-
Recent Comments
DaveWatch on Pure Poison DaveWatch on Pure Poison I’m just calli… on Still a dickhead Lee Murray on Bolt contemptibly uses bushfir… DBD on Bolt contemptibly uses bushfir…
 | DaveWatch on Pure Poison |
| DaveWatch on Pure Poison |
| I’m just calli… on Still a dickhead | |
 | Lee Murray on Bolt contemptibly uses bushfir… |
 | DBD on Bolt contemptibly uses bushfir… |
179 Comments
18 June, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I raised it in the Wednesday forum, along with Andrew’s lack of reporting on Iraq (in light of this mornings car bombing) I got called an alarmist, and was advised that Iraq was on the “up and up” (I suggested that Howard, Blair and Bush are alarmist)
The Haneef point – completely ignored – but what do you expect, anything questioning the honesty or competence of John Howard is either ignored or ridiculed, I guess people just don’t like to be told that they’re wrong, even when the evidence is overwhelming.
18 June, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Andrew Bolt has been making excuses for Johnny since Nov. 24th. last year.
18 June, 2008 at 1:19 pm
And with the new scientific report on the lower Murray River…
What a crap day for Andy. I can hear the “Quick Sally, help me pull the doona over my head”.
And following Abu’s penchant for his beloved thesaurus…
Best regards and most genuinely, honestly, really, truly, truthfully, wholeheartedly, earnestly, fervently yours,
Id
18 June, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Abu certainly loves that thesaurus. He speaks so well, but all he is interested in, is engaging in obnoxious teenage boy behaviour, trying to get a rise out of people. Engaging him is what he wants, and he just turns things into a “now you are”, back and forth type of waste of time.
Don’t bother, if you ever see his contributions on Bolt’s site, all he likes to do is throw around stupid slogan like the rest of the dunderheads, like (puts on adolescent obnoxious squeaky voice) “what is it with the left” and this “what is it with the left and that”. I have never seen him actually contribute anything of substance, or an intelligent critique of the childish nonsense that goes on over there, despite purporting to be critical of such behaviour in his comments here.
18 June, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ten hours later and Bernie still can’t find the apologetics hat. Obviously the only functioning RSS feed at Bernie and Bolta’s news desk is the Tim Blair one.
Meanwhile, “name ten” is getting a run again. It’s a broken record. Shouldn’t be long now til we hear the B-side.
18 June, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Good to see I’m being discussed in a thread before even reading it! Thank you, Christopher. It’s good to see that the leitmotif of “what is it with the Left and violence?” every time you post comments about shooting or “glassing” people has sunk into your febrile brain.
Yours idlavivily,
Abu Cee
19 June, 2008 at 12:52 am
“I raised it in the Wednesday forum, along with Andrew’s lack of reporting on Iraq (in light of this mornings car bombing)”
robj it is well known that dennis shanahan occupies himself with finding new positive angles for the coalition in each newspoll, just as andy occupies himself with recasting the iraq debacle into a newfound paradise for ordinary citizens, just as the bolt sheep furiously insist their howard blarney stone must remain resolutely pristine.
repeat after me: haneef = terrorist. howard = god. iraq = success.
19 June, 2008 at 12:59 am
“Meanwhile, “name ten” is getting a run again”
and with the unfortunate addition of senator andrew bartlett who has lowered his colours by interracting with bolt on an issue which bolt is seriously blinker and sheep like. what is different about this name 10 thread is more people willing to take the argument up to bolt and the sheep by producing the sort of evidence botl hasnt considered in his whole not sorry & still not sorry tantrum.
19 June, 2008 at 10:38 am
I’m sorry, could you explain the significance of this? It seems remarkably unimportant. Perhaps the fact that the current government is witholding the papers indicates there is probably no political involvement from Howard to be revealed?
19 June, 2008 at 11:06 am
Sure, it’s nowhere near as significant as, say, a dagwood dog. But if you can’t see the significance of the former prime minister’s involvement in this matter (and the possibility that, yet again, he lied to cover it up), then I’m afraid no explanation here is going to help you.
Read the article again.
19 June, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Hold all my calls, Bernard.
“Oh, and hand me my apologetics hat — it’s going to be a long day.”
More from the “I’m too scared to debate Bolt’s actual writings, so I’m just going to make up some quote I wish he had said and attack that instead”.
Strawman, say hi to the gutless Lion.
19 June, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’m too scared to debate Bolt’s actual writings
And what has he written on the subject, Rachel? I’m still waiting for our courageous crusader to apply his enviable intellect, honesty and clarity to the news story. I can’t exactly debate his silence, although that in itself says a great deal.
Either Bernie couldn’t find his cap, or Bolta is far too busy saving our nation from a prime minister who — heaven forefend! — would attend the Olympic Games.
Not that Bolta’s a Rudd Reviler, mind you. The foaming, irrational hate is all on the Left of the political spectrum.
19 June, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“I’m still waiting for our courageous crusader to apply his enviable intellect, honesty and clarity to the news story”
and not just this story. today’s effort from andy sees 2 threads that are shamelessly just links to tim blair and jennifer marohsy with no commentary enviably intellectual or otherwise from our courageous crusader. in a 3rd thread he tries to sleight sth african prez for sidling up to mugabe – only to be informed by readers that the comments andy is enraged over today were in fact made 5 years ago. and in another he tries to cast obama in a bad light over muslim seating arrangements on the very day that mccain is facing questions over inappropriate use of his wife’s company’s jet. which is the worse look (to paraphrase andy’s thread title)?
rachel can you please give me the benefit of your insight into bolt’s writing by explaining how this sort of sloppy work passes for ‘debate’ in the popular media?
19 June, 2008 at 6:27 pm
More from the “I’m too scared to debate Bolt’s actual writings, so I’m just going to make up some quote I wish he had said and attack that instead””.
Hilarious stuff. Probably the funniest thing I have seen written on this blog. The fact that people like Rachel actual believe that kind of stuff, bewilders me. Rachel have you ever tried posting a rational, intelligent critique of any of Bolt’s off the hip efforts? If you had, you would realise that those arguments that calmly and logically take any of his piss-weak arguments down and embarrass him in the process, are usually screened by the moderators. Hence the existence of Bolt watch.
19 June, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“Hold all my calls, Bernard.”
I dont get it though. Is this comment related to that useless clown Bernard Slattery? I though Bolt and Bernard werent seeing eachother anymore
19 June, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Regarding this issue, I posted the following at Larvatus yesterday. All of the juvenile bile that goes on here, aside, I’m sure the reasonable minority will realise this is accurate:
Issues of this importance (and dozens of others) are raised within PM&C and other departments every day. While it may have been discussed and even brought to the PM’s attention, it doesn’t mean that any decisions would have been made. Usually these things are noted, with an expectation that the Minister will want to be kept updated.
Bear in mind thousands of decisions are made in government departments every day by the APS staff at all levels. The relevant minister may not ever be aware of the specific issues or decisions, even if he/she is ultimately ‘responsible’. The inference/conclusion by Haneef’s team that the ex-PM was involved in some sort of conspiracy because he was briefed on Haneef within 48 hours is childish and simplistic.
It comes from an inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectation about the way the Australian Public Service functions.
19 June, 2008 at 9:40 pm
The Bolster must be pleased with his following. Check out some of the lovelies that were attracted to this post:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mbeki_wants_mugabes_methods_for_south_africa/
Notice that Bolt doesn’t even counter some of the stuff that laments the downfall of apartheid. He seems to accept the arguments that it was better for S.A. to have been non-democratic than to go through the struggles and turmoil that they have. But a completely different story with Iraq…
These people pretend to be supporters of democracy and freedom but they are nothing of the sort.
19 June, 2008 at 9:57 pm
deanL,
what is sooooo funny is seeing the self-righteous indignation on page 1 dissipate & the thread grind to a halt on page 2 as the 5 year gap mistake is outed.
classic. there’s nothing funnier than blogging with bolt.
19 June, 2008 at 10:36 pm
So I’m to take it that no one here except me is actually familiar with the mechanisms of government?
So there’s no point dealing with facts?
Scary and informative.
AC
19 June, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Holy fuck most of those people are ignorant, I just hope they aren’t breeding!
19 June, 2008 at 10:40 pm
For once we agree , Ev.
19 June, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Just to confirm Abu, Im talking about Bolts blog.
20 June, 2008 at 12:10 am
“So I’m to take it that no one here except me is actually familiar with the mechanisms of government?”
get your hand off it abu! most of us have lives and are not here to be your beck-and-call-bloggers for fuck’s sake. go to bolt if thats the interaction you want.
now. what on earth have you said? not much, just a load of liberal party hq crap.
“It comes from an inadequate understanding and unrealistic expectation about the way the Australian Public Service functions.”
perhaps. more likely it comes from an inherent understanding of just how deceitful, mean and tricky the former pm was. if kevin andrews had flown the haneef issue under the radar maybe most australians would of thought like you. but the fact that he practically shouted ‘poll bounce’ from every rooftop once haneef came into public view, and took the media front and centre on haneef says clearly that the he and the pm and the government saw haneef as some sort of opportunity to extract political advantage. quite disgusting, and called so by media outlets such as the australian newspaper.
withheld evidence? again, if andrews had of flown under the radar, who might know? but he placed himself and the howard govt front and centre on haneef which, in light of the former pm’s weazel stance on issues such as tampa, stolen generations, climate change, pauline hanson, says clearly to me that he knew. andrews knew. the government knew.
and now we know.
20 June, 2008 at 1:55 am
Abu, the italised excerpt you post about the workings of government are accurate, to a point. You describe how a dept might be expected to function if one is to entirely disregard political imperatives and concerns.
I don’t imagine you are so are so naive as to imagine
(a) a Govt will have no interest in spinning issues to their advantage
and
(b) the massive expansion of ministerial advisers under Howard may have had some utility, but it seems these guys must have failed en-masse and as a bloc to do their (taxpayer funded) jobs correctly, because they always failed to apprise their ministers of salient and critical points. So the info was “in dept” but somehow not passed to their minister.
And if you believe that, I have some real-estate I’m sure you’ll be swift to purchase.
20 June, 2008 at 6:00 am
FEDERAL Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been brought undone by his own spin, flipping two toddlers over in a toy chair at a photo-call in Sydney today.
Latest Comments
If he provokes vicious irrational comments from Leftards like the ones seen here, he must be worth voting for! Go Turnbull! Stick it to the whiney Left!
Posted by: Abu Chowdah
You’re my hero Abu. Not only are you a magnificent human being, but an inspiration to boot just like the great Andrew Bolt.
Bolt is working on his next book(hope it’s as good as the first). Have you been invited to contribute Abu? I believe the title is to be -The Complicated Futility of Ignorance, a biography of the vunderbaar Andrew Bolt. Unfortunately my submission has been rejected by the great man. Oh well back to the cave for this Hitler worshiping leftard.
Regards
Rotten Ronnie Raygun
20 June, 2008 at 6:45 am
Bolt has been caught out before, linking stuff that he’s jumping up and down about, that in fact are from some news that is years old. I think he is hoping most of his sheep don’t actually click on the link.
20 June, 2008 at 9:30 am
Most of Bolts blogs can usually be brought down with one good post like the “5 year old” post about the South African leaders comments on Mugabe.
Does any here know how Bolt does his “research” on determining if someone is stolen? I am assuming here that most of the stolen generation do not have internet access or write books … How does he check those names? What government records does he have access too?
20 June, 2008 at 9:49 am
“Does any here know how Bolt does his “research” on determining if someone is stolen? ”
Andrew Bolt doesn’t do research, he often doesn’t even bother using a spell checker, he’s very unprofessional, some may say sloppy. Andrew Bolt just knee jerks.
Before any pedants attack any errors in any of my posts just be aware that I’m not writing for a living, Andrew Bolt is.
20 June, 2008 at 10:23 am
Ron – you know you can buy his first book for $3 at Dirt Cheap Books. If i wasn’t worried about paper cuts from his witty retorts and use of the English language I might consider buying some to use in the bogger.
20 June, 2008 at 10:29 am
So there’s no point dealing with facts?
Another classic piece of Boltist behaviour by AC.
AC, you didn’t present facts, you presented speculation on what may or may not have happened in relation to Howard’s briefing.
You do understand the difference, don’t you?
20 June, 2008 at 10:33 am
Dam Buster why pay $3 when there are plenty of copies on the shelf of the Brisbane City Council Libraries … But then you don’t get the toilet paper experience though I do note that one book is missing. Besides isn’t his book just a compile of his columns that you can download for free?
20 June, 2008 at 11:15 am
Abu Chowdah
19 June, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“So I’m to take it that no one here except me is actually familiar with the mechanisms of government?
So there’s no point dealing with facts?
Scary and informative.
AC”
That’s a bit FROWNY Abu!
20 June, 2008 at 11:18 am
Abu, are you there????
I think you have been well and truly ‘pwned’. It doesn’t surprise me that you feel the need to hide!
Or perhapes you have gone back to Bolta’s palace of stupidity, where you fit in so well.
20 June, 2008 at 11:48 am
Abu’s hiding in a corner somewhere having a bit of a frown.
20 June, 2008 at 11:58 am
I thinks its pretty funny that people who refuse to watch or listen to the ABC and SBS news on the grounds that they are ‘communist propagandists’ can consider themselves well informed. Where do they get their news? Surely not from ‘mel and kosche’?
20 June, 2008 at 12:15 pm
It’s the Age of Melandkochie.
20 June, 2008 at 12:15 pm
DBD – You have to watch Channel ten news because channel 9 has gone all leftist after doing some stories about climate change on 60 minutes, you can’t watch channel 7 because of mel and koshie’s cool the globe stuff.
alternatives are to get cable and watch fox news…..
20 June, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m sure Abu has his own sources.
20 June, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I was just thinking.
20 June, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Where do they get their news?”
Crap sources eg Herald Sun, Today tonight and ACA.
“alternatives are to get cable and watch fox news…..”
Yes – Well it is “fair and balanced” they say so themselves and the stupid people who think it is actually fair and balanced are……. Well they’re fools.
Ooops, I’m being elitist again, that’ll teach me for recognising crap media for what it is.
Yesterday or the day before I suggested on Bolts Blog that people really ought to check out the BBC’s in depth coverage on Iraq. A moronic poster who calls himself universal mocked my choice, I challenged him as to whether he’d ever actually read it himself, he disappeared as per usual.
People catch me in work reading Al Jazeera – English, they mock me, I ask them if they’ve ever read it themselves. Invariably the answer is a resounding “No!”
Unfortunately there are many people in this world who are prepared to take the likes of Bolt and George Bush’s (who claims that Al jazeera are terrorists so he orders his military to target them – he hates freedom of the press – he hates freedom) word for it, they haven’t got the common sense to check for themselves, this was made blatantly obvious yesterday when Andrew Bolt erroneously started a thread on a five year old news story that he obviously thought was current.
20 June, 2008 at 12:54 pm
There is so much self delusion going on over on Bolts blog.
They are refusing to accept the reality of climate change, peak oil and even the current economic problems triggered by the coin clippers (or professional currency devaluers, whatever you want to call them) because they’re are fucking terrified their crappy little lives are going to have to change. So they have gone into ostrich mode.
Just skimming the last few weeks of Boltite posts we learn….
That we are not running out of oil, the planet creates it for us by magic and it will seep up to us out of the bowels of the earth. (And they accuse the Greenies of Gaia worship!)
We don’t have to worry about fuel prices because proven technologies like Fusion and oil excreting ‘GM superbugs’ will provide energy for us far more efficiently than those useless and unproven technologies like wind, solar and geothermal.
The economy is going fine. Its just a blip. Oil will come down and real estate prices will keep going up.. forever…
And we learn that global warming is being fabricated by the vested interests in the ‘green economy.’ Apparently GW isnt happening at all.
It was all cooked up by a loose coalition of Climate scientists, Muslims, Greenies, Poofters and Union thugs to sell more canvas shopping bags and fluro lighbulbs.
Follow the money and you’ll see that investments in canvas bag and fluro bulb manufacturing by gay, greenleft, muslim, unionists went up by at least 200% in the months before the publication of the IPCC report.
Coincidence? I dont think so!
20 June, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I want to see David Marr fight Andrew Bolt.
3 rounds in the cage, bareknuckle, no biting or gouging.
Insiders coud do a special fightclub edition.
My moneys on Marr, he looks like he knows how to take a punch.
Any takers?
20 June, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Two adult and two child Gold Class front row seats, please. Hang the expense.
20 June, 2008 at 3:52 pm
RobJ – The husband of Mrs DB old workmate is a former ABC journo who worked at Al Jazeera for two years.
I always find it interesting how the news publications and tv stations spin a story to suit their editorial slant. Watch the same story on 9 and ABC and see how differently the angle is taken.
20 June, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Watch the same story on 9 and ABC and see how differently the angle is taken.”
Heh, I’ve made comparisons of the same story between Al Jazeera (English) and the BBC and I reckon the AJ (E) stories are neutral. Admittedly I don’t read the editorials but that doesn’t matter, editorials are allowed to be biased, that’s kind of their point.
Dam Buster, I’ve been advised that many of Al Jazeera English’s journos are ex BBC.
Personally I like the ABC I wouldn’t claim that it’s free of bias but Ireckon they reflect the nations feelings, naturally this upsets the Bolt fans because it just highlights that they’re on the fringe and most people don’t think like them (thank god)
20 June, 2008 at 4:50 pm
RobJ – spot on. If you are on the far right by definition most people are on the left of you.
20 June, 2008 at 4:53 pm
As an aside I am bemused Bolt has not targeted the Vic state gov’t on Myki and the state of the public transport system as he likes to regarding water. Is it because he doesn’t use it therefore doesn’t care or because of some other reason??
20 June, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Rob J, from what I have seen, I would have to say that Al Jazeera is pretty biased. I kind of see it as the fox news for many Muslim countries, and those individuals with anti-Western sentiments. I think in the last few years is has got a bit more professional and less partisan though, as it has become more widespread, and the powers behind it seek to make it a dominant force in world news, including the English World.
20 June, 2008 at 5:26 pm
As far as the ABC and SBS go, I see no alternative
in the Australian media for the provision of anything like the same level of professional reporting on free to air, or foxtel, as those two provide. Thank god they are made available.
I will go out and say that at times the ABC and SBS do exhibit somewhat of a left-leaning nature, but I think that sort of culture is generally associated with quality journalism. For quality journalism to exist, the ability to be self critical must exist,
as well as the availability of reporting that at times makes the viewer question their own ingrained and assumed beliefs and face up to hard realities.
The politics of self-congratulation, and convenient beliefs, with regular doses of immaturity and naivety, displayed by Bolt/Blair and their followers, do not lend themselves for tolerance of Journalism that asks difficult questions, and challenges assumed beliefs. Right-wing politics in general, with the influences of nationalism and
self-centred thinking, the rejection of challenging existing beliefs and populism do not generate quality journalism.
However, the fact that the type of “thinking’ employed by Boltists and Blairites is so peripheral to that of the average adult Australian, must make them particularly acrimonious towards the ABC and SBS.
20 June, 2008 at 6:22 pm
So, just to recap – this whole thread is about a topic not actually mentioned by Bolt – based on a claim by the legal team for Haneef that has no real substance. Way to go there. What will the next post be? This blog has gone past lame. I actually feel embarassed posting here.
20 June, 2008 at 7:23 pm
You miss the point nic, Bolt would be all over it if the story had a negative impact on Haneef.
Anyway, I’ll explain it to you, bias can just as easily be about what someone is silent about as what someone is vociferous about. Bolt and his fans always seem to have plenty to say on certain subjects when the story suit their warped viewpoint, (Iraq?).
“I actually feel embarassed posting here.”
So why did you bother?
20 June, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Another classic piece of Boltist behaviour by AC.
AC, you didn’t present facts, you presented speculation on what may or may not have happened in relation to Howard’s briefing.
You do understand the difference, don’t you?
No, I presented a comment on the way things actually work in PM&C, based on experience. This was in contrast to the incredible, fantastical leap posited by Haneef’s team and the media that the PM being briefed by his department on Haneef within 48 hours equaled a conspiracy.
You do understand the difference, don’t you?
20 June, 2008 at 7:24 pm
That’s a bit FROWNY Abu!
Ha ha. Yes, I suppose it was. Touche.
20 June, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Abu, are you there????
I think you have been well and truly ‘pwned’. It doesn’t surprise me that you feel the need to hide!
Or perhapes you have gone back to Bolta’s palace of stupidity, where you fit in so well.
Sometimes I have to show my face in the office, in between making my evil conservative plans.
20 June, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Abu’s hiding in a corner somewhere having a bit of a frown.
Dear Reader,
While Abu attempts to read every one of his precious fan letters, he isn’t always able to respond. Please don’t take this to mean that he does not value your letter as much as others he receives. Indeed, he very much enjoyed your interesting contribution as it was clear that you laboured over it for an extended period.
Kind regards,
Ibn Ishtirakia (personal assistant to Mr.Chowdah)
20 June, 2008 at 8:25 pm
nic
20 June, 2008 at 6:22 pm
if the report had reflected well on the former government bolt would’ve been right on it carrying on about haneef terrorist this and that. it’s the same stuff he does with iraq, incidentally he’s been cagey on iraq of late, wonder why when according to him the war is won?
the hypocrisy of bolt is delicious. cane the abc & the age for bias when he is as biaised and one-sided as they come. and please spare me the usual crap about the abc being publicly funded. quadrant magazine gets government funding and spews forth totally one-sided garbage most of which ain’t even factually accurate. yet you won’t hear bolt and his sheep arking up on that now will ya?
“However, the fact that the type of “thinking’ employed by Boltists and Blairites is so peripheral to that of the average adult Australian…”
i read somewhere recently that the ratings for shoutback radio in sydney were waning with the abc breakfast program fast gaining ground on alan jones and his parrots. apparently jones and hadley are on the nose with listeners or people simply tiring of the dated format of angry old men. but you won’t hear that from the sheep, who continue to worship alan jones. more evidence that the bolt sheep are living at the fringes. love it. gives new meaning to ‘minority’. LOL!!!
20 June, 2008 at 9:29 pm
“Just skimming the last few weeks of Boltite posts we learn….”
i’d like to do a little experiment and see if i can pick what bolt will look at tomorrow. lets see now… gotta have:
* rudd’s office in chaos
* something about the $1000 fuel surcharge on australia-london flights – preferably linked to green hysteria “this is what gaia lovers wanted!”
* tony fitzgerald nt anti-discrimination commissioner wants nt intervention dismantled – watch him work ’stolen’ into the title
*update from brough/gordon/mundine and co from that bennlong society do he’s been plugging for months
* teen pregnancy pact in the US – suggest title of “lefty groupthink gone mad”
* the outside roughie: something about pratt.
lets see what bolt does tomorrow….
20 June, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Sounds like you need to get yourself a new hobby, Confessions.
21 June, 2008 at 8:45 am
“Sounds like you need to get yourself a new hobby, Confessions.”
So, you agree with confessions then? I can’t see any counter argument after all?
21 June, 2008 at 9:30 am
The bottom line is AC, your speculation is worth no more than the media’s. You have presented no facts or evidence to prove that Howard did not have anything to do with the stuff-up that was the Haneef affair.
21 June, 2008 at 9:50 am
Who knows, Dean? I’m not saying that. I’m not addressing that at all. I’m saying that if you have ever worked at senior levels in the APS you know that being briefed on a matter within 48 hours does not prove a conspiracy. Indeed, to claim it prima facie does suggests a certain penchant for fantasy.
The distinction appears to be too nuanced for some.
21 June, 2008 at 9:52 am
RobJ: I certainly agree that there will be fresh posts on various issues every day on Bolt’s blog. I don’t necessarily agree with Confession’s spin but who knows – even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Happy?
21 June, 2008 at 9:57 am
‘Lets see what Bolt does tomorrow…’
Id buy that for a dollar!
You may just have invented a new game confessions o’ bolt blogger, called ‘Second Guess
The Righty Group Think.’ You watch, it’ll replace ‘pass the parcel’ at kids birthday parties. Suggested rules?
21 June, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’m saying that if you have ever worked at senior levels in the APS you know that being briefed on a matter within 48 hours does not prove a conspiracy.
I don’t think anyone has said that it proves a conspiracy, AC, have they? Is the only way you are able to make a point, to make stuff up? It’s a real worry if you ever really did work at senior levels in the APS.
21 June, 2008 at 11:19 am
“You have presented no facts or evidence to prove that Howard did not have anything to do with the stuff-up that was the Haneef affair.”
Supreme example of logic there DeanL.
The only thing proven by asking someone to prove a “negative” is that you are in fact a dim witted idiot.
21 June, 2008 at 12:21 pm
It might interest readers to know that Tim Blair will be appearing the ABC’s Q&A program next Thursday night.
He’ll be on the panel with Greg Hunt, Bill Shorten and some Scottish woman.
It will be interesting to watch Blair perform live in an environment that he can’t control and without his cheer squad of winged monkeys.
I predict he’ll make a cock of himself.
21 June, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I don’t think anyone has said that it proves a conspiracy, AC, have they? Is the only way you are able to make a point, to make stuff up? It’s a real worry if you ever really did work at senior levels in the APS.
Is that right, Dean? Perhaps you should read this entire thread and educate yourself to the fact that I first joined it to make reference to my comment on a media item cited at Larvatus Prodeo, here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/18/howard-lies-episode-809798/
Clearly an inference of a conspiracy, isn’t it, Sherlock?
You’re obviously not a detail, man, Dean. You may think it a worry that I have experience at senior levels in the APS but you have shown us all that it’s a blessing from Allah you were never in a position of any responsibility.
22 June, 2008 at 8:49 am
Rodney,
I am not asking Mr Chowder to “prove a negative”. I know he has no insights to offer in relation to the Haneef affair. If you objectively peruse the comments you will see that my beef with the arrogant Mr AC is that he mocks others for daring to speculate that the Haneef affair was politicised and that there is the possibility of political interference in the process. His seeming discounting of this possibility is not backed up by any evidence or facts – just some irrelevant waffle about process. There are any number of incidents and events we can point to during the Howard era that suggest political interference and politicisation (Children Overboard being the obvious “highlight”), that justify this speculation.
Next time you enter into a discussion, at least read the precursory stuff, eh, arsehole? (seeing as you started the abuse.)
22 June, 2008 at 9:23 am
“he mocks others for daring to speculate that the Haneef affair was politicised and that there is the possibility of political interference in the process.”
You are putting words into my mouth. I was not addressing whether it was politicised – I was addressing the idiotic assumption that a minister being brefed on a matter within 48 hours automatically indicated a conspiracy. Do try and keep up.
As to whether the affair was politicised: of course it was.
22 June, 2008 at 9:42 am
The article you linked to says:
Lawyers for Dr Haneef said the early involvement of the Prime Minister’s Department raised the possibility that Mr Howard may have colluded with then immigration minister Kevin Andrews to politicise the issue.
That is, the “conspiracy” you are talking about is the *politicisation*.
You’ve actually just admitted that the speculation in the article was reasonable and likely correct.
There’s further speculation that Howard may have been involved further in the process, yes, but, given what happened and the stuff-up it became, there is plenty of reason to speculate that. If you want to call that conspiracy theory, well, that’s just definition.
22 June, 2008 at 10:02 am
What does the term “colluded” mean to you? Hmmm? Pardon? What’s that? Try paying closer attention to the detail in future.
Look. I don’t see why you’re so exercised by this. I am merely making the observation that briefing a minister is standard and in no way should anyone think that confirms collusion or a conspiracy. Rudd gets briefed all the time on important issues – and that fact in no way could suggest he was “colluding”.
To conclude: I had not commented on the politicisation until my previous post, but I repeat: it certainly was politicised.
22 June, 2008 at 10:07 am
AC,
I’ll give you that the “early involvement” is likely neither here nor there. Does it on its own suggest the politicisation? No. It was said by lawyers. So what?
22 June, 2008 at 10:10 am
The point (to me) is that Howard said there was no involvement from his office when there was! Was he lying or just being incompetent?
22 June, 2008 at 10:12 am
Colluded =conspired, does it?
I don’t have much doubt that Andrews and Howard talked about how to make political mileage out of the issue. Andrews’ subsequent actions (the visa) suggest political interference.
Whether you call that a conspriracy or not is largely irrelevant.
22 June, 2008 at 10:28 am
The point (to me) is that Howard said there was no involvement from his office when there was! Was he lying or just being incompetent?
Being briefed does not equal “making a decision”.
Who knows what happened? Isn’t that the point? The question of what happened needs to be asked – but it’s not helpful to pass judgment based on a flawed understanding of the way the political system works and idle speculation. Life isn’t a Hollywood movie.
Whether you call that a conspriracy or not is largely irrelevant.
Yes, that’s evident.
22 June, 2008 at 10:33 am
Abu – So what do YOU think happened?
22 June, 2008 at 10:33 am
It was said by lawyers. So what?”
And taken up by the media and Left wing commentators who seek to use it as evidence of a conspiracy. That’s what.
If everyone thought (as I do) that idle speculation didn’t equal fact, I wouldn’t care about this issue.
22 June, 2008 at 10:50 am
“Being briefed does not equal “making a decision”.”
Did you even read what I wrote?
“Who knows what happened? Isn’t that the point? ”
What are you talking about?
“Who knows what happened? Isn’t that the point? The question of what happened needs to be asked – but it’s not helpful to pass judgment based on a flawed understanding of the way the political system works and idle speculation. Life isn’t a Hollywood movie.”
Still don’t know what your jabbering on about, did you accidentally quote me because you haven’t even attempted to address what I wrote?
Maybe you should take a break, you appear very confused.
22 June, 2008 at 11:00 am
“You watch, it’ll replace ‘pass the parcel’ at kids birthday parties. Suggested rules?”
LOL!! let’s see…..
parcel must be packaged in such a way that it only appeals to sheep, winged monkeys or the lobotomised.
if someone rejects the validity of the parcel’s contents the problem is with them and they should be wholeheartilly abused. bolt’s parcels and contents are NEVER wrong and should never be challenged.
if somebody claims the parcel had originally belonged to them and had been stolen, vigorously deny. claim instead that parcel had been abused or neglected and removed for its own good.
the same goes for those who claim the parcel is getting hotter with all the passing and handling by people. again deny vigorously, claiming instead that parcels always go through changes of temperature, regardless of how many times it is handled by humans.
parcels that look very different and stand out are in the minority and should draw suspicion. these parcels will always try and enter the game because of their minority status rather than on merit. this naturally discriminates against the majority parcels and minority parcels must therefore be subjected to vitriol and abuse so they know their rightful place.
sometimes other parcels will enter the game. these parcels may have slightly different hue to packaging, and slightly different sound when you shake, but their contents are ALWAYS the same. the parcel group-think challenge adds a new level to the basic pass-the-parcel game.
if the unthinkable occurs and the contents of the parcel ARE found to be flawed there are 2 ways to deal with. 1. drop parcel and never refer to it again. 2. find some angle anything that puts some good light on parcel and flog it to death as proof that the contents aren’t entirely flawed.
22 June, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Being briefed does not equal “making a decision”.”
Did you even read what I wrote?
The term you used was “involvement”. In that sense, I used decision-making as the criterion for involvement, as opposed to the routine, passive act of being briefed.
Is this too nuanced for you?
Again, I don’t know why, in this instance, people are taking sides on this.
22 June, 2008 at 11:36 am
Dam Buster: what I think happened is irrelevant. What I think should happen is a Royal Commission.
22 June, 2008 at 11:50 am
“If everyone thought (as I do) that idle speculation didn’t equal fact, I wouldn’t care about this issue.”
LOL!!
more to the point if everyone thought as I do, that the former government’s efforts to curry political advantage should of been seriously challenged by our media years ago, perhas this wouldn’t BE such an issue. they would of being chucked out of government when they tampa-ised the 2001 election.
the problem you have AC is that by trying to defend the indefensible all your doing is trying to push a barrell load of bullshit up a very steep hill and hoping your howard pendantic word games will lighten the load. in the words of one of the posters at the website you linked to: “john howard is the bart simpson of australian politics: i didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove anything”. i bet the only thing howard is sorry for about the haneef affair is it was dopey kevin andrews as immigration minister instead of someone who could of nuanced the issue a bit more but less obviously.
“Life isn’t a Hollywood movie.”
no, but you are having a damned good go at script-writing.
22 June, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Thanks, Confessions! Your contributions are highly valued.
fond regards & etc
22 June, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“The term you used was “involvement”. In that sense, I used decision-making as the criterion for involvement, as opposed to the routine, passive act of being briefed.”
So because you can’t argue against my very simple point you just make things up to suit your argument?
It’s really really simple, Howard’s office was “involved” Howard denied this, was he lying or is he incompetent? Obviously John Howard is a not a stupid man, he’s a very cunning politician, thus I contend that he’s a lying rodent.
22 June, 2008 at 2:11 pm
So, to reiterate. Your point is there is involvement in a matter simply because someone receives a briefing?
Okay, then, thanks for your opinion. I take it this ruling from the High Court of RobJ applies to the current administration? Excellent.
Now here’s my opinion on this: there should be a Royal Commission into the handling of the Haneef matter focusing on all government agencies involved.
22 June, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hey, check this out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/22/2282011.htm
Now, if I apply the RobJ ruling on administrative proceedings (see above) and we know that Rudd was briefed on this matter… If it turns out there’s been any dodgy business then… let me see… we have to conclude Rudd’s a party to it and also a lying little rodent? Right?
Did I apply the test properly RobJ?
22 June, 2008 at 2:26 pm
“we have to conclude Rudd’s a party to it and also a lying little rodent? Right?”
Of course he is, he’s a politician. Geez you’re naive.
We already know that Howard is a liar, but those who think he isn’t should be questioning his competence.
22 June, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Oh and for the record Julie Bishop is quite right, the initial issue was trivial, but if Neal and Della Bosca have made false statements and leant on staff to make false stat decs just to salvage her (not very good) reputation, I hope they get hit hard, I hope they both get 5 years.
I hold most politicians in contempt for the self serving lying pricks they are. I think that you think I’m partisan Abu, I’m not, I dislike nearly all them. They’re full of shit and will do just about anything to get votes, I’ll say this though, I hold Howard in special contempt, time after time he’d go after the weak and the disenfranchised to score votes, he’s a dog whistling, bigotted, lying bastard!
A bit like Andrew Bolt and Pauline Hanson really but smarter (David Oldfield???).
We have to be forgiven for suspecting Howard of trying to pull another Tampa with Haneef, unfortunately for Howard his Minister, Andrews was extremely incompetent.
22 June, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Rob,
My whole point here is that we should apply intellectual rigor, reason and logic to this and similar situations, not leap to conclusions about collusion, lies and conspiracies – the latter being demonstrated in the cited article and Larvatus thread.
That was all.
I am certainly not naive about the behaviour of politicians. I wouldn’t colour Howard’s actions the way you have, but these are issues over which reasonable men may differ. I certainly think you have every right to think that Howard may have sensed the mood of the electorate and acted cynically or at least opportunistically on occasion. But we see that now with Rudd.
Anyway, a few hours of sunlight left to trim my lemon trees. See you next time.
Abu Chowdah
22 June, 2008 at 3:26 pm
But we see that now with Rudd.
Rudd has done nothing to impress but to suggest he’s been involved in anything like some of the unsavoury stuff that Howard presided over is silly.
It’s hard to believe apparently rational (which may be a leap with AC) people can be so idiotically unobjective and biased. Hence the need for sites like this to counter the absurdly one-sided rantings of the likes of Bolt. I think you’d be better off hanging out there, AC.
22 June, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Posted by Marek Bage21 June, 2008 at 12:21 pm
What are the odds of a sympathy post by Bolt the following day, whining about the bias and affront to democracy present at the ABC, after his little buddy Timmy gets a roasting by the crowd, host and other panelists for being an imbecile?
I reckon you could almost put your house on it.
Who knows though, Blair might even do a Bolt, and change his behavior to one resembling a rational adult, when outside the safe confines of his own Blog, where he can dictate the terms of discussion.
I particularly liked the qoute from the Q and A site, describing Blair as a “world-recognised non-expert” on climate change.
I also find it interesting that Blair, like Bolt is a University dropout. Is there some sort of assembly line, where university dropouts go straight into the pathetic, reactionary, brainless and juvenile world of today’s so called ‘conservative’
‘journalism’.
Perhaps the reason B1 and B2 bitch and moan so much about today’s universities is that the prospect of having to way up issues, approach and discuss them in a mature, intelligent way, as opposed too resorting too knee-jerked, pre-determined opinions on things, and blurting out childish slogans, is too difficult and foreign as a prospect.
I guess anything that doesn’t conform to their welded on idiocy and ideological servitude must be biased.
22 June, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Rudd has done nothing to impress but to suggest he’s been involved in anything like some of the unsavoury stuff that Howard presided over is silly.
What I said was he has behaved opportunistically and cynically. Your powers of comprehension must be very frustrating to whoever employs you.
It’s hard to believe apparently rational (which may be a leap with AC) people can be so idiotically unobjective and biased.
What exquisite irony.
22 June, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I have no trouble comprehending you, AC.
So, in what way has Rudd behaved opportunistically and cynically. Give us 3 examples.
Clearly the lemon trees didn’t require a lot of work.
22 June, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Clearly the lemon trees didn’t require a lot of work.
It only took an hour to crop the low hanging fruit that get in the way when I’m trying to mow. Your interest is appreciated.
So, in what way has Rudd behaved opportunistically and cynically. Give us 3 examples.
Who died and appointed you shop foreman? Do your own research. If you can’t see Rudd’s behaviour is occasionally cynical and often opportunistic, that’s your own handicap.
Right. Off to chop some veggies up for dinner. Think I’ll have a glass of Clare Valley Grosset while I work. (These are the details that Dean enjoys and will ask questions on or make observations about later, so I mustn’t scrimp).
22 June, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Pathetic. As expected.
Credibility: gone.
22 June, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I’m glad you liked that line from the Q & A site, Chris of Brisbane.
I wrote it.
22 June, 2008 at 7:47 pm
I esp loved Nuts’N'Gum’s appearance on Insiders today where he seemed quizzicaled as to why Rudd couldn’t apologise for his minor error in the house on an inflation question.
‘Why can’t he say sorry?’ said the perplexed Bolt.
Bolt has been wrong on so, so many issues. Yet to my knowledge he still believe everyone else is still wrong (”global warming ended 10 years ago”, “what stolen generation – name 10″) etc.
What a tool.
I suspect Tim Blair will recruit the same knuckle dragging fuckwits that came and supported the barely articulate Nick Adams for his appearance.
23 June, 2008 at 1:26 am
I’m quite certain Abu is telling the truth the truth when he bignotes his high-falutin’ gunmint kernections; that combination of idiocy, arrogance and delusion reeks of tax-eater.
23 June, 2008 at 6:39 am
So, in what way has Rudd behaved opportunistically and cynically. Give us 3 examples.
Who died and appointed you shop foreman? Do your own research. If you can’t see Rudd’s behaviour is occasionally cynical and often opportunistic, that’s your own handicap. ( By Abu )
Abu, you are sooooo funny, the guy asked you to just name 3 and you can’t name 1. That is so Boltas’ site, when it comes down to it, those people can’t prove anything either.
23 June, 2008 at 7:24 am
Pathetic. As expected.
Credibility: gone.
Hate to dance to your tune, but your reaction is predictable, so this once I’ll partner up:
1. His attempts to manipulate the Anzac dawn service. That one was particularly flagrant and ugly.
2. His gross pandering to Australian celebs (while keeping senior APS figures waiting for no reason), including seeking photo ops by sitting on the floor at the 2020 summit with mates like Cate.
3. His pretending to follow sporting teams (because that’s what the punters like in a PM) when he clearly has no interest and makes details up regarding games he never attended. “Beloved Broncos”, my quoit.
All standard examples of political cynicism and/or opportunism. No big deal, no conspiracy or anything – just another day in Australian politics. I’m sure you can name a dozen more if you’re honest.
Now, come on. Where are the apologies? Didn’t expect I’d get any, you cheeky minx.
23 June, 2008 at 7:45 am
I’m quite certain Abu is telling the truth the truth when he bignotes his high-falutin’ gunmint kernections; that combination of idiocy, arrogance and delusion reeks of tax-eater.
Dear Reader,
While Abu attempts to read every one of his precious fan letters, he isn’t always able to respond. Please don’t take this to mean that he does not value your letter as much as others he receives. Indeed, he very much enjoyed your interesting contribution as it was clear that you laboured over it for an extended period.
Kind regards,
Ibn Ishtirakia (personal assistant to Mr.Chowdah)
23 June, 2008 at 7:47 am
“1. His attempts to manipulate the Anzac dawn service. That one was particularly flagrant and ugly.
2. His gross pandering to Australian celebs (while keeping senior APS figures waiting for no reason), including seeking photo ops by sitting on the floor at the 2020 summit with mates like Cate.
3. His pretending to follow sporting teams (because that’s what the punters like in a PM) when he clearly has no interest and makes details up regarding games he never attended. “Beloved Broncos”, my quit.”
So, he’s a prick, he’s not in the same league as Howard who revelled in sticking the boot into refugees and locked up children in detention camps. Dispicable!
John Howard locked genuine refugees in camps took years to process them, some of them lost their mental health.
John Howard dog whistled the ignorant masses of ACA, TT viewers, Herald Sun readers that these refugees may be terrorist. No doubt you may think this is an elitist view, it’s a realistic view.
John Howard has done some pretty evil things, now I’ve already stated that i think the Rudd is a prick but he’s not yet in the same league as Howard for evil vindictiveness.
The stuff you’ve listed about Rudd is pretty tame, yeah the ANZAC thing may cause offence but it’s not like putting children in prison indefinitely.
23 June, 2008 at 8:01 am
While Abu attempts to read every one of his precious fan letters, he isn’t always able to respond. Please don’t take this to mean that he does not value your letter as much as others he receives. Indeed, he very much enjoyed your interesting contribution as it was clear that you laboured over it for an extended period ( by Abu )
Abu……Is that a standard reply for you? You said that the other day too ( word for word )
23 June, 2008 at 8:09 am
RobJ is right…..while the Ruddster manipilate things sometimes, Howard was lower than a snakes belly……lying and scaring people ( about the terror threat, among other stuff he lied about ) just to stay in power. In the end the people woke up to him, he lost the election AND LOST his own seat.
23 June, 2008 at 8:14 am
“So, he’s a prick, he’s not in the same league as Howard who revelled in sticking the boot into refugees and locked up children in detention camps. Dispicable!”
We weren’t arguing questions of degree. Merely whether Rudd is also a cynical opportunist. Since I have demonstrated he is, why can’t you say, “fair enough”? Why is everything qualified?
Since YOU raised it, I don’t agree at all with your view of illegal immigration. If people jump the queue they have to expect they might be detained while their claims are processed, since they have already shown they seek to avoid or subvert the system. To release them into society before they receive visas would be idiocy.
No one likes to see children suffer, but the parents have to take responsibility for their actions.
I have had direct involvement with visa processing of people from war zones overseas and I know from first hand experience that the Australian system takes in many people from diverse backgrounds, many of whom have experienced horrific conditions. Those people aren’t jumping the queues – usually because they are not rich or criminals with loads of cash to pay smugglers. But they lose places when those places are taken up by back door cheats. I’d rather take the ones who respect the system, thanks all the same. It bodes well for Australia’s future to do so.
Enough of this tangential waffle.
You project a certain animus toward Howard that no amount of reasoning will affect. All politicians are cynical and opportunistic. Let’s agree on that without any mealy mouthed qualifiers and sub-clauses, shall we?
23 June, 2008 at 8:17 am
“Abu……Is that a standard reply for you? You said that the other day too ( word for word )”
That is the standard form letter response to my fan mail when it is of lesser substance, significance or interest. Ibn Ishtirakia only brings the sensible mail to my attention or mail that he knows I will find amusing or risible.
kind regards,
Abu
23 June, 2008 at 8:46 am
“If people jump the queue they have to expect they might be detained while their claims are processed,”
On an offshore shithole until you’re driven mad whilst the incompetent Dept of Immigration dilly dallys because they got more important work to do like keeping tabs on Cornelia Rau or deporting Vivienne Salon, and god knows how many other stuff ups committed in my name with my tax dollars.
And what of the children? What choice did they have?
“No one likes to see children suffer, but the parents have to take responsibility for their actions.”
And so does John Howard and so do those who voted for them. What a cop out. Do you think people risk everything to get here for fun?
Some of these REAL REFUGEES are Iraqi’s and Afghani’s, you know countries we’ve invaded, people we’ve helped DIRECTLY to displace.
23 June, 2008 at 8:54 am
“To release them into society before they receive visas would be idiocy.”
If you’re an ignorant idiot who subscribes to the “They’re terrosists” dogwhistle. UK and Other European nations seem to manage, the shit about the end of Europe and the UK at Bolts Blog is just racist [b]ignorant[/b] bigots venting their spleens.
I know Tony Blair eyed Howard’s immigration detention policies with envy but so what, he’s a prick, a total lying war mongering prick who has made it clear he doesn’t value the life of brown people.
23 June, 2008 at 8:55 am
Abu – sorry I’m venting my spleen too, you’ve hit a nerve, I detest John Howard’s immigration detention policies (as you’ve probably gathered ;o) )
23 June, 2008 at 8:59 am
AC,
Once again it comes down to definition. The things you accuse Rudd of cynical political opportunism for are lame in the extreme (particularly 2 and 3). They are the sorts of things that, if Rudd didn’t do he’d be accused of being out of touch with people. To bring those up in the same context as the Haneef affair is absurd – which is why you didn’t put them up when first asked.
Like I said before, I don’t doubt that you’ll hate Rudd for the duration; it’ll be a relief for some of us when he actually has done something bad (which I have do doubt he will do) so people like you (and Bolt) don’t look so foolish in your self-deluded tribal hatred.
For someone so arrogant, conceited and condescending (the Larvatus reference wasn’t about making a point – it was about big-noting your credentials), it’s funny to see you stoop to such a level.
23 June, 2008 at 9:03 am
We weren’t arguing questions of degree.
I am.
23 June, 2008 at 9:08 am
“We weren’t arguing questions of degree.”
It’s absolutely relevant, this is why I dislike Rudd (and most politicians) but hate John Howard (and Kevin Andrews, Peter Reith, Philip Ruddock) .
23 June, 2008 at 9:09 am
Geoff, when we quote other people – we use quotation marks (”) to enclose text that we have copied. It makes things much easier to read.
DeanL – you sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You might as well say “You cannot prove that John Howard did not shoot JFK so I’m going to believe that and put my fingers in my ears and say neh-neh-neh until you go away”.
I just love this thread. Andrew Bolt did not comment on a meaningless claim by a lawyer puffing his case, therefore he must be a bad man.
23 June, 2008 at 9:20 am
Andrew Bolt is now asserting (apparently) that having multiple sexual partners is “Leftist”:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_mention_the_sex/
FFS, how did this bloke make it to where he is?
23 June, 2008 at 9:27 am
Nic,
I couldn’t care less how I “sound” to you.
I’ve said here and elsewhere that much of the anti-Howard sentiment was inane. Not only that, it blurred the focus on those aspects of his time in power that should really have been closer scrutinised. It’s quite possible that the idiocy of the personalised, irrelevant attacks on Rudd (e.g. how he came to get food poisoining, FFS!) will do the same for him.
23 June, 2008 at 9:28 am
“Andrew Bolt is now asserting (apparently) that having multiple sexual partners is “Leftist”:”
Like Maxwell Mosely? Oh wait, Bolt would contend that Fascists and Hitler himself were leftits !
23 June, 2008 at 9:46 am
A comment from a Boltite:
Well considering the mob that broght us this terrible disease is now pushing for legal marriage and making out how normal it is when its not it doesnt surprise me at all ,funny howthey never mention that .
23 June, 2008 at 12:07 pm
RobJ – Oswald Mosely (Maxwell’s father) was from the Labour Party. So yeah, what’s your point?
Note I am not saying all socialists were fascists – just that many fascists were or had been socialists.
23 June, 2008 at 12:21 pm
He started in the Conservatives.
Anyway, I wasn’t really making a point but cracking a funny regarding the son of the leader of the British Union of Fascists allegedly having a sado-masochistic orgy with hookers pretending to be Nazi’s. It’s as absurd as Andrew Bolt asserting that multiple sex partners is a lefty thing.
23 June, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“I’m glad you liked that line from the Q & A site, Chris of Brisbane.”
“I wrote it.”
Well good, at least you can admit that you’re not an expert Tim. How about now taking the next logical, adult step, and leave discussion of what is such a central issue for the short and long term future of the world, too the experts. Instead of just spewing out your predictable, tribal and religious climate-change-denialist dribble.
23 June, 2008 at 6:48 pm
“We weren’t arguing questions of degree.”
I am.
Not with me. I made my point. If you wanted to change the subject, feel free. Just don’t kid yourself that to do so addresses the point I made.
23 June, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Abu – sorry I’m venting my spleen too, you’ve hit a nerve, I detest John Howard’s immigration detention policies (as you’ve probably gathered ;o) )
It’s okay. This is the place for it!
I just disagree with the vehemence. I should add that my issue isn’t with the “terrorist dogwhistle”. There’s a lot of bull that goes back and forth on both sides of the House on that matter.
I’m talking about standard clearance and checking procedures – which I know are necessary to ensure we don’t allow rapists, murderers, professional criminals and professional welfare leeches… and other undesirables. Stopping terrorists would merely be a bonus.
23 June, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I’m talking about standard clearance and checking procedures – which I know are necessary to ensure we don’t allow rapists, murderers, professional criminals and professional welfare leeches… and other undesirables.
Complete and utter bullshit Abu. The issue was never about basic ‘clearance’ checks (which everyone would agree are necessary) but the indefinite detention following those checks while refugee applications are processed.
Almost every other major western country releases refugee applicants while they process their applications – but we don’t.
Shit – if you really did have any experience you’d know that over 95% of boat arrivals turn out to be genuine refugees. Hardly the ‘rich criminals with loads of cash to pay people smugglers’ that you so misleadingly and slanderously call them above.
Some basic acquaintance with the issues and facts would probably help you if you want to sensibly contribute to these discussions.
23 June, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Some basic acquaintance with the issues and facts would probably help you if you want to sensibly contribute to these discussions.
Or rather, the facts as you see them. An entirely different proposition from the actual facts.
Your trust in human nature is admirable if naive.
Your “over 95%” statistic… putting aside the issue of whether or not that is accurate – you have to first sort the wheat from the chaff. Only then can you release them into society or send them back. You can’t say, as you appear to, “well 95% of them should be alright. I’m willing to accept the 5% who are undesirable as a calculated risk. Odds are they won’t get close to my house in (fill in the blank) anyway… so why bother with screening.”
Doesn’t work like that, chum.
23 June, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“you have to first sort the wheat from the chaff. ”
4 years is unacceptable:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1496418.htm
23 June, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I think people who support the sort of indefinate detention for refugees, especially when they are trying to escape the very problems our governments have caused them should be locked up in detention myself. But that’s just my opinion.
23 June, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Um, that is meant to read
“locked up in detantion THEMselves”
24 June, 2008 at 6:39 am
I don’t support indefinite detention. Or even detantion, whatever that is.
I’m also glad you’re not running the country. I prefer more moderate individuals like Howard and Rudd.
24 June, 2008 at 7:43 am
“well 95% of them should be alright. I’m willing to accept the 5% who are undesirable as a calculated risk. Odds are they won’t get close to my house in (fill in the blank) anyway… so why bother with screening.”
Why don’t you just respond to whats actually posted rather that what you’d like the poster to have written?
What’s the point of debating if you’re just going to be dishonest?
24 June, 2008 at 8:29 am
Abu, I know a place in Kings Cross where you can pay a lot of money for a good detantioning.
24 June, 2008 at 10:02 am
well 95% of them should be alright. I’m willing to accept the 5% who are undesirable as a calculated risk. Odds are they won’t get close to my house in (fill in the blank) anyway… so why bother with screening.
What the fuck are you talking about? Try reading what I wrote again Abu – only this time do it slower.
The 5% who are sent back are not rejected due to being “undesireable”, they’re sent back because they’re not found to be genuine refugees. How can someone who claims to have had involvement with the refugee application process not be aware of such a basic fact?
I’ll say it for you again, so you have a chance to absorb the argument into your brain: nobody objects to detaining refugee applicants while they undergo security checks – that is simply common sense and is done in every western country that accepts them. Even though it is extremely rare for refugees to be found to pose a security threat, most agree that the checks (which can be completed within a matter of days or weeks) are nonetheless necessary.
What is objected to, and what forms the entire basis of objections to our refugee policy, is their indefinite detention following the completion of those checks. Detention while their refugee applications are being processed. This ‘wheat from the chaff’ nonsense of yours is completely irrelevant to the issue and entirely misses the point.
Why am I not surprised?
24 June, 2008 at 6:41 pm
What’s the point of debating if you’re just going to be dishonest?
Back atcha, little feller.
24 June, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Ah yes Abu and NIC, you picked up a typo and used it to such great effect!
Certainly not the last refuge of the bolt loving winged monkey at all so i commend you both;
Bravo chaps, bravo. I have clearly been bested by two men of wit.
24 June, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Mondo, there is no point in debating people like Abu. He’s like SB on a sugar high who gets off on jerking his rod whilst wasting peoples time.
It’s just his kink you see.
24 June, 2008 at 6:47 pm
What the fuck are you talking about? Try reading what I wrote again Abu – only this time do it slower…
…What is objected to, and what forms the entire basis of objections to our refugee policy, is their indefinite detention following the completion of those checks. Detention while their refugee applications are being processed.
Checking equals processing, you arrogant, ignorant, sneering twat. It’s not finished until it’s finished.
However, if people’s claims are processed to completion (and you can PROVE that) and they are STILL detained… then I absolutely agree with you.
You fucking twat.
To my other fans, in the words of the late, great Bill Hicks: I’m sorry you had to see that.
24 June, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I have clearly been bested by two men of wit.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery and redemption. Keep your pecker up, Ev.
24 June, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Well, we know Abu is a collossus who strides the corridors of power, dispensing pithy little maxims like “It’s not finished until it’s finished” to the great and good because he’s very fond of telling us so.
Further, he’s so important he likes to pretend his internet pseudonym is important enough to warrant a personal assistant of their very own; I’d advise you get your fake assistant to start vetting your comments from now on, Abu. Just to protect you from yourself you understand.
24 June, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Oh okay, I’ll drop the pen name and tell you who I really am…
Hey! Wait a minute! That was a close call! Almost had me there, Deke, you silver-tongued cavalier. Boy, you are good.
24 June, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Oh, pish-tush, you silly-billy. I will charitably assume you are being deliberately obtuse; I don’t want you to drop the pen-name – I’m just suggesting you get your “personal assistant” to proofread your comments, surely you don’t want to look silly?.
Just trying to help…
24 June, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I imagine you don’t have many friends huh Abu?
I mean seriousy, you really do seem like one gigantic grade A dicktard.
I suppose that’s why you spend so much time here, but have you thought of a hobby to keep you occupied? Or does nothing tickle g-spot quite like talking down to people whilst spewing nonsense? I bet you’re giving yourself a stranger right now reading this blog thinking about how to next respond and sign off.
Why don’t you just say it, “With ejaculatory pleasure, Abu”?
24 June, 2008 at 7:31 pm
To my other fans, in the words of the late, great Bill Hicks: I’m sorry you had to see that.
I’ve got some news for you, Abu: Bill Hicks would have judged you a snivelling, insipid, pretentious little Tory cunt.
And he would’ve been right.
24 June, 2008 at 8:47 pm
You obviously haven’t listened to much Bill Hicks. But, hey, thanks for presenting us with an amusing stereotype.
24 June, 2008 at 8:51 pm
I bet you’re giving yourself a stranger right now reading this blog thinking about how to next respond and sign off.
Actually whenever I see your name, Ev, I get an urge to drop the kids off at the pool.
To be frank and honest with you, I do enjoy the Samuel Beckett-esque nature of our participation in this pointless blog. For me, it’s like teasing ants with a magnifying glass.
24 June, 2008 at 9:10 pm
And for me it’s like laughing at a pompous jerk parading around the mall with a whole in the ass of his pants.
So lost in his own delusions of grandeur that he doesn’t realise just how much of a joke he is to everyone around him.
24 June, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Hmm, that reminds me: must drop the kids off at the pool.
24 June, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“For me, it’s like teasing ants with a magnifying glass.”
That “teasing” is an interesting use of euphemism, and one we’ve seen deployed by other’s of Abu’s stripe, notably regarding his namesake Abu Ghraib.
24 June, 2008 at 10:55 pm
So you’re into scat as well Abu? you dirty, dirty filthy little miscreant.
Well I must say im not surprised, you talk enough shit its not so far fetched you fancy indulging in another kind of fun with shit.
Personally the more i read of you the more revolted i am.
Yours in vulgarity,
24 June, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“Blair recently celebrated World Environment Day by driving from Sydney to Mackay, Queensland. Only 108 litres of fuel was consumed, a figure Blair himself describes as “pathetic”.”
Come on Tim! You can be more inflammatory than that!
25 June, 2008 at 7:54 am
Personally the more i read of you the more revolted i am.
Yours in vulgarity,
What an angry ant you are.
That reminds me: must drop the kids off at the pool.
25 June, 2008 at 8:00 am
“Back atcha, little feller.”
Care to elaborate?
25 June, 2008 at 8:09 am
The point (to me) is that Howard said there was no involvement from his office when there was! Was he lying or just being incompetent?
Explain how comments like the above aren’t sophistry. In the APS there’s a difference between being briefed and making a decision. Educate yourself or at least try to stop talking bollocks.
25 June, 2008 at 8:41 am
Look Abu – if he wasn’t briefed and made a tit of himself then why wasn’t anybody held accountable?
Same with Children Overboard, he claims that he was told that kids were thrown overboard, so who told him and why weren’t they held accountable?
It’s not sophism, it’s dishonesty from our PM. No doubt you believe he’s an honest guy then in the next breath you’d claim (and you have) that you are not naive. LOL
Fact is you paraphrase peoples posts just because you have no rebuttal.
“Educate yourself or at least try to stop talking bollocks.”
Have you read your own posts, you know the ones which don’t actually say anything? You’re a hypocrite Abu! You frequently post little more than “bollocks” – just scroll up and you’ll see what I mean.
25 June, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Have you read your own posts, you know the ones which don’t actually say anything? You’re a hypocrite Abu! You frequently post little more than “bollocks” – just scroll up and you’ll see what I mean.
It’s a result of exasperation. Have you seen the vulgar abuse, irrelvent thread drift and other tangents I have had to put up with on this blog? After a while, even a reasonable man will say “bollocks”. Even you.
Kind regards, & etc
25 June, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Irrelevant. I meant irrelevant Bollocks.
25 June, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Oh one last think. Hate me or hate me, you have to admit this place is CRACK-A-LACKIN’ since I showed up.
PS. Jeremy: why the censorship this morning?
26 June, 2008 at 5:41 am
“Have you seen the vulgar abuse, irrelvent thread drift and other tangents I have had to put up with on this blog?”
You don’t have to put up with it, you do post bollocks and now you are trying to blame others for the fact that you post bollocks.
Take responsibility for what you post, nobody made you post.
26 June, 2008 at 8:06 am
No, I meant use of the word “bollocks”. Your observation that what I post is bollocks is your opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
But thanks for your earnestly provided wisdom, even if in this case it was wrong. “Responsibility”. Meh. What a load of bollocks.
Now to the other: this place is humming instead of being the moribund site it used to be.
26 June, 2008 at 8:57 am
“Educate yourself or at least try to stop talking bollocks.”
“No, I meant use of the word “bollocks”.
You’ve lost me, it’s clear you’re the first person to use the word bollocks in this thread, you accused me of “talking” bollocks, I highlighted the fact that (IMNSHO) you yourself don’t mind posting meaningless rubbish (aka bollocks) now you’re banging on saying you’re just talking about the use of the word “bollocks”????
Ah well, it’s all therte in black and white, readers can make up their own minds.
“But thanks for your earnestly provided wisdom, even if in this case it was wrong. “Responsibility”. ”
Also what you’re clearly misunderstanding, criticism from a dishonest hypocrite who spews rubbish can be taken as a compliment.
26 June, 2008 at 9:52 am
Abu, I see that RobJ has just admitted that he has been complimenting you. Nice work!
26 June, 2008 at 10:25 am
Checking equals processing, you arrogant, ignorant, sneering twat. It’s not finished until it’s finished.
Wow Abu – I really didn’t guess that you’d place your ignorance and dishonesty on such prominent display.
Here is what you claimed above:
I’m talking about standard clearance and checking procedures – which I know are necessary to ensure we don’t allow rapists, murderers, professional criminals and professional welfare leeches… and other undesirables
This security ‘checking’ process to which you refer is quite clearly unrelated to determining someone’s status as a refugee. Anybody with even the slightest acquiantance with the refugee application process would know this. Yet you now hope to artificially conflate security checks with the processing a refugee applications in order to make your comment seem less stupid than it was.
You’re clearly out of your depth on this issue Abu, and have as usual resorted to sneering insult as a substitute for actual experience, knowledge or intelligent argument.
No wonder you fit in so well at Bolt’s blog.
26 June, 2008 at 10:45 am
Mondo,
“as usual resorted to sneering insult as a substitute for actual experience, knowledge or intelligent argument.
No wonder you fit in so well at Bolt’s blog.”
Gee, do you see any hypocrisy in making a sneering insult as a substitute for an intelligent argument? No wonder you fit in so well at this blog.
26 June, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Perhaps you missed the argument I made, Nic, in your haste to have a go at me. Here it is for you again:
This security ‘checking’ process to which you refer is quite clearly unrelated to determining someone’s status as a refugee. Anybody with even the slightest acquiantance with the refugee application process would know this. Yet you now hope to artificially conflate security checks with the processing . . .
The insults on either side of this argument are simply the window dressing that Abu clearly prefers in his interaction with other bloggers. Don’t blame me if you can’t get past them.
26 June, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Mondo, your serpentine sophistry is fooling no one.
To repeat, my earlier response to you still stands:
Checking equals processing, you arrogant, ignorant, sneering twat. It’s not finished until it’s finished.
However, if people’s claims are processed to completion (and you can PROVE that) and they are STILL detained… then I absolutely agree with you.
You fucking twat.
By the way – Nic – have you noticed Jeremy Sears has been deleting my posts in other threads? He hates being made fun of, the poor little fellow.
26 June, 2008 at 7:49 pm
So, Abu – you think that 4 years is a reasonable time frame to process asylum seekers/refugees/queue jumpers?
And why do they have to rot on Nauru whilst the Dept of Immigration drags it’s feet?
Wow – No wonder the Public Service are whining about being overworked… They’ve been on holiday for the last decade.
26 June, 2008 at 8:00 pm
No, I don’t think it’s reasonable – ASSUMING that the decision-makers have sufficient evidence to show the applicants are not of concern.
However, if people end up incarcerated because they have received an adverse decision and make numerous appeals through the AAT and so on, that’s their decision, is it not?
Or if there is adverse information that needs to be confirmed or refuted, then I am happy for the authorities to detain people until they are satisfied.
That’s right. You read me right. I doubt I’m in the minority on this stuff, Rob.
Wow – No wonder the Public Service are whining about being overworked… They’ve been on holiday for the last decade.
That was weak.
26 June, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“Wow – No wonder the Public Service are whining about being overworked… They’ve been on holiday for the last decade.
That was weak.”
Ooooh, I hit a nerve.
Seems to me that under Howard the Dept of Immigration was utterly incompetent. Rau, Salon, kid’s locked up for years because the checking takes that long!
26 June, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“That’s right. You read me right. I doubt I’m in the minority on this stuff, Rob.”
So, being in the majority doesn’t necessarily make one right.
26 June, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“I don’t support indefinite detention.”
Hmmm
“Checking equals processing, you arrogant, ignorant, sneering twat. It’s not finished until it’s finished.”
I think you do!
26 June, 2008 at 8:16 pm
That was weak.”
Ooooh, I hit a nerve.
No, it was just weak. As was your response to my comment. Again, weak.
You were doing reasonably well arguing your case – not convincingly, but sincerely and with clarity – and then you threw in some cliched bollocks about the pubes. Weak, baby, weak.
26 June, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“I don’t support indefinite detention.”
Hmmm
“Checking equals processing, you arrogant, ignorant, sneering twat. It’s not finished until it’s finished.”
I think you do!
And I think perhaps your cognitive processes are somewhat lacking.
Let me reiterate my view, phrasing it in a way that even you can’t spin.
1) illegal arrivals need to be checked to guard against criminiality and so on.
2) once that process is COMPLETE a decision needs to be made; either
3) no good, so sad, bye bye; or
4) okay, you’re good, you can stay.
Assuming outcome is 4 and not 3, indefinite detention is not acceptable.
Repeat not acceptable.
Are we clear, sonny?
26 June, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“And I think perhaps your cognitive processes are somewhat lacking.”
You’re the one who contradicts yourself in your posts. LOL – better calm down, you’re working too hard.. Slow down, give yourself time to digest your own posts.
“Are we clear, sonny?”
No. You’re not reiterating, you’re back pedaling.. “It isn’t finished ’til it’s finished” is indefinite If there’s NO TIME FRAME, it’s indefinite. You’re cognitive processes seem to be stuffed!
26 June, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Okay, Rob. Thanks mate. I think it’s pretty clear you’re hurting and determined to get some face back.
I’ll leave you with this quote from a favourite movie, since Steve Martin’s frustrations with John Candy’s character, remind me of our dealings with you:
You know everything is not an anecdote. You have to discriminate. You choose things that are funny or mildly amusing or interesting. You’re a miracle! Your stories have NONE of that. They’re not even amusing ACCIDENTALLY! “Honey, I’d like you to meet Del Griffith, he’s got some amusing anecodotes for you. Oh and here’s a gun so you can blow your brains out. You’ll thank me for it.” I could tolerate any insurance seminar. For days I could sit there and listen to them go on and on with a big smile on my face. They’d say, “How can you stand it?” I’d say, “‘Cause I’ve been with Del Griffith. I can take ANYTHING.” You know what they’d say? They’d say, “I know what you mean. The shower curtain ring guy. Woah.” It’s like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll. I expect you have a little string on your chest, you know, that I pull out and have to snap back. Except I wouldn’t pull it out and snap it back – you would. Agh! Agh! Agh! Agh! And by the way, you know, when you’re telling these little stories? Here’s a good idea – have a POINT. It makes it SO much more interesting for the listener!
Ta ta now.
26 June, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Abu Chowdah writes:
“1) illegal arrivals need to be checked to guard against criminiality and so on.”
but not kept in maximum security facilities while the immigration dept grinds slowly into gear. there are examples of community prison facilities where people live in normal housing, where they cook for themselves, can live as a family, have a garden, retain their dignity, but it’s still a prison. this should of been the preferred accommodation for refugees and could of except john howard decided to play politics with people’s lives for the sake of being re-elected. thats cowardice plain and simple. for refugees, once their health screening has been given the all clear theres no reason why they can’t live in this type of community housing type accommodation while their security stuff is being checked.
“And I think perhaps your cognitive processes are somewhat lacking.”
actually i think it’s YOUR cognitive processes that are deficient. quoting movie scripts to illustrate some point is far from sane behaviour btw. your still pushing that hefty barrell-load up a great big hill, except in place of the howard weazel words (”COMPLETE” for fucks sake) your now quoting john candy! and you put this forward as some sort of benchmark of clear thinking?!
your talent is wasted here. tim blair is calling you.
26 June, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“Okay, Rob. Thanks mate. I think it’s pretty clear you’re hurting and determined to get some face back.”
Sorry?
For someone as wordy as yourself I thought you’d understand the word “indefinite”.
“remind me of our dealings with you:”
Who is “our”? Have you been getting help with your posts? That must be why you’re so confused.
26 June, 2008 at 10:45 pm
So nice of you to stand up for your little mate, Confessions. He was floundering and you came to his assistance, poor pet.
And of course, as ever, your opinions are intensely interesting to me.
So, uhm, thanks for writing all of that. Type, type, type. Sweat beading on your forehead, tongue poking out. I can picture it. Me, I just cut and pasted from IMDB. Far simpler.
What fun we’re having!
26 June, 2008 at 10:46 pm
There, there, Rob. Did Abu upset you again?
27 June, 2008 at 5:41 am
There, there, Rob. Did Abu upset you again?
Why would you think that?
“. He was floundering and you came to his assistance, poor pet.”
Erm, I’m not the ‘wordy’ one who keeps tripping myself up with contradictions. The one who pretends to know what’s happening yet clearly just comes here to troll.
I’m not the one who classes Today Tonight and A Current Affair as quality media.
The one who makes rash assumptions on others voting habits.
I’m not the one making an utter tit of myself.
I think you’re working to hard Abu, just relax a little.
You’ve fucked up so many times in this one thread, it’s rather amusing to the rest of us watching you flailing. LOL
27 June, 2008 at 7:36 am
Let me reiterate my view, phrasing it in a way that even you can’t spin, Rob.
1) illegal arrivals need to be checked to guard against criminality and so on.
2) once that process is COMPLETE a decision needs to be made; either
3) no good, so sad, bye bye; or
4) okay, you’re good, you can stay.
Assuming outcome is 4 and not 3, indefinite detention is not acceptable.
Repeat not acceptable.
Are we clear, little feller?
27 June, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Abu:
Let me reiterate my view, phrasing it in a way that even you can’t spin.
1) illegal arrivals need to be checked to guard against criminiality and so on.
2) once that process is COMPLETE a decision needs to be made; either
3) no good, so sad, bye bye; or
4) okay, you’re good, you can stay
Abu – try to understand this very basic point about the refugee determination process: the decision about whether someone “can stay” is a two stage process. Security checks are certainly necessary, and are completed as the first stage for all refugee applicants in Australia (usually within a couple of weeks at the most).
However, following this security check, a very lengthy process is undertaken to determine whether the person asylum qualifies as a refugee. Do you understand that someone’s claim for asylum is a completely separate issue to their assessment as a securitty risk? It appears from your ’summary’ above that you do not.
Australia imprisons its refugee applicants during both the initial security check and the subsequent processing of their refugee claim. FYI – it is imprisonment during the processing of refugee applications that forms the basis for criticism of Australia’s ‘indefinite detention’ policy. Other countries, such as the US, only imprison during the security check – they release asylum seekers into the community whilst refugee applications are assessed.
Now initially I thought you were being dishonest when you artificially conflated the security screening with the refugee application process – but from the above quote it appears I was being too harsh on you. Apparently it is nothing more than you simply having no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
You really ought to learn some basic facts about that which you seek to express an opinion on. This will save you from making a complete and total arse of yourself in future.
Comments are closed.