would have to be plain speakers. If asked a YES or NO question, they would have to commit to giving a YES or NO answer, with any qualifying material to be given in no more than a single supplementary sentence of less than 10 seconds duration.

Now you can have some fun with this ... I challenge you to ask me the five most awkward questions you can think up. I will demonstrate how I would answer them if I were a candidate.

Basil
20-11-2007, 01:50 PM
Gunner, I've occasionally been tempted to form a new political party. It would accept into membership people from both left and right (Jono and Pax both welcome!). The main criteria would be that any candidates it puts up for election would have to be plain speakers. If asked a YES or NO question, they would have to commit to giving a YES or NO answer, with any qualifying material to be given in no more than a single supplementary sentence of less than 10 seconds duration.

Now you can have some fun with this ... I challenge you to ask me the five most awkward questions you can think up. I will demonstrate how I would answer them if I were a candidate.

OK, I'll give the q's some thought, but I must object to the idea of having either Jono or pax on your team - they're certified lunatics! - just jokes. I did note you didn't include me *lol*

To be honest, I think the level of political discussion on this board is some of the best I have encountered. Not too stuffy, not too light - just right.

pax
20-11-2007, 02:11 PM
It's a fact that Leftacademe loved the Soviet Union.
Sorry, but that's bollocks. A few academics with socialist ideals does not turn the lot of them into Soviet loving Commies.



You whinge whenever I criticise female quotas in Labor
Nope, I just questioned your assertions of particular people being there *because* of a quota.



and supported AA when it came to Weetbix IM titles.
WIM titles have nothing to do with AA.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 02:51 PM
Sorry, but that's bollocks. A few academics with socialist ideals does not turn the lot of them into Soviet loving Commies.
A few?? Good grief, look at all the ‘intellectual morons’ who are darlings of the media and educational systems, but hold (or held) loopy, repugnant ideas:


Peter Singer, a supporter of infanticide and bestiality but rewarded with a bioethics chair by Princeton University;
Margaret Sanger, the eugenicist and black-hating founder of the leading abortion and population-control organization Planned Parenthood;
Paul Ehrlich, doomsday (false) prophet, darling of the radical environmentalists;
Fraudulent author Rigoberta Menchú;
Alfred Kinsey, whose specialty was gall wasps, but whose fault-ridden studies on human sexuality are the backbone of the ‘gay rights’ movement, which downplays his advocacy of sexual experimentation with children.
Alger Hiss, proven traitor and Soviet spy (but was merely unamimously convicted of perjury for denying it, because the statute of limitations for espionage had run out, so he received only a five-year prison term). But this didn’t stop Bard College honouring him with an ‘Alger Hiss Chair for Social Studies’—when his guilt was even further nailed by the VENONA transcripts of intercepted and decoded Soviet cables. We are waiting for the ‘Benedict Arnold chair of American History’ and the ‘Adolf Hitler chair of Hebraic Studies’.
Iran's Ahmadinutjob, Adjunct Professor at Columbia :P

And even apart from outright morons like the above, the surveys consistently shows an overwhelmingly left-of-centre faculty membership, and selection of future staff on ideological grounds. Republicans are rarer on Uni faculties than blacks at KKK rallies. 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. They found that 72% of teachers describe themselves as liberal, but only 15% are conservative. The abstract says:


… the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities. … This suggests that complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study.

But like most lefties, you think of yourself as mainstream.


Nope, I just questioned your assertions of particular people being there *because* of a quota.
If they weren't, there is even less excuse for these airhead candidates :P


WIM titles have nothing to do with AA.
Of course they do. Otherwise there would be simply IM titles.

pax
20-11-2007, 03:01 PM
Of course they do. Otherwise there would be simply IM titles.

You should look up the definition of affirmative action sometime. If women were getting the same IM title as men on the basis a quota system - that would be AA.

pax
20-11-2007, 03:05 PM
A few?? Good grief, look at all the ‘intellectual morons’ who are darlings of the media and educational systems, but hold (or held) loopy, repugnant ideas:
I can name ten right-wing nutjob academics too, and it proves as little as your list.



Iran's Ahmadinutjob, Adjunct Professor at Columbia :P

Did you hear the Colombia President's introduction to Ahmadinejad? He was ambushed big time. That was no friendly gathering for him.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 03:06 PM
You should look up the definition of affirmative action sometime. If women were getting the same IM title as men on the basis a quota system — that would be AA.
I have looked it up, and also read Affirmative Action Around the World by Thomas Sowell, himself black (see review by Dutch Martin (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3873.html), also black).

A quota is merely a subset of AA. There is no female quota for IMs, but there is still preferential treatment in that there are titles open only to females, and many treat the Weetbix titles financially equal to the real ones.

ElevatorEscapee
20-11-2007, 07:15 PM
OK, so would Howard turn gay for Kevin (or vice versa)? :P

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 07:52 PM
I can name ten right-wing nutjob academics too, and it proves as little as your list.
You have to look very carefully to find such right-wingers, and even Australian Coalition supporters or American Republican supporters.


Did you hear the Colombia President's introduction to Ahmadinejad? He was ambushed big time. That was no friendly gathering for him.
A last minute ambush, which won brownie points for 'Nutjob from students, and even more importantly, from Iranians.

Fact remains that Columbia has rejected invitations from politically incorrect speakers like the Lawrence Summers, he who got offside with the Feminazis, and the Minutement, who just want to protect their country's border, but invite a Holocaust denier.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Message: You would you turn gay for?

If answered 'my wife' by JH:

We don't know what Howard would answer or how it would be received because having long ago dumbed down Australian politics with his deplorable infatuation with right-wing talkback, Howard is now too uppity and serious to appear on lowbrow pseudo-comedy shows like Rove's.

ElevatorEscapee
20-11-2007, 08:15 PM
I'd also like to add that it is a very insulting suggestion to the wives of the people in question to suggest that their wives turned them gay. :P

Basil
20-11-2007, 09:05 PM
We don't know what Howard would answer or how it would be received because having long ago dumbed down Australian politics with his deplorable infatuation with right-wing talkback...
Kevin, you know as well as I do that your cause and effect aren't related. One's not knowing how John Howard would answer a question is completely unrelated (causally) to his various infatuations - unless the sole point you are making is that we don't know because he hasn't done (and you just added the rest for fun).

As for the dumbing down :hand: There isn't a more dumbed down message in politics than 'Working Families', 'Out of touch' 'Asleep At The Wheel' on high repeat with very little regard to substantial qualification that doesn't topple under the slightest scrutiny.


Howard is now too uppity and serious to appear on lowbrow pseudo-comedy shows like Rove's.He can take a number.

It would be equally possible to argue that Rudd carefully thought out whether an appearance on Rove would be beneficial to his campaign and the answer is yes. You yourself have proclaimed Rudd's strategic qualities.

Basil
20-11-2007, 09:06 PM
I'd also like to add that it is a very insulting suggestion to the wives of the people in question to suggest that their wives turned them gay. :P
I have it on reasonable authority (her brother) that my first girlfriend is (now?) a lesbian :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 01:46 PM
Abbott turns up late for a debate and is savaged (not least by our own Abbott).

Comrade Gillardova turns up late for a debate (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_does_an_abbott_without_the_apology/), but must have had a good reason.

Spiny Norman
21-11-2007, 01:52 PM
Yeah, I was listening to that on the radio this morning as it happened. The hypocracy was palpable. Mind you, I possibly would have learned more if she'd stayed away completely, as both she and Costello incessantly talked over the top of each other. Someone should have turned off both their microphones!

Basil
21-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Beat me to it. I'd be interested to see if the media elect to play the story and hold the presses for the next 3 days on high repeat (as they did with Abbott) - NOT!

pax
21-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Abbott turns up late for a debate and is savaged (not least by our own Abbott).

Comrade Gillardova turns up late for a debate (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_does_an_abbott_without_the_apology/), but must have had a good reason.
Abbott was savaged by Labor for turning up 30 minutes late. I have no doubt that the Coalition will return the favour to Gillard for turning up 15 minutes late - Bolt has certainly wasted no time in pointing it out..

Basil
21-11-2007, 04:59 PM
Abbott was savaged by Labor for turning up 30 minutes late. I have no doubt that the Coalition will return the favour to Gillard for turning up 15 minutes late - Bolt has certainly wasted no time in pointing it out..
Was Labor entitled to savage Abbott?
Is the Coalition entitled to return the favour?

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 05:00 PM
Abbott was savaged by Labor for turning up 30 minutes late. I have no doubt that the Coalition will return the favour to Gillard for turning up 15 minutes late — Bolt has certainly wasted no time in pointing it out..
Yeah, unlike the Leftmedia, which is the point of this thread!

Spiny Norman
21-11-2007, 05:15 PM
The thing that really ticked me off was Gillard's response to repeated questions from Jon Faine (who, to his eternal credit, tackled her about this turning up late thing). Frankly, a fair-minded person would have owned up and perhaps said something like this:

"Yes, I had a go at Tony Abbott about being late. Now I'm late myself. Mea culpa. I apologise to Tony because, obviously, the other day I was just trying to score a cheap political point, and I shouldn't have done that."

If she'd said something even remotely approaching that, she would have earned my undying admiration as being a person of substance. Instead, all she spouted was spin ... I guess that makes her, like most of the rest of them, left-wing and right-wing alike, JUST A TYPICAL SPIN-DOCTORING POLITICIAN.

/end rant

Axiom
21-11-2007, 05:41 PM
, like most of the rest of them, left-wing and right-wing alike, JUST A TYPICAL SPIN-DOCTORING POLITICIAN.

/end rant
Spiny , time to look at The LDP. http://www.ldp.org.au/

pax
21-11-2007, 05:58 PM
Yeah, unlike the Leftmedia, which is the point of this thread!
Huh? In case you hadn't noticed, the article which Bolt refers to is one the ABC website (which you like to refer to as part of the "leftmedia"). I also gather (from other sources) that Gillard received some strong criticism on the radio broadcast (also ABC) when she eventually turned up.

Basil
21-11-2007, 06:05 PM
Huh? In case you hadn't noticed, the article which Bolt refers to is one the ABC website (which you like to refer to as part of the "leftmedia"). I also gather (from other sources) that Gillard received some strong criticism on the radio broadcast (also ABC) when she eventually turned up.
That is all good. I'm concerning myself with the degree, volume and persistence of comment, viz the 3 day maelstrom that Abbott received.

pax
21-11-2007, 06:11 PM
Here's a pretty funny article about Rudd's campaign launch by Annabel Crabb in the SMH. Perhaps the "Leftmedia" anti-Howard bias machine got distracted by Rudd's Howard impersonation? http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/labor-reprograms-ruddbot/2007/11/14/1194766768759.html

pax
21-11-2007, 06:14 PM
That is all good. I'm concerning myself with the degree, volume and persistence of comment, viz the 3 day maelstrom that Abbott received.
Bear in mind that Abbott's late arrival was only one of a number of screw-ups on that particular day. That and the fact that he looked like murder. I don't recall him being lambasted by the media for lateness in particular - perhaps you could furnish some references?

Aaron Guthrie
21-11-2007, 06:35 PM
Bear in mind that Abbott's late arrival was only one of a number of screw-ups on that particular day. That and the fact that he looked like murder. I don't recall him being lambasted by the media for lateness in particular - perhaps you could furnish some references?I'd say what made it a well run story was the sound-byte.

Basil
21-11-2007, 06:55 PM
I don't recall him being lambasted by the media for lateness in particular - perhaps you could furnish some references?
It's more the media attention it was given. I don't think media savaged him and passed judgement.

The Coalition was distracted for 3 days with many questions on many topics to many right interviewees starting with the question:
-- Has the Abbott made an impact
-- I bet you're displeased with the Abbott thing taking focus off the campaign ... (thereby perpetuating the problem)
-- The coalition has had hiccups, such as Abbott being late ...

These things are hard to document, as you'd appreciate.

I'll be interested to see if all labor interviews over the next 3 days start with
-- Gillard this
-- Gillard that

or whether the story has a 24 hour cycle and then dropped. I really don't know. Perhaps the media will make something of it - they're (it) not totally one-eyed you know!

Basil
21-11-2007, 06:58 PM
We don't know what Howard would answer or how it would be received because having long ago dumbed down Australian politics with his deplorable infatuation with right-wing talkback, Howard is now too uppity and serious to appear on lowbrow pseudo-comedy shows like Rove's.

Kevin,

Follow-up question! Why didn't Rudd appear on the hard-hitting 'Insiders' when invited? Were there no votes? Would he be exposed as limp and shallow and hypocritical?

If it's fair to have a go at Howard for not appearing on the pappy Rove discussing crap, surely a would-be PM should appear on Insiders and discuss ... you know ... politics.

Clearly I'm biased. I'd like to hear your rationale!

Desmond
21-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Abbott is such a clown his party is probably grateful he was only passively embarassing himself for those 30 minutes.

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Abbott is such a clown his party is probably grateful he was only passively embarassing himself for those 30 minutes.
That's no way to talk about Eurotrash :P ;)

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 08:39 PM
Kevin, you know as well as I do that your cause and effect aren't related. One's not knowing how John Howard would answer a question is completely unrelated (causally) to his various infatuations - unless the sole point you are making is that we don't know because he hasn't done (and you just added the rest for fun).

The point I'm making is about double standards. If he's too serious to rock up on comedy then he should never have dabbled in talkback.


As for the dumbing down :hand: There isn't a more dumbed down message in politics than 'Working Families', 'Out of touch' 'Asleep At The Wheel' on high repeat with very little regard to substantial qualification that doesn't topple under the slightest scrutiny.

Quite possibly true, but simply a case of Howard building the wheel of cliched politics then getting run over by the juggernaut. Entirely self-inflicted. :lol:


It would be equally possible to argue that Rudd carefully thought out whether an appearance on Rove would be beneficial to his campaign and the answer is yes.

Not disputing that in the slightest.

Basil
21-11-2007, 09:10 PM
The point I'm making is about double standards. If he's too serious to rock up on comedy then he should never have dabbled in talkback.
Huh? Are you suggesting talk-back - discussing politics and interacting with listeners of all political persuasions (with its limitations) is allied on a level with a pappy comedy show?


Quite possibly true, but simply a case of Howard building the wheel of cliched politics then getting run over by the juggernaut. Entirely self-inflicted. :lol:
That presupposes your original assertion of Howard's dumbing down has substance. The original assertion of dumbing down was never qualified. Would you care to qualify that claim now? As far as I am concerned, JH has always taken the cerebral perspective of not only what he believes is best for the country - but has done so knowing it is politically dangerous. He has then done his best to educate the electorate as to his rationale. That, to my mind is taking the high road. Enough from me. What has he dumbed down?

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 09:32 PM
Huh? Are you suggesting talk-back - discussing politics and interacting with listeners of all political persuasions (with its limitations) is allied on a level with a pappy comedy show?

Commercial talkback, certainly. :lol:


That presupposes your original assertion of Howard's dumbing down. The original assertion of dumbing down was never qualified

Oh yes it was. See above.

Basil
21-11-2007, 09:37 PM
Commercial talkback, certainly. :lol:
Right :hand:


Oh yes it was. See above.
I went back as far as post #69. Please assist with a post number. I can't see where you have stated what messages John Howard dumbed-down for the electorate.

Mind you I couldn't tell the difference between 'who' and 'why' yesterday, so my expectations of catching you out on the existence of the reference aren't great :doh:

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 09:52 PM
I went back as far as post #69. Please assist with a post number. I can't see where you have stated what messages John Howard dumbed-down for the electorate.

What I am suggesting is that treating commercial talkback radio as anything other than toxic subevolved slime was a reach for the lowest common denominator, just as appearing on Rove is likewise.

If we want to get into messages Howard has dumbed down for public consumption, where do you want me to start? Race politics? Northern Territory intervention? Refugees? Terrorism and wars upon it? Education?

Basil
21-11-2007, 09:58 PM
What I am suggesting is that treating commercial talkback radio as anything other than toxic subevolved slime was a reach for the lowest common denominator, just as appearing on Rove is likewise.
So the statement of dumbed-down messages weren't "qualified above"?


If we want to get into messages Howard has dumbed down for public consumption, where do you want me to start? Race politics? Northern Territory intervention? Refugees? Terrorism and wars upon it? Education?
I'll accept any or all of
a) Race politics
b) Northern Territory Intervention
c) Refugees
d) Terrorism
e) Education

thanks Eddy

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 10:10 PM
So the statement of dumbed-down messages weren't "qualified above"?

Sometime in the last week or so you accused me of missing some point that I had failed to read between the lines. Under those circumstances, this little game has gone on long enough - clearly talkback participation is the endorsement of dumbness I have been referring to for many posts in this thread.


I'll accept any or all of
a) Race politics
b) Northern Territory Intervention
c) Refugees
d) Terrorism
e) Education

thanks Eddy

If I'm bored enough tomorrow or the next day (both days off) I may well give one or more of these a bash.

However a higher priority will be writing my tasmaniantimes column on how Howard and co have messed up this campaign and why they are likely to lose. The working title is

It Aint The Economy, Stupid

:lol:

Basil
21-11-2007, 10:19 PM
Sometime in the last week or so you accused me of missing some point...
Rather I demonstrated you had.


Under those circumstances, this little game has gone on long enough - clearly talkback participation is the endorsement of dumbness I have been referring to for many posts in this thread.
Clearly (from your context). But again that is entirely different from my asking (and your failing to answer) what messages Howard has dumbed down. I think you missed the point!


If I'm bored enough tomorrow or the next day (both days off) I may well give one or more of these a bash.
Whenever. I'll be here.


However a higher priority will be writing my tasmaniantimes column on how Howard and co have messed up this campaign and why they are likely to lose. The working title is

It Aint The Economy, Stupid

:lol:
And you might be on to something!

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Rather I demonstrated you had.

Did you? Actually what I had in mind when I wrote the above was your incorrect claim I had failed to address something in #482 of Johnny's Going Down, which I duly rebutted. The search function shows a more explicit instance of you claiming I missed a point, but that one is bound to be equally dubious. I very rarely miss points, though I sometimes replace them with more interesting ones. :lol:


Clearly (from your context). But again that is entirely different from my asking (and your failing to answer) what messages Howard has dumbed down. I think you missed the point!

That's because your question was itself off the track (anything to avoid saying "missing the point" again!) in its introduction of messages to a topic where I had clearly been comparing choices of modes of address. You can't blame me for failing to substantiate a claim I didn't actually make!

Axiom
21-11-2007, 10:46 PM
It Aint The Economy, Stupid

:lol:
You're getting warmer !! :)

Basil
21-11-2007, 11:54 PM
Rather I demonstrated you had (missed the point).

Did you?
I did. Post #11 of this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=174167&postcount=11) in response to your post #4 of this thread where you incorrectly attacked the coalition parliamentarians while the allegation was being levelled against the voting public.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 01:57 AM
I'll accept any or all of
a) Race politics
All races are equal, and should have equal rights—none should have any government-sponsored advantages or disadvantages. We should support equality of process and opportunity, not necessarily equality of outcome.

Look to Noel Pearson for what Aboriginal people need—he says that welfare has killed his people. Don't fuel the gravy train of the race-baiting grievance mongers who do nothing practical for their people.


b) Northern Territory Intervention
Long overdue, and supported by mainstream Labor. Poor little aboriginal children were dying because of fear of repeating the non-existent "stolen generations" if they were removed from highly abusive situations.


c) Refugees
Genuine refugees should be helped. But people smugglers needed to be stopped, because people were dying because of them. Howard's policy did that.

Immigrants should also be welcomed, as long as they are prepared contribute to the country and don't just draw welfare for life. They must realise that they need to adjust to the Australian way of life; it is not up to Australia to adjust to them. For example, e.g. freedom of religion—for their festivals as well as for Australian Christians even if you're offended by the latter—and Australia will not tolerate honor killings or female genital mutilation. Sharia law does not apply here so if you want it, find somewhere else to emigrate to.


d) Terrorism
It's real, despite what leftists think. But we should not fight it by treating innocent people as suspects, e.g. all airline passengers, or by undermining due process.


e) Education
Best taken out of the hands of the government completely. But if government must be involved, it should be to pay the parents of students, so the schools would have to compete for them by performing. The unionized monopoly of State schools is unhealthy.

Howard is right to give tax breaks for parents of private school children. After all, their taxes pay for state schools too.

State schools are the responsibility of the States, so don't blame Howard's federal government for their shortcomins.

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 08:37 AM
Hey Gunner, you got an example of Labor disseminating fake pamphlets in a cynical racist smear to link the Liberals with Islamic terrorists?

Just wondering...

Do I hear the sound of a nail being driven home into a 6ft long pine box?

:owned:

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 08:55 AM
Hey Gunner, you got an example of Labor disseminating fake pamphlets in a cynical racist smear to link the Liberals with Islamic terrorists?
What is this about? How Keating allowed a terrorism-supported imam to immigrate? BTW, Islam is not a race, so how could it be racism to point this out?

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 09:04 AM
So you support the actions of Gary Clarke et al then Jono?

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 09:06 AM
So you support the actions of Gary Clarke et al then Jono?
Who is he and what did he do?

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 09:15 AM
The Australian's coverage (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22801438-601,00.html)

The offending pamphlet:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/904/islamicpamphletbr1.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 09:21 AM
The Australian's coverage (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22801438-601,00.html)
What has forgery like that to do with anything? The Libs booted out the forgers.

Carry on.

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 09:30 AM
Did they boot out all involved, or just some scapegoats? :hmm:

Jackie Kelly must've known, for a start. Further, Kelly is a close confidant of the PM...

The Libs won't even name those expelled. Why? Have the Libs investigated who ordered and paid for the pamphlets? If not, why not? If yes, what did those investigations reveal?

And then for Kelly to pass it off as a prank gone wrong... :eek:

What has it to do with anything? It's indicative of endemic attitudes and practices within the Liberal Party perhaps?

Yet another own goal... and this only two days after Andrew Robb's laughable attempt to cast doubt over the eligibility of 13 ALP candidates, based on nothing more than internet searches :lol: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 09:39 AM
Jackie Kelly must've known, for a start. Further, Kelly is a close confidant of the PM...
Any proof that the PM was involved??

Andrew Bolt is also disgusted by the fake campaign (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/despicable_campaign/).


And then for Kelly to pass it off as a prank gone wrong... :eek:
Bolt doesn't accept that.


What has it to do with anything? It's indicative of endemic attitudes and practices within the Liberal Party perhaps?
Again, any proof? Far more alarming than this isolated example is the endemic Union salivating over the prospect of a Labor victory, and the skifield socialists among them who want to impose a bill of rights with its asociated judicial tyranny upon Australia.


Yet another own goal... and this only two days after Andrew Robb's laughable attempt to cast doubt over the eligibility of 13 ALP candidates, based on nothing more than internet searches :lol: :owned:
Again, isolated. Most unlikely that the same sort of smear campaign by Labor would get the same condemnation from all sides.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:47 AM
I did. Post #11 of this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=174167&postcount=11) in response to your post #4 of this thread where you incorrectly attacked the coalition parliamentarians while the allegation was being levelled against the voting public.

Actually I always realised your accusation was against the voting public, but was just saying that I had no sympathy with the Liberal parliamentarians potentially suffering as a result of it. Didn't bother addressing it at the time as it was too trivial and I couldn't be bothered.

Kevin Bonham
22-11-2007, 09:51 AM
As for the pamphlet thing it is another amusing inverse echo of 1996. But in this case, unlike Ralph Willis's stupid and desperate misuse of a forged Jeff Kennett letter, those distributing the forged document know it to be fake!

Davidflude
22-11-2007, 09:53 AM
It's funny: Labor is advocating a reduced government, and the Coalition has expanded government!

Rudd possibly means slashing the drones in the Prime minister's Department.

pax
22-11-2007, 09:56 AM
Kevin,

Follow-up question! Why didn't Rudd appear on the hard-hitting 'Insiders' when invited? Were there no votes? Would he be exposed as limp and shallow and hypocritical?

He should have. It was pretty weak to avoid it - and I understand that Barrie Cassidy was pretty furious that Rudd didn't show.



If it's fair to have a go at Howard for not appearing on the pappy Rove discussing crap, surely a would-be PM should appear on Insiders and discuss ... you know ... politics.

Sorry, who was having a go at Howard for not going on Rove?

pax
22-11-2007, 10:10 AM
What has forgery like that to do with anything? The Libs booted out the forgers.

Carry on.

The Libs will not say who they booted out, or who was involved in the distribution. It's a very serious matter which needs to be properly investigated - an investigation that the Libs need like a hole in the head right now.

I heard Jackie Kelly on radio national this morning, and she was completely pathetic. She tried to pass it off as a "Chaser style stunt", and was failing abysmally to sound like she was laughing it off. She refused to say if her husband was involved, or if he was booted out of the party. The way she spoke made it sound as if she probably knew about the flyer - if she hadn't known about it she could have played the high ground - "didn't know anything about it, disgusted about it, perpetrators will be severely punished" etc.

It's possible that this was the actions of a few people, and their expulsion will be the end of it. It's also possible that Jackie Kelly was more directly involved, that parliamentary resources were used to print the flyer (though I can't imagine them having been *that* foolish), or that the Liberal candidate knew about the flyer. It is exceptionally unlikely that Howard had anything to do with it, as he is smarter than that. Whatever the situation, it is going to eat a lot of news coverage today and tomorrow.

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Any proof that the PM was involved??
None, I don't seriously believe that Coward knew of it, or would approve of such a stupid act. He must really be loving the timing of all this - 2 days to go, and all the oxygen sucked out of any press appearances..

However, I think a little more introspection than "it was a joke by some individuals who weren't acting on behalf of the Party" is warranted. I think a little more openness about the identity of those expelled, and the investigations into the matter is warranted.

It's actually a sad indictment on Australians generally that anyone in the LNP would think that the risk inherent in such a tactic is justified by the votes that it might win.

Basil
22-11-2007, 10:17 AM
Jono, in your #101 I noticed that you have preempted much of what Kevin may have elected to throw at me (and denied my first right of reply) :lol:

Just wondering as to whether you misread my post to Kevin when I wrote "I'll accept any of ..." as my meaning that I'll accept Kevin's (and Labor's) criticisms. That was not my intention at all.

My intention when I wrote "I'll accept any of ..." was that I will accept the challenge of debate. Just clarifying.

Basil
22-11-2007, 10:21 AM
Did they boot out all involved, or just some scapegoats? :hmm:
The pamphlet is vile and crass. That is my opinion. I have just heard John Howard's.

He has referred the matter to the electoral commission.
He has denounced the act.
He has requested that the offenders be thrown out of the Liberal Party (although he has no right o do so himself)

If anyone believes that Howard is remiss or not genuine, there is nought I can do about that. The act was foul.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:27 AM
Jono, in your #101 I noticed that you have preempted much of what Kevin may have elected to throw at me (and denied my first right of reply) :lol:
Sorry about that :lol: :doh:

Just wondering as to whether you misread my post to Kevin when I wrote "I'll accept any of ..." as my meaning that I'll accept Kevin's (and Labor's) criticisms. That was not my intention at all.


My intention when I wrote "I'll accept any of ..." was that I will accept the challenge of debate. Just clarifying.
Thought so. Won't jump the gun (or the Gunner) again.

pax
22-11-2007, 10:28 AM
If anyone believes that Howard is remiss or not genuine, there is nought I can do about that. The act was foul.

I agree. Howard's comments were entirely appropriate and seemed completely genuine (just don't expect him to say sorry ;) ) - a lesson for Jackie Kelly on how she might have better handled it.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:29 AM
The Libs will not say who they booted out, or who was involved in the distribution. It's a very serious matter which needs to be properly investigated — an investigation that the Libs need like a hole in the head right now.
Chairman Rudd said that a prominent union thug would be booted out of Labor, yet months later, he was still in. So thanx for yet another proof of this thread's topic. :hand:


It is exceptionally unlikely that Howard had anything to do with it, as he is smarter than that.
Exactly. Not that rabid Howard-hating self-confessed lefties like Euro would care.

pax
22-11-2007, 10:33 AM
Chairman Rudd said that a prominent union thug would be booted out of Labor, yet months later, he was still in. So thanx for yet another proof of this thread's topic. :hand:
Don't change the subject :evil:

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:34 AM
I agree. Howard's comments were entirely appropriate and seemed completely genuine (just don't expect him to say sorry ;) )
He would, if he had something to apologize for! But he doesn't believe in futile gestures like apologizing for what he didn't do to people who were not done to! He desires results not appearances.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:39 AM
Don't change the subject :evil:
Excuse me, the subject of this thread is double standards!

pax
22-11-2007, 10:43 AM
Excuse me, the subject of this thread is double standards!

Then perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of which members of the Labor party have been caught distributing fabricated information designed to stir up race hatred for political gain? Then you can talk about double standards.

Basil
22-11-2007, 10:57 AM
Then perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of which members of the Labor party have been caught distributing fabricated information designed to stir up race hatred for political gain? Then you can talk about double standards.
No! We're allowed to have one double standard in a sea of thousands! :lol:

I hasten to add the the thread is specifically about the interpretation of the same act or utterance in a different way, depending on the originator.

The pamphlet distribution was ex parte and was dealt with as one would expect the Labor party to deal with it.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 10:58 AM
Then perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of which members of the Labor party have been caught distributing fabricated information designed to stir up race hatred for political gain?
I've already told the Other Lefty, Islam is not a race!!

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 11:43 AM
Then perhaps you'd like to enlighten me of which members of the Labor party have been caught distributing fabricated information designed to stir up race hatred for political gain? Then you can talk about double standards.
I think it was Eurotrash who first raised the issue in this thread. So its up to him to point to the double-standard (e.g. perhaps he can point to a case where Labor followers/members did distribute false material and where the Coalition demanded action from Labor which they have not applied to themselves in the current day situation). That would be a double-standard.

pax
22-11-2007, 11:45 AM
I've already told the Other Lefty, Islam is not a race!!
Don't equivocate. The pamphlet was clearly intended to incite racist sentiments. Obviously Islam is not a race, I agree, but Islamophobia (of the kind provoked by the leaflet) is very closely tied with racism.

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 11:58 AM
Reports are flying that the husband of the current candidate for Lindsay (ie NOT Jackie Kelly) is also involved in the pamphlet scandal.

This just gets better and better :clap:

Southpaw Jim
22-11-2007, 12:07 PM
And confessions on ABC radio from a booth campaigner for Kelly admitting they handed out false how-to-vote cards in the 1998 and 2001 elections!!

Priceless! :clap: :clap: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 12:21 PM
Don't equivocate. The pamphlet was clearly intended to incite racist sentiments. Obviously Islam is not a race, I agree, but Islamophobia (of the kind provoked by the leaflet) is very closely tied with racism.
Nonsense. But typical of lefties to see racists under the bed. It is actually a dislike of Islamofascist terrorism, e.g. flying planes into buildings, blowing up school buses. It is also a dislike of many of the other injustices, e.g. Saudi Arabia recently sentencing a gang rape victim to jail and flogging (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21916343/), or our own Keating-sponsored Sheik "sarcofelis" Hilaly (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20670730-5001031,00.html).

It is hardly "racist", because Iranian islamofascists are not racially Arabic, while there are no Palestinian Arab Christian suicide bombers.

Back to the pamphlet, it was wrong because it was a forgery. The Libs like Howard and your hated "right wing" columnist Andrew Bolt have denounced it much more strongly than Labor has denounced union thuggery.

Spiny Norman
22-11-2007, 01:12 PM
And confessions on ABC radio from a booth campaigner for Kelly admitting they handed out false how-to-vote cards in the 1998 and 2001 elections!!
Priceless! :clap: :clap: :owned:
I don't think its priceless. If it turns out to be true, its absolutely bloody appalling. The people involved ought to be charged and brought to account. This is serious stuff. If it turns out that any sitting member were ever involved then they ought to be made to repay every bloody penny of public money they ever took from the time of the offence onwards.

pax
22-11-2007, 01:25 PM
Back to the pamphlet, it was wrong because it was a forgery.

It was wrong because it was a forgery, and because it was falsely inciting anti-islamic sentiment. But apparently inciting anti-islamic sentiment is just fine with you.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 02:12 PM
It was wrong because it was a forgery, and because it was falsely inciting anti-islamic sentiment. But apparently inciting anti-islamic sentiment is just fine with you.
Nope, just anti-terrorist sentiment. But evidently allowing Islamofascist extremists to immigrate is fine with you. To Lefties, the real danger is not from Islamic terrorists flying planes into buildings or blowing up schoolbuses, or Saudi courts sentencing gang rape victims to flogging and jail, but Christians wanting to display nativity scenes or saying "merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". See Robert Spencer: Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is — and Islam Isn’t (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7094).

pax
22-11-2007, 03:05 PM
But evidently allowing Islamofascist extremists to immigrate is fine with you.

No, that is simply another figment of your fertile imagination.

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 03:21 PM
No, that is simply another figment of your fertile imagination.
Nope, it is a fact that Keating avidly supported Sarcofelis' immigration, against strong advice. Evidently you think that was OK.

pax
22-11-2007, 03:53 PM
Nope, it is a fact that Keating avidly supported Sarcofelis' immigration, against strong advice. Evidently you think that was OK.
Gimme a frigging break. Supporting a liberal immigration policy is not the same as saying "we welcome all terrorists with open arms". Why don't you go burn some Korans?

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2007, 03:57 PM
Gimme a frigging break. Supporting a liberal immigration policy is not the same as saying "we welcome all terrorists with open arms".
Go back and re-read. Keating avidly supported the immigration of Sarcofelis specifically.


Why don't you go burn some Korans?
I bet you swallowed the Newsweek lie about flushing Korans, and excuse the murders by Islamofascists that used it as an excuse ... Oh yeah, and when the Pope mention Islamic violence, many Muslims were so offended that they resorted to murderous violence to prove him wrong. Note that Hamas, the Lefties' favorite refugee group, is the Hebrew word for violence.

pax
22-11-2007, 04:23 PM
I bet you swallowed the Newsweek lie about flushing Korans, and excuse the murders by Islamofascists that used it as an excuse ... Oh yeah, and when the Pope mention Islamic violence, many Muslims were so offended that they resorted to murderous violence to prove him wrong. Note that Hamas, the Lefties' favorite refugee group, is the Hebrew word for violence.

Blahblahblah more of Jono's fantasy land rhetoric. I've had enough.

Basil
28-01-2009, 03:49 PM
From Fin Crisis, page 17


Nah, that was Liberal government handout ... Liberal government handout is bad (they are trying to bribe people) ... Labor government handout is good (its done for only the best reasons, out of the goodness of their heart and the generosity of their spirit) ;).

Spiny Norman
28-01-2009, 04:07 PM
I was going to point out that you forgot the ;) ... but then I realised that there's one in your avatar, so all is forgiven!

EDIT: there's one in mine too, but it's a tad disturbing and likely to frighten the children!

Basil
28-01-2009, 04:29 PM
I was going to point out that you forgot the ;) ... but then I realised that there's one in your avatar, so all is forgiven!

EDIT: there's one in mine too, but it's a tad disturbing and likely to frighten the children!
Original Fixled.

Basil
21-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Obama has likened his poor ten pin bowling score to that from the Special Olympics. While I'm not interested in debating whether the comment was appropriate or not, I do want to know how many lefties would have howled and howled (and had it repeated around water coolers and joked about on JJJ) had George Bush or John Howard had said it.

Like Rudd's nose pick, it'll have a life span of a day.

Basil
23-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Obama has likened his poor ten pin bowling score to that from the Special Olympics. While I'm not interested in debating whether the comment was appropriate or not, I do want to know how many lefties would have howled and howled (and had it repeated around water coolers and joked about on JJJ) had George Bush or John Howard had said it.

Like Rudd's nose pick, it'll have a life span of a day.
You snivelling lefties make me wanna puke. Not only are you up to your self-righteous eye-balls in double standards (check the id of this thread), but when called on it, you shuffle your feet, stare at the ground and won't even fess.

I barf in your general direction - and you're barely worth that.

Mephistopheles
24-03-2009, 06:00 AM
You snivelling lefties make me wanna puke. Not only are you up to your self-righteous eye-balls in double standards (check the id of this thread), but when called on it, you shuffle your feet, stare at the ground and won't even fess.

I barf in your general direction - and you're barely worth that.
Charming.

And incorrect.

Who is being called on it? You appear to be criticising the bias of the so-called MSM so why have you now decided to unload in such an undignified fashion on the left-leaning posters to this forum?

It was an awful gaffe, it was well covered. It was apologised for and that was also covered. If Obama becomes known as being as gaffe-prone as Bush was then I have no doubt that the so-called MSM will be jumping on his every tiny error. Until then, he is being given the benefit of the doubt.

You made it quite clear in your post that you weren't interested in the appropriateness of Obama's outburst so, either you are criticising the media coverage or you have carefully set up the "dilemma" so that your opponents are unable to condemn Obama's statement, which is particularly unfair.

[edit]

It's kind of like saying "I'm not going to let you let me know if you condemn it but I'm now going to criticise you for not condemning it".

What utter cack.

Desmond
24-03-2009, 08:34 AM
Didn't see the comment. Haven't been watching the news much lately.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2009, 09:20 AM
It was an awful gaffe, it was well covered. It was apologised for and that was also covered. If Obama becomes known as being as gaffe-prone as Bush was then I have no doubt that the so-called MSM will be jumping on his every tiny error.
Obama IS gaffe-prone (see top 10 (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/20/top_10_gaffes_by_barack_obama_and_joe_biden_)). But the media had a slobbering love affair with him, as per the title of Bernard Goldberg's new book (http://www.regnery.com/books/slobbering.html).


Until then, he is being given the benefit of the doubt.
Bush never was. The same media figures who claim it's their duty to support this president claimed it was their duty to oppose the last one.

Mephistopheles
24-03-2009, 09:59 AM
Obama IS gaffe-prone (see top 10 (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/20/top_10_gaffes_by_barack_obama_and_joe_biden_)).
If that list is anything to go by then he's not actually all that bad. The blogger was really scraping the bottom of the barrel there. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have to look all that hard to find 10 of Obama's gaffes that were more serious than many on the list, which conflated Obama and Biden, who has been long known to be gaffe-prone and something of a figure of fun for that.


Bush never was.
Pull the other one, Jono. It's got bells on.

Basil
24-03-2009, 10:28 AM
Who is being called on it?
I am calling those who make regular and loud hay over the gaffes of John Howard and George Bush. That was obvious - you're dribbling.


It was an awful gaffe, it was well covered. It was apologised for and that was also covered.
Huh? Covered? What's covered got to do with anything? He said it. You're obfuscating -and dribbling.


You made it quite clear in your post that you weren't interested in the appropriateness of Obama's outburst so, either you are criticising the media coverage or you have carefully set up the "dilemma" so that your opponents are unable to condemn Obama's statement, which is particularly unfair.
Your indignance is only matched by the degree you chose to side-step the issue and create a new one. I haven't carefully set up anything - rather I have clearly called some people on their silence on an issue depending on who the messenger is. And for that intellectualising side-step, you make me want to barf.


It's kind of like saying "I'm not going to let you let me know if you condemn it but I'm now going to criticise you for not condemning it".
It's nothing like like that at all. It's simply a double standard. Obama says it. It'll have the lifespan of day. Other bloke says, there'd be newspaper cartoons, letters from social groups, yelps of being out of touch (or never in it :wall:). You're dribbling again.


What utter cack.
Indeed. You demonstrate very well the steps intellectuals will go to (crudely attempt to) obfuscate a double standard.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2009, 10:32 AM
If that list is anything to go by then he's not actually all that bad. The blogger was really scraping the bottom of the barrel there. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't have to look all that hard to find 10 of Obama's gaffes that were more serious than many on the list, which conflated Obama and Biden, who has been long known to be gaffe-prone and something of a figure of fun for that.
Yet the Leftmedia have made less of their gaffes than say Quayle's or GWB's, which were likewise "not actually all that bad". But the B. Hussein Oprompta (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/140_bytes_all_fake/), the Hopeychanger-in-Chief, can do no wrong.


Pull the other one, Jono. It's got bells on.
The Leftmedia always had it in for Shrubby.

Basil
24-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Didn't see the comment. Haven't been watching the news much lately.
JKlYT2bseII

Mephistopheles
24-03-2009, 11:42 AM
It's nothing like like that at all. It's simply a double standard. Obama says it. It'll have the lifespan of day. Other bloke says, there'd be newspaper cartoons, letters from social groups, yelps of being out of touch (or never in it :wall:). You're dribbling again.
It has had a lifespan of considerably more than a day in this thread alone. If you're talking about the so-called MSM then you might (just might) have a case but if you're talking about ordinary people then you simply don't know. You are limited to your own experience which is definitionally anecdotal.


Indeed. You demonstrate very well the steps intellectuals will go to (crudely attempt to) obfuscate a double standard.
I have demonstrated that your test is unfair. You say that you don't want the people you are attacking to comment upon the awful gaffe and then criticise them for not doing so. What a monstrous canard!

I also object to being labelled an "intellectual". I'm just another white collar worker earning a crust. One who happens to broadly disagree with you along political lines. One who also does not seek to denigrate you on the basis of that disagreement, although I am sad to say that the reverse is not true...

Basil
24-03-2009, 12:07 PM
It has had a lifespan of considerably more than a day in this thread alone.
Pfft. Filling space merely to give the impression you have something of substance to say.


If you're talking about the so-called MSM then you might (just might) have a case
In part. And I do.


but if you're talking about ordinary people then you simply don't know.
In part - and only those who, as I have said, demonstrate the double standard - some of whom appear on the board. It's all quite clear. It's you that's charged in and made this a dog's breakfast.


I have demonstrated that your test is unfair. No you haven't, but you have demonstrated that you are a buffoon in this regard because the 'test' is your invention for this thread and was never at play. Your introduced test "that you don't want the people you are attacking to comment upon the awful gaffe and then criticise them for not doing so" is not relevant is because I am not calling for criticism in this threads. I am highlighting those that elect not to criticise when they have the hide to criticise lesser gaffes from opposing parties.

BTW you should note that I didn't seek to 'GAG' debate, as you have claimed, on whether the comment was appropriate, I merely said that I had no interest in that aspect of the debate - the reason being that I have a son with a profound disability, and didn't want fair-minded people having to wrestle with the spectre of a mad dad on a rampage. That is why I wished to clarify focus on the lefty double standard alone.

Mephistopheles
24-03-2009, 12:20 PM
I am highlighting those that elect not to criticise when they have the hide to criticise lesser gaffes from opposing parties.
Once again, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling to give "those" people the opportunity to criticise or refusing to acknowledge that they have made criticisms.

Indeed, you will notice that the so-called MSM (http://news.google.com.au/news?q=obama+gaffe&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=hTnISamaPMuXkQWc3fXkAg&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title), including the decidedly Bolshie Australian Broadcorping Castration (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/24/2524432.htm?section=world) have continued to comment upon gaffes as old as Obama's DVD howler unto fewer than 4 hours ago.

Desmond
24-03-2009, 12:27 PM
lol

"As is customary, the Browns came to Washington bearing carefully thought out presents for the Obamas.

The President received a first edition, seven volume biography of Churchill and a pen holder carved from the timbers of a British warship - the sister-ship of the Resolute, which provided the wood for the oval office desk.

In return, Mr Obama gave Mr Brown a box set of 25 Hollywood movies. The titles included The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca and Star Wars."

Basil
24-03-2009, 12:34 PM
Once again, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling to give "those" people the opportunity to criticise or refusing to acknowledge that they have made criticisms.
I waited 24 hours. I will now hold my peace and wait for a week for known lefties (who also make hay out of righty (lesser) gaffes) to state their position on the matter. :whistle:

As for those lefties not on this board with whom I have to interact daily, I will wait for statutory mouthing of Bush gaffe then slap with fierce open hand quickly followed by sermon.

Basil
24-03-2009, 12:37 PM
lol

"As is customary, the Browns came to Washington bearing carefully thought out presents for the Obamas.

The President received a first edition, seven volume biography of Churchill and a pen holder carved from the timbers of a British warship - the sister-ship of the Resolute, which provided the wood for the oval office desk.

In return, Mr Obama gave Mr Brown a box set of 25 Hollywood movies. The titles included The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca and Star Wars."
Yes. Class or clue? Either scores poorly. Perhaps his advisors can take the blame. Doh! That shows
a) his advisers are clueless
b) he delegates personal gifts

The man, like Rudd, is a plank. All show and no go. The Sharons and Darrens planks love it. The intellectuals excuse it.

Carry on!

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2009, 01:14 PM
lol

"As is customary, the Browns came to Washington bearing carefully thought out presents for the Obamas.

The President received a first edition, seven volume biography of Churchill and a pen holder carved from the timbers of a British warship - the sister-ship of the Resolute, which provided the wood for the oval office desk.

In return, Mr Obama gave Mr Brown a box set of 25 Hollywood movies. The titles included The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca and Star Wars."
Even worse, Mr Brown has very poor eyesight and doesn't even watch movies.

Desmond
24-03-2009, 06:31 PM
JKlYT2bseII
Thanks Gunner. Yep, that's disgraceful.

Basil
27-03-2009, 12:24 PM
I waited 24 hours. I will now hold my peace and wait for a week for known lefties (who also make hay out of righty (lesser) gaffes) to state their position on the matter. :whistle:

As for those lefties not on this board with whom I have to interact daily, I will wait for statutory mouthing of Bush gaffe then slap with fierce open hand quickly followed by sermon.
Yes, the outrage is palpable. You'll forgive me for not lasting the week :wall:

Anyway, back to to black-slapping between Rudd & Obama this week. One with his finger up his nose, the other tossing of on the Special Olympics ... I'm just weighing up which I revile more on the pukeo-meter - the world's love affair with these two clowns or the double standards of the aforementioned.

Mephistopheles
27-03-2009, 03:49 PM
The outrage may well not be exactly palpable but, then again, Obama has actually apologised; doubtless realising the sheer awfulness of what he had said. I didn't read about Kev's nose pick, though. Did he really get caught out? It'd be worth a chuckle or three but hardly "howls of outrage" material.

Basil
27-03-2009, 03:58 PM
The outrage may well not be exactly palpable but, then again, Obama has actually apologised; doubtless realising the sheer awfulness of what he had said. I didn't read about Kev's nose pick, though. Did he really get caught out? It'd be worth a chuckle or three but hardly "howls of outrage" material.
It was actually an ear pick AND MUNCH! I confused with Gordon Brown's nose pick and munch.

I appreciate it's no big deal (really). It's the double standard I'm interested in. Enjoy the vid!

3aQ8YiIV1AI

Mephistopheles
27-03-2009, 04:09 PM
I appreciate it's no big deal (really). It's the double standard I'm interested in. Enjoy the vid!
Talk about old news. I did see that one. The lightweight punditry from either side of the fence had a field day with that for more or less a couple of weeks. Probably about the same as Bush's pretzel mishap. I'd say that we'd remember the ear dig about as well as Americans would remember the aforementioned, even if it isn't current.

If we're going back that far, I was always appalled at the negative press Bush copped for his cycling accident (or was there more than one of them?). Now I'll make it clear that I despise the man and hated almost everything about his Presidency but I thought that it was more than a bit rough to unload on a 50+ year old man stacking his bike while trying to get a little exercise. Happens to the best of us, after all. I've spent most of the total time that I've been in hospital as the direct result of bicycle accidents so I know where my sympathies lie.

Speaking of which, I suspect that my abhorrence of Bush is why I'm a little indulgent towards Obama, who is shaping up to be a fair-to-middling President at best. I may be unconvinced by him at present but, at least, he's not Bush and that's what counts to me.

kjenhager
27-03-2009, 07:15 PM
Enjoy the vid!

3aQ8YiIV1AI
as well as this one

94lW6Y4tBXs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs%2Etelegraph%2Eco%2Euk%2Fda niel%5Fhannan%2Fblog%2F2009%2F03%2F24%2Fso%5Fi%5Fs aid%5Fto%5Fgordon%5Fbrown%5Fi%5Fsaid&feature=player_embedded

Basil
14-10-2009, 10:41 AM
Kevin Rudd and his fans derided and howled the Howard stand on (illegal) immigration.

Now, in government, the much loved Kevin Klueless is back-flipping his 'in opposition' postures and gestures - and apparently also his newly enacted immigration laws of last year.

Apart from that being extremely puke-inducing in itself, I am in danger of filling a whole suburb with puke as I watch the electorate (yes that includes half of you f***ers) s l o w l y change your opinions. Actually you (and your daddy) will likely massage your opinions (with all the guile and slime of Rudd himself) to somehow straddle the new Rudd position with the old Rudd position which you are all on record as supporting (not to mention hating Howard for same).

Someone call 000 - here it comes ...

You people make wanna puke!

ER
14-10-2009, 10:56 AM
Someone call 000 - here it comes ...

You people make wanna puke!

In your case I 'd suggest the CAT team (if in Melbourne call Phone Duty worker 24 hours: 9300 8600) straitjackets provided!

Basil
14-10-2009, 10:57 AM
Wooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26207246-5006790,00.html) I'm sorry, did I spray you with that. I couldn't help it? It was induced by a nation of weak, suggestible, lefty flops. Middle-class, clueless, wet, naive ... oh oh hang on ... here we go again ...

Spiny Norman
14-10-2009, 05:35 PM
Kevin Rudd and his fans derided and howled the Howard stand on (illegal) immigration. Now, in government, the much loved Kevin Klueless is back-flipping his 'in opposition' postures and gestures - and apparently also his newly enacted immigration laws of last year.
If I understand your 'puke' correctly, it was induced by:
-- people condemning Howard's up-front-and-visible "Pacific Solution" (he will determine who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come) whereby funding was given to places such as Nauru to house asylum seekers who were intercepted outside Australian waters; whereas
-- same people fail to condem Kevin Rudd's hidden-from-the-public solution (he makes no apologies for being very tough on boat people) whereby funding was given to Indonesia to house asylum seekers who were intercepted outside Australian waters

Correct? If so, we puke together. More wishy-washy political hypocrisy. Here's a clue: both parties are doing it; its a reasonable solution. Just wish they were honest about it and admitted it.

Basil
14-10-2009, 06:11 PM
If so, we puke together. More wishy-washy political hypocrisy. Here's a clue: both parties are doing it; its a reasonable solution. Just wish they were honest about it and admitted it.
We do puke together! I'm not sure how many times The Libs secured votes on the back of one message and then flipped for expediency or because their original was not doable (although it seems a popular idea that the Libs were well at it). As far as Rudd doing so, I have documented countless on this board and he's only been here five seconds.

arosar
15-10-2009, 06:40 AM
We should all be concerned about another form of immigration, namely the legal kind.

There are folks coming in here on the 457 and these guys are simply being exploited by their local employers. It's a disgrace!

Then there are student visas. There are far too many foreign students here, in my opinion, studying all sorts of BS courses (and I'm not talking about Bachelors in Science) in all kinds of shonky education providers. The fact of the matter is that a lot of these students come in here to work, not to study. The situation is ridiculous.

Of course, this is tied to education policies. But I don't suppose that the government will quickly fix that since the status quo brings in billions to the economy.

Look, we're all upset about seeing boat people. It seems like those people are jumping some queue. Or just exploiting our kindness, taking up vital resources (e.g. navy ships, customs, etc). But I reckon that there are far fewer of these guys than those who fly in! It's the latter that should concern us more.

Also in the world context, our refugee problem is nothing. Shit just go to Europe. There's a spot in Calais (actually, a camp) that is filled with all kinds of nasty - looking men from as far as Afghanistan and Africa. I understand that the Frenchies have recently shut the camp down at the request of the UK government. The feeling, however, is that the camp will either simply move elsewhere or be re-opened. In Italy, month by month the Italian navy intercepts boatloads coming in from Libya - but, some actually manage to slip in and from there spread out across the continent.

Generally, I am in favour of this policy of "[determining] who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come". But we have to go about that business in a humane way. Having women and kids stuck in the fkn system for months, and in some cases years, is criminal.

So I say let these people enter our shores, feed them, cloth them, and let's process them quickly. If they're legit, they stay; if not, ship 'em off quickly, no questions ask, no appeals, no nothing. Brutal, but fair.

AR

Basil
15-10-2009, 07:24 AM
We have had the queue-jumping addressed by Ian M before. This thread should be reserved for barfing at and over the lefties and their hypocrisy. Their best defence to date is that the The Libs are hypocritical too.

I am yet to hear or see a good list of that hypocrisy such as the one against the left being compiled in this thread.

In fact the left is very good at claiming "you too" as the basic defence against hand-in-the-cookie-jar attacks. Post #25 (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=174230&postcount=25) in this thread is still awaiting the list which supports the claims of 'Howard The Lying Rodent' manufactured lore, which empowered a new generation of clueless leftists (and kept old-school fools warm in their beds as well).

Basil
16-10-2009, 10:13 AM
Rudd today declares (on immigration) "that there is a quota, and we're going to work within it".
Whhhhhhhhoooooaaaaaa. Splat.

Worse still is those supporters who vilified John Howard, nay hated him - palpable hatred - for the same position.
Whhhhhhhoooooooaaaaaaaaaaaa Splat!!!!

Worse still again is trying to tie the bastards Rudd supporters down to admit the hypocrisy.
Wwwwwwwwwwhhhhhoooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! !!

And the final kick in the nuts. Rudd's popularity soars.
WWWhhhhhhhhooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people make me wanna puke!

Desmond
16-10-2009, 12:55 PM
I reckon every leader ends up being hated sooner or later. They oversee so many decisions, sooner or later they can be assured to piss off everyone in the community. A good leader knows when his time is up and steps down.

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2009, 01:40 PM
I reckon every leader ends up being hated sooner or later. They oversee so many decisions, sooner or later they can be assured to piss off everyone in the community. A good leader knows when his time is up and steps down.

Australian PMs have been notoriously bad at doing this. Apart from Barton who was more interested in being a judge after only a few years in the role, Menzies was the only one to leave completely on his own terms (and he did so at 71 having been in office for the previous 16 and a bit years). I think all the rest have died in office or been evicted by the electorate, the parliament, the G-G or their party.

State premiers seem more likely to realise it is time to go and in recent decades there have been several cases of this.

Garvinator
16-10-2009, 02:54 PM
I reckon every leader ends up being hated sooner or later. They oversee so many decisions, sooner or later they can be assured to piss off everyone in the community. A good leader knows when his time is up and steps down.
A saying of mine is: Friends may come and go, but enemies remain. It is derived in part from your quote.

Basil
16-10-2009, 03:21 PM
I reckon every leader ends up being hated sooner or later.
I disagree. Only The Libs (Conservatives) are hated. It's an authoritarian thing that gathers weight, initially with the kiddies and knuckle-draggers and then pervades into the swinging middle class into sufficient quantities for change.

I don't think you'd find too may lefty governments who are/ were 'hated'. Most Libs don't hate per se (I'm the closest you'd find) - and lefties can't can't hate their own. Simply, they eventually work out that their people are duds. Ergo

Righties are tossed when they are hated.
Lefties are tossed for incompetence.

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2009, 03:47 PM
Keating was fairly widely hated by the end of his term. The proverbial "baseball bats" and so on.

Desmond
16-10-2009, 04:05 PM
I disagree. Only The Libs (Conservatives) are hated. It's an authoritarian thing that gathers weight, initially with the kiddies and knuckle-draggers and then pervades into the swinging middle class into sufficient quantities for change.

I don't think you'd find too may lefty governments who are/ were 'hated'. Most Libs don't hate per se (I'm the closest you'd find) - and lefties can't can't hate their own. Simply, they eventually work out that their people are duds. Ergo

Righties are tossed when they are hated.
Lefties are tossed for incompetence.I reckon I could assemble a battalion of people willing to uppercut Beattie's cheshire cat grin.

Basil
16-10-2009, 04:12 PM
Keating would come closest out of a fairly off-scot-free bunch. The Beattie thing (and others) is perhaps more like a target for rotten fruit. Maggie Thatcher, John Howard, George Bush all end up as really, really hated. For policies that are often adopted later by the left!

Desmond
16-10-2009, 05:16 PM
To each their own. I would have to have a rather thorough hate (hate hate?) of someone to pitch fruit.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.

Goughfather
16-10-2009, 07:24 PM
Righties are tossed when they are hated.
Lefties are tossed for incompetence.

That's a pretty broad and sweeping statement to make, given that we don't have a lot of data to work from in Australian politics, considering that Hawke was dumped by his party and Whitlam was dumped by his Governor-General (one really can't say that electorate dumped Whitlam since Fraser was caretaker Prime Minister at the time of the election). Conversely, it's clear that Keating was dumped because he was hated, as Kevin points out.

On the other side of politics, I'd suggest that both McMahon and Fraser were turfed for their incompetence, although Fraser did have a treasurer by the name of John Howard to thank for that. With this in mind, I don't really think you have a lot of support for your contentions.

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2009, 07:32 PM
I've edited my post to add the Governor-General to the list of causes of prime-ministerial dumpings. :lol:

(I think Whitlam would have been voted out at the next election anyway but the circumstances of his departure robbed him of any chance to demonstrate otherwise.)

Basil
16-10-2009, 07:55 PM
That's a pretty broad and sweeping statement to make
Sure. I think people understand that. Surprisingly, it holds more water than your attempt at a destruction below.


Hawke was dumped by his party and Whitlam was dumped by his Governor-General (one really can't say that electorate dumped Whitlam since Fraser was caretaker Prime Minister at the time of the election). Conversely, it's clear that Keating was dumped because he was hated, as Kevin points out.
Hawke being dumped by his party doesn't counter my position. Hawke wasn't hated - rather he was loved. Still is.
Whitlam being dumped by the electorate doesn't prove he was hated. He was also loved. He was dumped by the swinging voter because they thought he was a goose. In fact Whitlam is the perfect example of my adage. Incompetent. Lovable. Big ideas. Big talk. Fantastic visions. Entirely hopeless. He is the definition of Labor leader. Still loved to this day by your lot.

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2009, 08:17 PM
Whitlam being dumped by the electorate doesn't prove he was hated. He was also loved. He was dumped by the swinging voter because they thought he was a goose. In fact Whitlam is the perfect example of my adage. Incompetent. Lovable. Big ideas. Big talk. Fantastic visions. Entirely hopeless. He is the definition of Labor leader. Still loved to this day by your lot.

In Australian federal elections there's a history of different generational demographics (pre-boomers, boomers, "X", "Y") usually swinging in about the same amount and in the same direction at given elections. However, they swing off different bases, which is a biiiiiiiiig problem for the Coalition because successive generations are coming in at lower Coalition-voting %ages and therefore to win elections the Coalition has to move more and more voters to vote against their original political instincts.

But never mind that, what's especially significant was that in 2004 the pattern broke down bigtime. The pre-boomer and boomer votes hardly moved at all from 2001 (the boomers actually swung to Latham at least on primaries), but in the younger generations there was roughly a 4.5-point swing from Latham to Howard.

My theory on that is that Latham's Whitlamite shtick registered with those who remembered Whitlam, "It's Time" and all that. But the younger generations saw it as a flake paying homage to a loser. So I suspect that ongoing love for Whitlam is now most common among the over-50s.

Ian Murray
16-10-2009, 09:06 PM
Rudd today declares (on immigration) "that there is a quota, and we're going to work within it".

Source of that quote? I can't find one

Kevin Bonham
16-10-2009, 09:08 PM
"that there is a quota, and we're going to work within it".Source of that quote? I can't find one

It was probably made up by MOZ.

/injoke.

Basil
16-10-2009, 09:31 PM
Source of that quote? I can't find one
I heard him say it on SKY this morning.

EDIT: I can't find a corroborating quote just yet, but it's fresh. Rudd has said much today, so perhaps a few hours to propagate? I did hear it. I wasn't mistaken. Possibly it was part of a radio interview (with cameras present) as I saw Rudd say it as well.

Ian Murray
16-10-2009, 09:58 PM
Rudd today declares (on immigration) "that there is a quota, and we're going to work within it".

Worse still is those supporters who vilified John Howard, nay hated him - palpable hatred - for the same position.

Worse still again is trying to tie the bastards Rudd supporters down to admit the hypocrisy.
Howard used it as an election issue, via the Tampa (children-thrown-overboard) incident and the Pacific Solution. The current pot is being stirred by the Opposition, not the Government.

Basil
16-10-2009, 10:19 PM
The current pot is being stirred by the Opposition, not the Government.
I don't think so!

No one listens to the opposition on anything ATM. And when they do, they go for Rudd anyway. No - apart from the Duggans banging on, this pot is being stirred by both the media (to whom Rudd's untenable straddling is very obvious) and the abhorred lefties with a conscience who are prepared to admit they have been duped. People not disimilar to yourself, Ian.

Tell me, what do you think of Rudd's stance on this one (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/16/2715895.htm)?

Basil
16-10-2009, 10:20 PM
Howard used it as an election issue.
Yes and he backed himself all the way. Conversely, your lot pretended to be abhorred and now enacting the identical policy!!! Come on. Give it up, Ian.

Ian Murray
16-10-2009, 10:37 PM
Yes and he backed himself all the way.
With a scare-mongering election winner


Conversely, your lot pretended to be abhorred and now enacting the identical policy!!! Come on. Give it up, Ian.
Identical? Do we still have temporary protection visas, indefinite detention and forcing detainees to pay the costs of their detention?

Goughfather
16-10-2009, 11:43 PM
Hawke being dumped by his party doesn't counter my position. Hawke wasn't hated - rather he was loved. Still is.
Whitlam being dumped by the electorate doesn't prove he was hated. He was also loved. He was dumped by the swinging voter because they thought he was a goose. In fact Whitlam is the perfect example of my adage. Incompetent. Lovable. Big ideas. Big talk. Fantastic visions. Entirely hopeless. He is the definition of Labor leader. Still loved to this day by your lot.

As I pointed out, Gough Whitlam was not the incumbent in the 1975 election, as Fraser was caretaker PM at that time. And while I agree with you that Howard was hated by the end of his tenure, to suggest a general pattern that Coalition leaders are dumped when hated is a long bow to draw, when you consider his predecessors Fraser and McMahon. Are you honestly going to claim that they were hated too?

Basil
17-10-2009, 12:09 AM
With a scare-mongering election winner
And then a loser on the subsequent election. The first part of the point is that it was his policy. Like or not, it was Howard policy. And he was consistent. The second part of the point is the Labour hypocrisy. Give it up, Ian.


Identical? Do we still have temporary protection visas, indefinite detention and forcing detainees to pay the costs of their detention?
Wriggle. Identical in the sense of 'humanity'. The thrust of the policy. The hook with which Howard was vilified. The detention centre which Rudd is resupplying on the double. All the things you on this very board called into account with Howard's policy is what your beloved Rudd is up to.

Basil
17-10-2009, 12:15 AM
As I pointed out, Gough Whitlam was not the incumbent in the 1975 election, as Fraser was caretaker PM at that time.
Immaterial wriggle. You introduced his profile into the debate of incompetence as in my adage. He is the poster-boy of my adage.


And while I agree with you that Howard was hated by the end of his tenure
Yes.


Are you honestly going to claim that they were hated too?
No. Crikey David, you really need to pull ... learn not to take such things so exactly. I mean the adage about how many seconds a BB discussion lasts before someone invokes the name of Hitler - I reckon you'd be able to find evidence against that one too :rolleyes:

Goughfather
17-10-2009, 12:31 AM
No. Crikey David, you really need to pull ... learn not to take such things so exactly. I mean the adage about how many seconds a BB discussion lasts before someone invokes the name of Hitler - I reckon you'd be able to find evidence against that one too :rolleyes:

My point is that in the entire history of the Coalition in its current form, only Howard has been hated, at least at Federal level. One instance in almost seventy years does not exactly bespeak a general pattern.

If you talk about world politics more generally, I would suggest that Obama is hated by the Right with a fairly similar intensity to which Bush was hated by the Left. The UK is similarly unhelpful for your contention that a general pattern exists. I mean, do you think that you could honestly contend that John Major was hated, per se?

Basil
17-10-2009, 12:38 AM
My point is ...
My point is that Howard, Thatcher, Bush and others were hated. Costello was being fitted up for a suit of the same just prior to the last election.

None of the left, including Beattie (cited by Boris) and Obama (your offering) fit the hating, according to me. I say that those two (among lots of other lefters) are more closely described as 'on the nose' for incompetence. The line and pedigree of incompetent lefties is a much longer one ;)

I'm really not going to dissect my adage any more.

Goughfather
17-10-2009, 12:50 AM
My point is that Howard, Thatcher, Bush and others have been hated. Costello was being fitted up for a suit of the same just prior to the last election.

None of the left, including Beattie (cited by Boris) and Obama (your offering) fit according to me. I say that those two (among lots of other lefters) are more closely described as 'on the nose' for incompetence.

I'm really not going to dissect my adage any more.

Well, there's no need to, given that I've drawn and quartered your argument sufficiently myself. But just to complete the job, your final claim really is a matter of perspective. I've read enough blogs from the Religious Right literally claiming that Obama is the Antichrist to know that the level of hatred out there for Obama is not just palpable, but pathological. And with respect to Bush, he was certainly hated, but perhaps less so than he was lampooned for being a walking punchline. In short, you've taken a few notable exceptions and tried to draw from these notable exceptions a general pattern that simply does not exist.

arosar
17-10-2009, 07:55 PM
Back to immigration: the BBC's Gavin Hewitt has been reporting recently on Europe's problems with immigration. He has a couple of posts here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/10/greeces_immigrants_in_limbo.html) and here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/10/migration_road.html).

Also in the news in the UK at the moment is the visit of Dutch politician Geert Wilders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8311059.stm). Wilders holds some very crazy views but, as you see, his opponents on the Islamic side are as equally nuts!

I gotta say, the UK has gone to the dogs. I hope it doesn't happen in this country.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2009, 02:25 PM
Well, there's no need to, given that I've drawn and quartered your argument sufficiently myself.
In your dreams. Beware of those who act both as prosecutor and judge.


I've read enough blogs from the Religious Right
Nothing like the Secular Left (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2003/07/Are-The-Democrats-Anti-Religion.aspx?p=3) who often bragged about hating Shrubby (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x564173).


literally claiming that Obama is the Antichrist to know that the level of hatred out there for Obama is not just palpable, but pathological.
Oh yeah, all opposition to Obamov's Tsars, Spendulus, ramming socialized medicine down people's throats before reading the bill, appeasement of America's enemies (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/10/16/debacle-in-moscow/) including the Holocaust-denying nuke-developing mad mullah of Iran, etc. is all racist, as Carter said. Go back to cheerleading their politicized Nobels.


And with respect to Bush, he was certainly hated, but perhaps less so than he was lampooned for being a walking punchline.
Yeah, right, while the same Lefties who lampoon Shrubby make excuses for Obamov's own gaffes, such as 57 states, let alone his walking gaffe machine of a VP.

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2009, 02:31 PM
That's a pretty broad and sweeping statement to make, given that we don't have a lot of data to work from in Australian politics, considering that Hawke was dumped by his party and Whitlam was dumped by his Governor-General (one really can't say that electorate dumped Whitlam since Fraser was caretaker Prime Minister at the time of the election).
OK then, the electorate still thoroughly rejected Whitlam at that election. At the time, even the newspapers wanted him gone.


On the other side of politics, I'd suggest that both McMahon and Fraser were turfed for their incompetence, although Fraser did have a treasurer by the name of John Howard to thank for that.
Come off it: Fraser blocked many of Howard's free market ideas, which were then adopted by the Labor government, to their credit, with the Coalition's support after that wet waste of space Fraser was gone.

Basil
19-10-2009, 02:34 PM
In your dreams.
That's what I thought and more. As I had already 'moved on' in my post prior to his assertion, I was happy to let his self-assessed and woefully inadequate apprisal of the matter hang there forever.

Then I was tempted to list (and I may do one day) all the polis that fall into the adage - then I referred myself to paragraph one of this post!

Goughfather
19-10-2009, 08:26 PM
In your dreams. Beware of those who act both as prosecutor and judge.

I never said anything about being the prosecutor. I'll let the peanut gallery judge for themselves.


Nothing like the Secular Left who often bragged about hating shrubby.

Or perhaps you've simply immunised yourself recognising the full extent of the truly repellent impression created by the Religious Right?


Oh yeah, all opposition to Obamov's Tsars, Spendulus, ramming socialized medicine down people's throats before reading the bill, appeasement of America's enemies (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/10/16/debacle-in-moscow/) including the Holocaust-denying nuke-developing mad mullah of Iran, etc. is all racist, as Carter said. Go back to cheerleading their politicized Nobels.


Regardless of what Carter has said, I've never accused Obama's detractors as being influenced by racism, so don't try to strawperson my position or try to pigeonhole me in with this accusation. Nor have I made any real commentary on the validity of Obama's Nobel Prize, except to suggest that the resultant frothing at the mouth of many prominent ideologues is music to the ears and soothing to the soul.

Goughfather
19-10-2009, 09:32 PM
Nothing like the Secular Left (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2003/07/Are-The-Democrats-Anti-Religion.aspx?p=3) who often bragged about hating Shrubby (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x564173).


Which in turn is fairly tame compared to the vitriol of Arizonan preacher Steve Anderson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qr6gxIHhQ&feature=related), whose exegesis seems to suggest that he stopped reading the Bible around Ezekiel and that he is unfamiliar with the Sermon on the Mount. Are you happy to be associated with this, in the same way that you choose to associate me with anything you can dredge up against the Left?

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2009, 10:12 PM
Or perhaps you've simply immunised yourself recognising the full extent of the truly repellent impression created by the Religious Right?
Or more likely the misimpression given by the Secular Left Media, as per the article (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2003/07/Are-The-Democrats-Anti-Religion.aspx?p=1). Ironic that Obamov (and Klinton) invoked the name of Jesus more than Shrubby did (http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2009/06/13/talking_jesus_obama_vs_bush), but that's apparently OK (they know it's just a ruse to dupe gullible churchians, and the Dem leaders don't really believe that Christian stuff).


Regardless of what Carter has said, I've never accused Obama's detractors as being influenced by racism,
Glad to hear it, although you seem to run with the sort of lefties who do.

Note that polls show that Obamov's popularity is dropping as more and more Americans judge him by his deeds rather than his rhetoric. This distrust is not confined to your "religious right" bogeyman, since many dislike his massive spending, trashing of his own country while achieving nothing diplomatically (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/10/16/debacle-in-moscow/), and arrogantly trying to ram through bills before anyone has a chance to read them.


so don't try to strawperson my position or try to pigeonhole me in with this accusation.
Strawperson? How sexist — this has the male word SON in it! :P


Nor have I made any real commentary on the validity of Obama's Nobel Prize, except to suggest that the resultant frothing at the mouth of many prominent ideologues is music to the ears and soothing to the soul.
Sounds like you really do drool over a prize awarded to someone for being the anti-Bush, for thinking like secular left European transies, and for what he might do in the future?


Which in turn is fairly tame compared to the vitriol of Arizonan preacher Steve Anderson, whose exegesis seems to suggest that he stopped reading the Bible around Ezekiel and that he is unfamiliar with the Sermon on the Mount.
Are you happy to be associated with this,
Never heard of him, and hadn't missed anything. As Camille Paglia, a self-described Obama supporter, said:


“For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding — there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.”


in the same way that you choose to associate me with anything you can dredge up against the Left?
Don't be so paranoid. You were the one who brought up Religious Right stuff before I mentioned the Secular Left, whose association with the Dems (and most likely Layba) is much stronger.

Goughfather
19-10-2009, 10:42 PM
Or more likely the misimpression given by the Secular Left Media, as per the article (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2003/07/Are-The-Democrats-Anti-Religion.aspx?p=1).

Well, I knew it was conditioning of some sort.


Ironic that Obamov (and Klinton) invoked the name of Jesus more than Shrubby did (http://townhall.com/columnists/DrPaulKengor/2009/06/13/talking_jesus_obama_vs_bush), but that's apparently OK (they know it's just a ruse to dupe gullible churchians, and the Dem leaders don't really believe that Christian stuff).

And it's ironic that in the same article, Kengor talks about the liberal media "crucifying" Bush.

The article is manifestly absurd. To assess more accurately the religious content of a presidency, one would need to take into account more than merely the explicit references to Jesus. It's worth noting, in this respect that Kengor said nothing about the "crusade" comments of Bush in 2001. I guess he just forgot to put that into the melting pot?


You seem to run with the sort of lefties who do.

You're trying to use guilt by association against me now?

Which lefties am I meant to be running with, anyway?


Sounds like you really do drool over a prize awarded to someone for being the anti-Bush, for thinking like secular left European transies, and for what he might do in the future?

Not at all - in fact I have reservations about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama too. I'm simply saying that I enjoy seeing a conservative throw a good wobbly and if the abovementioned award provoked that kind of response, it can't have been all bad.

I'll let you in on a shameful secret: I have a bad habit of turning on FOX news once in a while just to watch Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly spit chips and froth at the mouth. I know that the Schadenfreude of feeling good about the world because they seem so distressed is probably not the most charitable response, but I allow myself this little indulgence.


Never heard of him.

Well, I'd not heard of the author of your article either, but I just wanted to provide an example of some of the hatred that I was talking about.


As Camille Paglia, a self-described Obama supporter, said:


“For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I'm not kidding — there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It's a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.”

And what weight, if any, do you think I should attribute to this quote?

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2009, 11:20 PM
Well, I knew it was conditioning of some sort.
Indeed.


And it's ironic that in the same article, Kengor talks about the liberal media "crucifying" Bush.
Quite apposite then.


The article is manifestly absurd. To assess more accurately the religious content of a presidency, one would need to take into account more than merely the explicit references to Jesus.
It's pretty strong evidence. The Leftmedia hated Shrub saying that Jesus was his favorite philosopher for example, but Obamov drops His name far more often.


It's worth noting, in this respect that Kengor said nothing about the "crusade" comments of Bush in 2001. I guess he just forgot to put that into the melting pot?
Now you're channelling Osama.


Which lefties am I meant to be running with, anyway?
Fellow KRudd and Obamov supporters.


Not at all — in fact I have reservations about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama too.
Good.


I'm simply saying that I enjoy seeing a conservative throw a good wobbly and if the abovementioned award provoked that kind of response, it can't have been all bad.
One might have hoped that this award was for actual achievement rather than to thrill conservative-hating lefties, as it's been for a while now. But now, this award goes to the man who appeases the Holocaust-denying leader of Iran while snubbing the Dalai Lama to appease the communist Chinese despots, while shafting Poland and Czech Republic, the Iranians opposing the mad mullah, and the Hondurans trying to prevent Zelaya shredding their constitution and becoming a neo-Chavezite despot-for-life (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/19/subverting-democracy).


I'll let you in on a shameful secret: I have a bad habit of turning on FOX news once in a while
You mean the one that Obamov whinges about for NOT hero-worshipping him (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/william-murchison/2009/10/20/obama-and-his-enemy-fetish/)?


just to watch Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly spit chips and froth at the mouth. I know that the Schadenfreude of feeling good about the world because they seem so distressed is probably not the most charitable response, but I allow myself this little indulgence.
Ah yes, proving Gunner's point of this whole thread: that lefties are allowed such indulgences, while they squeal about righties doing the same thing. In any case, they are quite gentlemanly compared to those Lefties who get a thrill up their legs thinking of Obama (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg) while frothing against Shrub and the GOP. And of course, now there are false accusations against Rush Limbaugh of "racism" (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2009/10/20/to-sue-or-not/), including by black racists.


And what weight, if any, do you think I should attribute to this quote?
Lots: as a hostile witness for one, and for another, the manifestly obvious fact that your example was clearly on the fringe while quite prominent lefties froth at the mouth against Shrubby, who wasn't even that much of a conservative — he spent like a drunken sailor, albeit that's unfair on the sailors since they spend only their own money.

Basil
21-10-2009, 11:53 AM
I. Do. Not. Believe. It. [/meldrew]

Just like Utegate (where that useless tit Swann got off scott-free), the Rudd government which was in part swept to power on the back of being humane regarding 'illegals' has now claimed the higher ground on being tougher on 'illegals'!!!

Are you people stupid? No, scrub that - you are stupid. You are plain. 100%. certified. planks.

Is there no orifice that Rudd can pick, high pesonal staff turnover that he can peddle (how many anecdotes confirming he's nasty, tight-ringed control freak?), hostess he can insult, Kyoto that he can back away from, pensioner that he can dud, 'something-watch' he can waste money on, monument he can build to himself (school signs, tree of knowledge, his own 100 days report!), etc etc...

You people are planks. Plain dead-between-the-ears planks. And you might be shocked to know ... you make me wanna puke!

Carry on!

TheJoker
21-10-2009, 07:23 PM
Do you really think policy on refugee/illegal immigrants has much pull at the polling booths. I seriously doubt it, since the net effect on ordinary Australian's actual life is somewhere between Buckley's and none.

In fact if anybody is is plank it's those that think this is anything more that media storm in a tea cup, just like the Tampa. Whilst most people might have an opinion on the matter when push comes to shove most people couldn't really give a damn.

I mean a politician doing a policy back-flip is hardly worth getting your knickers in knot over.

Carry on!

Basil
21-10-2009, 07:39 PM
Do you really think policy on refugee/illegal immigrants has much pull at the polling booths. I seriously doubt it, since the net effect on ordinary Australian's actual life is somewhere between Buckley's and none.

In fact if anybody is is plank it's those that think this is anything more that media storm in a tea cup, just like the Tampa. Whilst most people might have an opinion on the matter when push comes to shove most people couldn't really give a damn.

I mean a politician doing a policy back-flip is hardly worth getting your knickers in knot over.

Carry on!
So rather than acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, switch-hit to "is it really an issue?". Pathetic.

And yes, it was just another of the irrational Howard-hating add-ons. All without substance. All (the important ones) mimicked by KRudd. You make me sick.

A live issue? It's occupying the media and the parties' attention and has been for over a week :hand:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/puke.gif

Goughfather
21-10-2009, 11:50 PM
Quite apposite then.

That in the same article as Kengor tries to downplay the appeal of Bush to religious rhetoric, he unwittingly reminds us of the tendency of the Right to prop up Bush as a messianic figure?

Apposite indeed.



It's pretty strong evidence. The Leftmedia hated Shrub saying that Jesus was his favorite philosopher for example, but Obamov drops His name far more often.

As I pointed out the hopelessly selective analysis (for the reasons I outlined above) in the article is indicative of the type of rubbish the Right pass off as insightful commentary.


Fellow KRudd and Obamov supporters.



Are you talking about anyone in particular? How do you know I've been running with "that crowd"?


Ah yes, proving Gunner's point of this whole thread: that lefties are allowed such indulgences, while they squeal about righties doing the same thing. In any case, they are quite gentlemanly compared to those Lefties who get a thrill up their legs thinking of Obama (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg) while frothing against Shrub and the GOP. And of course, now there are false accusations against Rush Limbaugh of "racism" (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2009/10/20/to-sue-or-not/), including by black racists.

If there are comments by people who consider themselves to be part of Left that I find to be particularly silly, I'll call them out and have done so in the past.

I guess your assessment as the gentlemanly nature of the Right as compared to the Left is an area in which we will simply have to respectfully disagree. I must confess I am not aware of the statements alleged to have been fabricated and attributed to Rush Limbaugh, but I certainly have heard other comments verbatim which I would definitely classify as being racist.


the manifestly obvious fact that your example was clearly on the fringe while quite prominent lefties froth at the mouth against Shrubby


You have got to be kidding if you honestly think that the comments in the "I hate Bush" article come from a "prominent Lefty". And notwithstanding that, I'd reject the notion that my example could be regarded as a "fringe element". Even FOX seem to have recognised this by championing his cause rather than writing him off as a nutjob.

Spiny Norman
22-10-2009, 04:57 AM
As this is the "stuff the message, it depends on who is delivering it" thread, I thought I would own up to my own biases ...

I find that when I am watching current affairs programs, there are certain people that I cannot bear to listen to, no matter what they are supposedly saying. One is Penny Wong. Another is that Green's senator (Christine Milne? I think? The one with the really annoying voice! Surely they can find someone better as a spokesperson?).

There are a few others. Yet if someone else from their party were talking about the same subject matter, I would listen, and I would be more inclined to give them credibility.

So it seems to me that simple things like tone of voice and particularly attitude (!) have an impact on whether people are credible. For example, talking about boat people, I cannot bear to listen to Kevin Rudd with his endless posturing and lecturing tone, but I am quite happy to listen to Labor's immigration spokesperson (can't think of his name off the top of my head).

So yes, stuff the message ... it DOES depend on who is delivering it.

Capablanca-Fan
22-10-2009, 09:08 AM
That in the same article as Kengor tries to downplay the appeal of Bush to religious rhetoric,
While documenting how Obamov got away with far more explicit religious rhetoric.


he unwittingly reminds us of the tendency of the Right to prop up Bush as a messianic figure?
Come off it. Many of the Right were disappointed with Shrubby for his massive spending; it's now been quadrupled by Obamov, but it doesn't make Bush right.


As I pointed out the hopelessly selective analysis (for the reasons I outlined above) in the article is indicative of the type of rubbish the Right pass off as insightful commentary.
And it was. Dr Kengor is well qualified. Your assertions to the contrary matter not. Fact remains that the secular left gave Klinton and Obamov a free pas, because they know they didn't really mean it and were just trying to dupe the more gullible elements in the church who judge flowery words rather than actions.

Contrast that with the Left's rhetoric, which is all about intentions and lofty goals, and accusing opponents of their policies as hating those the policies are ostensibly meant to help. Hence we see the drooling over the Hopeychanger-In-Chief's speechifying and the Nobel for what he might achieve in the future. Conversely, the Right want to know only what behaviours a given policy punishes or rewards, because you get less of what you punish and more of what you reward.


How do you know I've been running with "that crowd"?
You're probably more of a political gadfly than a conviction leftard. ;)


I guess your assessment as the gentlemanly nature of the Right as compared to the Left is an area in which we will simply have to respectfully disagree.
Not just my assessment, but Camille Paglia's as well, and she leans left herself.

Also, Fox must be doing something right if a leftist administration uses taxpayer funding to denounce it, and that Obamov himself is too scared to face them. He wants only the drooling sycophancy of the Leftmedia.


I must confess I am not aware of the statements alleged to have been fabricated and attributed to Rush Limbaugh, but I certainly have heard other comments verbatim which I would definitely classify as being racist.
Maybe your classification standards are skewed, given that Rush frequently has non-white guests and even replacement hosts like the black economics professor Dr Walter Williams (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp). Rush has long advocated MLK's dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. This contrasts with the black race-baiters accusing Rush.

TheJoker
22-10-2009, 09:11 AM
So rather than acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, switch-hit to "is it really an issue?".

No I acknowledged the policy back-flip. For me its not really an issue of significance. The fact that it getting so media coverage is absurd when then are far more important national issues to discuss.

I'll even give credit to Libs for sticking with their policy line of being tough on illegal immigrants.


And yes, it was just another of the irrational Howard-hating add-ons. All without substance. All (the important ones) mimicked by KRudd.

IMO two issues where primarly responsible for the Howard election loss, neither had anything to do with Rudd. They were rising interest rates and IR legislation. Howard mislead the electorate into thinking that he was able to prevent interest rates from rising due to his superior economic management skills (unlikely as most experts pointed out at the time). And he pushed forward with grossly unpopular IR reforms.

In terms of immigration policies I had no problem with Howard's policy at the time, what he failed to do was sell that policy to the public, and that after all is a politicians primary job leading up to an election. I agree that Rudd made this difficult by misleading the public into believing that more lenient policies where actually viable alternatives when it clear that this appears not to be the case.


A live issue? It's occupying the media and the parties' attention and has been for over a week :hand:

Because certain clowns give it traction and don't move on to more important issues.

Personally I wish Rudd would come out and say "yes I've done a policy back-flip because I have realised that the pre-election policy was not in Australia's best interest and I am not about to let my ideological views interfere with effective policy decisions".

Off course he's either far to arrogant to openly admit such a thing or his media advisors have told him not to do so. Most likely both.

I'll be the first to admitt that Rudd has come out with a number of failed polciy ideas e.g. "price"-watch schemes but I have no problem with that because ideas are the life blood of improvement, and he has been quick to can the bad ideas. Unlike Howard who was a man of "principles" and stuck by his ideas no matter how unpopular (IR laws) or ill-informed (tax cuts in a booming economy helping put increased pressure on interest rates).

Basil
22-10-2009, 10:16 AM
The 'shameful Howard years' (http://news.smh.com.au/national/rudd-govt-softens-asylum-seeker-laws-20080729-3mgo.html). Riiiiight. Oh the shame. Don't tell me that young forming minds didn't swallow this claptrap from mummy and daddy as well as militant morons around the office, on campus and on the streets.

Yet again, Kaptain KRudd has managed to straddle:
- Howard is evil, right?
- Rudd relaxation of laws (because Rudd is humane and children in detention is unpalatable)
- And flying to the source country and 'telling' the country to take the boats back - because there are *ahem* children - and we all know what happens when you put children in detention :wall:

Amazing.

You people have the political mental faculties of a newt.
You people are as suggestible as a Tool looking for a friend.
You people make me wanna puke.

Spiny Norman
24-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Gunner, this link is especially for you:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26252679-25837,00.html

This is Labor's "tough but humane" approach. Glad they added that humane bit, otherwise I would be hard pressed to detect it based on the actual evidence.

Tell me: how is this MORE humane than sending them off to Australian-built and supervised facilities elsewhere?

Answer: it isn't; the "humane" tag seems to be just spin.

I now wait with bated breath for the usual left-wing suspects to heap the same level of outrage on Rudd as they did on Howard ... :rolleyes:

Spiny Norman
24-10-2009, 10:47 AM
If the beatings described in the story are proven true, then I think a case could be made that they are in breach of international obligations on torture ... and Australia could be complicit in the breaches if we keep sending people there knowing that it happens ... so I hope it ain't so.

Basil
24-10-2009, 11:32 AM
I now wait with bated breath for the usual left-wing suspects to heap the same level of outrage on Rudd as they did on Howard ... :rolleyes:
I'll wait with you. I have time (and buckets). We can watch Rudd's popularity levels together.

Garvinator
24-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Can someone help me out here. With all this fuss over asylumseekers/refugees/queuejumpers, why is Kevin Rudd not criticising the Sri Lankan government for their part in all this?

arosar
26-10-2009, 06:50 AM
Former Tamil Tigers (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26259186-601,00.html) are among the boat people from Sri Lanka.

AR

Spiny Norman
26-10-2009, 05:32 PM
Funny that ... just what Tuckey said might happen ... now if Rudd is consistent he will verbally 'pay out' on the Australasian Federation of Tamil Associations secretary with:


I think these are deeply divisive, disgusting remarks ...

Don't hold your breath folks. Remember: stuff the message; it depends on who is delivering it

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2009, 12:44 AM
I find that when I am watching current affairs programs, there are certain people that I cannot bear to listen to, no matter what they are supposedly saying. One is Penny Wong. Another is that Green's senator (Christine Milne? I think? The one with the really annoying voice! Surely they can find someone better as a spokesperson?).

Milne unfortunately has always had that hectoring, hassling, strident, shrill sort of manner in her public comments. I also find her very annoying (and her successor as leader of the Tas Greens, Peg Putt, was even worse). However there are other Greens at state and federal level who I don't find nearly so bothersome.

arosar
27-10-2009, 01:19 PM
Forget about Milne. The one polie who's been up me nose is this bloke Stephen Conroy. I mean, the guys a first-class f**tard moron, way out of his depth and got no clue. And now he's f**ked up. Again!

http://snipurl.com/st7k8

AR

Garvinator
27-10-2009, 01:23 PM
Forget about Milne. The on polie who's been up me nose is this bloke Stephen Conroy. I mean, the guys a first f**tard moron, way out of his depth and got no clue. And now he's f**ked up. Again!

http://snipurl.com/st7k8

AR
When I see stuff like this happen, I really do wonder how 'accidental' it really is.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2009, 02:02 PM
...Stephen Conroy. I mean, the guys a first-class f**tard moron, way out of his depth and got no clue...
AR
I'd like to second it as well.

I am afraid twice in one day is a bit too much. Something wrong with me.

Basil
27-10-2009, 05:17 PM
I know a bloke who reckons this Laba government will be tossed for incompetence. Apparently, it's a thing that happens to Laba governments.

arosar
27-10-2009, 09:36 PM
I'd like to second it as well.

I am afraid twice in one day is a bit too much. Something wrong with me.

What's this business about you being a questionable IM? Apparently FIDE's set some sort of condition. It says in the latest ACF newsletter. What's happening here mate?

AR

Ian Murray
29-10-2009, 01:51 PM
...I now wait with bated breath for the usual left-wing suspects to heap the same level of outrage on Rudd as they did on Howard ... :rolleyes:
I am appalled by the Howard-morph Rudd. What happened to compassion for refugees - in the millions worldwide - allowing a handful to enter Australia after processing on the mainland.

Back to razor wire and lip-sewing despair?

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2009, 01:53 PM
I am appalled by the Howard-morph Rudd. What happened to compassion for refugees — in the millions worldwide — allowing a handful to enter Australia after processing on the mainland.

Back to razor wire and lip-sewing despair?
Good, at least you're consistent.

Basil
29-10-2009, 03:00 PM
I am appalled by the Howard-morph Rudd.
Respec.

ER
29-10-2009, 03:23 PM
Tuckey ok?

Garvinator
03-11-2009, 12:18 AM
Gunner, you may be very impressed with this.

I just had a major barf listening for all of the few seconds I was able to cope with Kevin Rudd on the news just before.

For the few seconds I listened to, he said that he was deeply concerned about the environmental impact. That is all I could tolerate and I had to get the mop and bucket.

I believe he was talking about the oil spill in the Timor sea. What made me barf was I recall him saying that he was deeply concerned about Japanese whaling during the election campaign and would do all he could to make them stop whaling in the Southern Ocean, including taking them to the international court if required.

Then after he got elected and planned his trip to China and left off Japan from the itinerary, he was asked if he had spoken to the Japanese Prime Minister about the matter and Kevin's response.

I have not spoken to the Japanese Prime Minister at all.

So, if he had not spoken to the JPM, then he really could not have been that concerned. Or he was lying about not haven spoken to the JPM.

So either way, I need a major MOP AND BUCKET!!

Basil
03-11-2009, 12:51 AM
Garv, I need pills to suppress ... well we needn't have flagrant physical reaction descriptions here, but that man really is a despicable, two-faced, back-flipping, manipulating so and so that makes John Howard (and the the what? three accusations leveled at him) seem like a rank amateur.

Oooops to late ... here it comes ...

Spiny Norman
03-11-2009, 06:54 AM
Our PM is caught now in a trap of his own making. For weeks he has been trying to blend two disparate ideas: TOUGH and HUMANE

It seems to me that this was all spin; something generated out of the PM's office in order to try to placate both sides of the debate.

What he (or "they") failed to appreciate is that you can satisfy some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, and even all of the people some of the time ... but the longer you push the envelope of being all things to all people you find yourself getting squeezed.

Now he finds himself:
-- annoying the conservatives (who sense the hypocrisy of the Government's position, even though in some degree conservatives support the tough side of their response)
-- annoying the liberals (who sense the hypocrisy of the Government's position, even though in some degree liberals support the humane side of the response)

So rather than pleasing all of the people all of the time (which our PM seems almost pathologically driven to try to do) he is now pleasing VIRTUALLY NOBODY (except the dunderheads in the Labor Party who approved this nonsensical policy and who have to turn up on national TV to try to defend it in the face of criticism from both the left and the right).

Cannot see how he can extricate himself from this one. If the asylum seekers go to an Indonesian Detention Centre, the pictures of them behind barbed wire will incense the left. If the Government caves in and brings them to Christmas Island, the right will correctly point out the failure of the Government's policy.

John Howard was known for his pragmatism. In this situation, I think he would have no hesitation in:
-- bringing them to Christmas Island; AND
-- revising government policy to try to stem the flow of people

Kevin Rudd is known for ... trying to be a control freak, and his policy/government is now out of control on this issue ... it must be a very, very uncomfortable time for him.

Spin won't get him out of it. Only good policy and a strong and consistent government response. I'm not holding my breath ...

Desmond
03-11-2009, 09:00 AM
Then after he got elected and planned his trip to China and left off Japan from the itinerary...Don't tell the Kevin 707 brigade.

Ian Murray
03-11-2009, 04:33 PM
...Now he finds himself:
-- annoying the liberals (who sense the hypocrisy of the Government's position, even though in some degree liberals support the humane side of the response)
Roger that

Basil
03-11-2009, 06:36 PM
All this begs the question that if Rudd had been more transparent in his election platform, then he might not had enjoyed two free years of unrealistically high polls.

Like it or not, there is a bunch of planks who somehow thought he would make all the bad people and bad problems go away with al the answers. Green. Refugees. Money.

Young people for instance. This is what they thought they were buying when they bought brand Laba. Mission f***ing Impossible.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2009, 06:46 PM
All this begs the question that if Rudd had been more transparent in his election platform, then he might not had enjoyed two free years of unrealistically high polls.

Like it or not, there is a bunch of planks who somehow thought he would make all the bad people and bad problems go away with al the answers. Green. Refugees. Money.

Young people for instance. This is what they thought they were buying when they bought brand Laba. Mission f***ing Impossible.
Similarly, if polls are an indication, Obamov would not have been elected if voters knew of his plans to skyrocket the deficit, introduce socialized medicine, dither on Afghanistan, appoint a Tsar to oversee executive pay, appoint a Communist 11-9 conspiracy whackjob as another Tsar, appoint yet another one who covered up a homosexual rape of a minor, have a White House spokeswoman who regards Mao the Mass Murderer as her political hero, take over General Motors and fire its CEO. Of course, those who had the discernment above that of a dead fish would not have been shocked, since they considered Obamov's actions and alliances more than his fluffy hopeychange speechifying. But Obamov's worshippers don't even care that he hasn't closed Gitmo or pulled out of Iraq as he had promised.

Spiny Norman
04-11-2009, 05:13 AM
I was gratified to hear Chris Uhlmann commenting last night on the 7:30 Report on ABC and he gave exactly the same analysis of the situation as I did above ... the PM trying to please all of the people, but ending up pleasing nobody.

Malcolm Turnbull can take no comfort from the poll though. Liberals sense when someone is not one of their own. He is a dead leader walking ...

Desmond
04-11-2009, 11:09 AM
I wouldn't discount the interest rates going up as a source of malcontents too. If the recession is over, then that is news to many of us.

The latest in line of Brisbane IT companies going under, S Central (http://www.crn.com.au/News/159574,unpaid-staff-and-creditors-left-in-s-central-shell.aspx)

Kevin Bonham
04-11-2009, 04:33 PM
Malcolm Turnbull can take no comfort from the poll though. Liberals sense when someone is not one of their own. He is a dead leader walking ...

Furthermore the poll is meaningless unless other polls also show a substantial drop in support for the government. It is yet to be established whether it is a real hit or a rogue. The ABC news coverage of this was hopeless but the 7:30 Report coverage used appropriate levels of caution.

Even if it is a real hit, many previous governments would have loved to be 52:48 at this stage of an election cycle.

Basil
04-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Even if it is a real hit, many previous governments would have loved to be 52:48 at this stage of an election cycle.
I don't think anyone on any side is contemplating a Lib win. Certainly The Libs would be quietly pleased with that figure (having come off a punishing base).

If the left is pleased with that figure then good luck to them. I guess one's (left) perspective is determined largely by expectations and ability to not look in a rearview mirror.

If one is and was a realist (and isn't carried away by the puke-inducing 'we'll live forever' that grabbed a few lightweights by the nuts), then yes a 52:48 result is a good one to be on the right side of.

Conversely, if one thought that a deity was at the helm, then one might be feeling a little draughty around the nether regions to have lost that much space - momentum does count for something.

Basil
24-11-2009, 09:40 AM
Obama spouting he will not rest until jobs are created. Well hello Dolly. Watching ideas dawn on lefties is like watching paint dry. But the stakes are often somewhat higher.

All lefty children between the ages of 15 and 17 should be offered the chance to spend a year with me.

ER
24-11-2009, 11:35 AM
All lefty children between the ages of 15 and 17 should be offered the chance to spend a year with me.
and treat them like Manuel???
remember your signature:

"This - Basil's wife. This - Basil. This - smack on head!"

Basil
24-11-2009, 12:57 PM
and treat them like Manuel???
remember your signature:
Not at all. Treat them like my own. With patience and love. It's the adults who eschew the offering of a clue that are treated like Manuel.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 02:53 PM
Obama spouting he will not rest until jobs are created.
Or is that, "created or saved"?


Well hello Dolly. Watching ideas dawn on lefties is like watching paint dry. But the stakes are often somewhat higher.
Pretty much. Unemployment is higher than what he claimed it would have been without the Spendulus, so there is a huge debt with nothing to show for it. Nothing new there—the same happened during the Great Depression, but at least, Treasury Secretary Henry J. Morgenthau Jr., one of Franklin Roosevelt's best friends, was honest enough to admit before the House Ways and Means Committee: "I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot" (May 1939). But most leftists immunize their ideas from falsification tests.

Basil
08-02-2010, 10:17 PM
Had John Howard's government brought this legislation (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,1,26690487-952,00.html), he would have been branded with all manner of monikers.

The lefties on this board, at my work, on your street would have been howling their little lungs out. Eyes would have been set to maximum beady, brows to full furrow, traditional witterings from granddad and the Tree of Knowledge invoked ... etc ... et-effing-cetera ...

However, it's KRudd's work. What do you lefties think? You two-faced, double-standard, hypocritical, wet-arsed flops.

You people make me wanna freakin' puke! Carry on! Kevin 07, yeah!

Capablanca-Fan
09-02-2010, 04:27 PM
If a Republican had mispronounced corpsman as corpse-man, the Leftmedia would have been all over it, and Miranda would have it as her sig line. But since it was the Obamessiah, it's been covered up almost as well as Democrat John Edwards' lust child was (http://nymag.com/news/politics/63045/).

dlkK65y_-T4

Basil
24-02-2010, 07:34 AM
Barfing Double Standards Anyone - Again?

Refuge Intake Lowest In 25 Years (http://www.news.com.au/national/refugee-intake-lowest-in-35-years/story-e6frfkvr-1225833701018)

I now propose that people carrying lefty cards should be ridiculed - in public, at home, in front of the kids, here, at work ... everywhere. Rudd and his fools have misled, cocked-up and mismanaged to a level that utterly pales compared to any and all of the (half-witted and half-baked) allegations laid at the feet of The Libs, and his followers no longer have an excuse for their hatred and misconceptions that they peddle in their undercooked adult brains.

As Rudd says, 'the evidence in' :smack on the head:

Desmond
24-02-2010, 07:47 AM
pails?

Basil
24-02-2010, 08:12 AM
pails?
Thanks. Fixed. Attended to in sb, but on account of foaming at the mouth must have forgotten to do so 'ere.