I can’t believe I’m putting a “forum” post here, but it’s obvious that the TBBWP team are presently all rather busy and haven’t had time to do any specific Blair/BoltWatching.
Because Blair and Bolt haven’t been dormant just because we have, and clearly readers of this site continue to want to discuss their disturbing output.
So here’s a forum thread on which to do that. I’ll just do one, and we’ll see how it goes. We’ll see if we need to do separate Blair/Bolt ones next time.
Proper Blair/BoltWatching to recommence when the TBBWP team starts reading tim and Andy’s sites again. Not that we’re in a hurry to do that. (Guest submissions can be made to the usual email addresses.)
318 Comments
12 November, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Bunch of slackers. I’ll start up the conversation then.
here goes..
Bolt is fuckwit. Discuss
13 November, 2008 at 12:15 am
That’s inappropriate.
You can’t just say “bolt is fuckwit” and leave it at that. You must say how he’s a fuckwit.
For instance his latest Obama spray, where Andy decides on the best strategy for dealing with the reality of ‘Pres. Obama’ .
He calms his frightened herd with the following soothing words on Obama – “he may look black but he was raised white”.
Thank goodness. Imagine if he was ‘raised black’. He’d probably nick the silverware, put his feet on the tables and shoot up in the Oval Office.
Close call.
13 November, 2008 at 2:00 am
Raised white? For the past six months I’ve been hearing Obama was raised a Muslim with lashings of Black Liberation Theology. I can’t keep up.
13 November, 2008 at 6:11 am
Yeah, i noticed the latest Pres. Obama spray also! And a lot of his sheep having raptures about a black man in the white house. ( the racist little twits they are )
Actually, i can’t really blame the flock, they are told what to ( and how to ) think by Andy!
13 November, 2008 at 7:36 am
Well, I think you’ve all missed the xecelent pnoit that Bolt was trying to make – which is, that B.O. (chortle, chortle, bwah-ha) has defied his racial identity in order to steal the Presidencccy from a reserving war nero!!
And that … and that … um.
Excuse me a minute, I’ve just had a brain aneurysm. Head asploded. Sorry.
13 November, 2008 at 8:42 am
Didn’t Bolt describe Obama’s being raised by whites as “the central truth” of his presidency or something?
The central truth about Obama is that he was raised white.
He’s not even pretending anymore. He’s just openly obsessed with race.
13 November, 2008 at 9:02 am
The central truth about Obama is that he was raised white.
He’s not even pretending anymore. He’s just openly obsessed with race.
And your proof of this is?
13 November, 2008 at 9:04 am
Look, Rad’s here right on queue to stick up for his hero, the dogwhistler, the guy that Rad thinks delivers the news (LMAO).
Rad, you’re a troll, you prove this time and time again, why do you bother? You always lose the debate!
13 November, 2008 at 9:07 am
“He calms his frightened herd with the following soothing words on Obama – “he may look black but he was raised white”.”
a pity the same kind of ‘reassurrances’ can’t be used with aboriginals stolen and raised white. no, they have to be demonised as non-existant liars.
13 November, 2008 at 9:08 am
While you’re there Matt, hunkering in the bushes, have a further read about your imaginary girlfriend.
Piss off troll…
13 November, 2008 at 9:09 am
i posted this last night, but better goes here.
the hypocrisy and disgust of bolt and his sheep is never more evident than with the obama victory and his view of aboriginals.
on 6th nov he published “Where’s our own Obama?” suggesting black australia only produced the patrick dodsons of the world who represent the ‘victim mentality’, conveniently brushing over the generations of aborigines (including dodson) who protested against racist discriminatory laws and had real achievements for their people.
on 7th nov he publishes “How Obama really heals” in which he states:
“Admire Obama. We need heroes, so hold him up as the inspiration to at last look beyond race to character.”
obama’s victory is to be acknowledged, presumably because of the symbolism it represents for black americans. look beyond race people, look for the character.
but on on 9th nov he publishes “Stolen or rejected?” another aboriginal bashing exercise dressed up as name 10. bolt says this of a victim:
“And why Wallace was removed at eight from her mother is never actually explained. Note that the Federal Court in the Gunner-Cubillo test case could find no evidence that children in the Northern Territory were stolen just because they were black.”
character anyone? and what the fuck does the cubillo/gunner case have to do with wallace? because the removal was never explained is EXACTLY the issue here for many aborigines who were taken from their familys.
and today it’s “Stealing our history” another pot shot at aboriginals who were stolen, and the movie that brings these stories to life about which bolt says this:
“The reporter didn’t explain why exactly Wallace had been taken – or given away. And here’s some context the reporter failed to detail. As the Alice Springs News reported, Wallace later went back to her mother and found she really wasn’t wanted. Said Wallace: “It really hurt me badly. I thought, she doesn’t want me, I won’t worry about her. It was a really big thing to be rejected by someone who was supposed to be your mother.” Such are the sad, flat facts of the “stolen generations”. No wonder it takes a Nicole Kidman to give this myth life. And so is our history invented. ”
flat facts. yes let’s gloss over this woman’s suffering solely because it is another supposed nuggett in bolt’s war on the stolen generations. and in fact it isn’t really about suffering and people being kept from the family, it’s really about nicole kidman and the fact that she’s a dreaded “artist”. fuck off andy.
why is it that bolt can feel the significance of obama’s victory to african americans, demanding australia produce an obama of our own, yet is so indifferent to the suffering of the first australians, people like wallace who has face heartache in her search for family, wanting instead to denigrate their efforts to have their story heard? and if you can be bothered to read the comments, his sheep have nothing but praise for obama’s victory, but in the patrick dodson post nobody says anything good about his achievement. is it any wonder australia can’t produce an obama of our own?
13 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
As long as RadP keeps posting even bullshit (to go with the lying – proven at this site), in his small mind, he’s winning.
Idiots like RadP aren’t interested in learning or curing themselves of their ignorance (proof of this in the previous thread) – they just want to continue to put a juvenile, tribal-based position.
13 November, 2008 at 9:14 am
What about this idea for discussion:
‘Bolt is not speaking his mind; he is a mouthpiece for a vastly sinister force’.
13 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
Bolt is not speaking his mind; he is a mouthpiece for a vastly sinister force
Nah. Bolt speaks his own mind. Bolt’s just totally intolerant of any view contrary to his own. Completely unobjective and unbelievably shallow. He doesn’t see his constant stream of abusive smearing as just that – the people he denigrates deserve no respect because they’re flat-out wrong.
Bolt is a denialist in every sense of the word: He hasn’t studied the stolen generations (I mean academically) or the science behind global warming (he’s incapable of this) – he argues (or distorts or misrepresents) the case based on where he thinks the issue falls politically.
He constantly complains of bias and bitches about the “religious” fervor of the “Left”, yet he never, ever looks at any issue from anything other than his viewpoint. The hypocrisy is so in your face, it’s exasperating – yet I know he can’t see it.
13 November, 2008 at 9:24 am
Idiots like RadP aren’t interested in learning or curing themselves of their ignorance (proof of this in the previous thread) – they just want to continue to put a juvenile, tribal-based position.
If that helps you sleep at night DeaniaL. You just find it hard to cope when people dare to debate the legitimacy of your ideology. To you scepticism is denialism. Which is an admission by you that your beliefs are ideologically based rather than based in reason.
13 November, 2008 at 9:29 am
He constantly complains of bias and bitches about the “religious” fervor of the “Left”, yet he never, ever looks at any issue from anything other than his viewpoint. The hypocrisy is so in your face, it’s exasperating – yet I know he can’t see it.
Change Left to Right in your sentence DeaniaL and it is a perfect assessment of you.
He ( DeaniaL ) constantly complains of bias and bitches about the “religious” fervor of the “Right”, yet he never, ever looks at any issue from anything other than his viewpoint. The hypocrisy is so in your face, it’s exasperating – yet I know he can’t see it.
13 November, 2008 at 9:30 am
Having said that though: He is clever – because, like Howard, he knowingly uses the Hanson trick (which Hanson invented by being an ignorant bigot rather than clever). He widens his appeal by appearing to support a wider range of right wing philosophy than what (I’m quite sure) he really does believe and embrace. But we know that…
13 November, 2008 at 9:33 am
I wonder what ever happened to that prediction by people on this blog that the republican party were going to turn on palin.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24644855-5005961,00.html
DEFEATED Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin returns to the national stage here today for what could be the first stop of her 2012 presidential bid, with a starring role at a conference for Republican governors.
The conservative Alaska governor’s emergence on the national scene as John McCain’s running mate has been seen by many Republicans as the redeeming feature of their failed presidential campaign, setting her up for many as a hope for the party’s future.
13 November, 2008 at 9:34 am
RadP,
I don’t have a blog, so how can you know what my political philosophies are?
The answer is: you don’t. You’re talking shit – yet again.
13 November, 2008 at 9:43 am
rad: read this before you start thinking that an unleashed and unplugged palin might improve her tarnished image:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/us/politics/12watch.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
remember people are focussed on obama now and him starting as president.
13 November, 2008 at 9:47 am
I’m wondering if RadP is the actor in the Telstra broadband ad. I can just see Rad telling his kids (God help the poor blighters if he’s managed to find someone that will cohabitate and reproduce with such a cretin) that AGW will never happen because of the Theory of Falsification. If only we could build a wall to keep out rabbits like RadP!
13 November, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’m wondering if RadP is the actor in the Telstra broadband ad. I can just see Rad telling his kids (God help the poor blighters if he’s managed to find someone that will cohabitate and reproduce with such a cretin) that AGW will never happen because of the Theory of Falsification.
I know that I offend you DeaniaL because I dare to question and debate scientific theory rather than people like you who fall into line like mindless sheep and refuse to question.
If you understood science then you would understand how scientifically dyslexic your statement above is. AGW isn’t stopped by the theory of falsification, rather the theory of AGW as a cause of climate change is questioned, knowing that AGW can be falsified as humanity’s understanding of the earth’s climate increases.
13 November, 2008 at 10:03 am
“God help the poor blighters if he’s managed to find someone that will cohabitate and reproduce with such a cretin”
Im pretty sure trolls reproduce by releasing a cloud of spores.
13 November, 2008 at 10:04 am
Im pretty sure trolls reproduce by releasing a cloud of spores
Is that right?! Is that how your parents produced you?
13 November, 2008 at 10:08 am
C’mon Mods.
If this fucktard Matt is allowed to keep posting his childish gibberish, I’m out of here.
Better things to do than keep seeing his crap spread over my monitor….
13 November, 2008 at 10:16 am
RadP the Clown: If you understood science…
Post grad and 18 years working in atmos. science.
Yet I’d never say I “understand science” anyway.
What I do know is this: you’ve proven to me you don’t understand the little science you say you’ve studied.
You’re an ignorant twit, RadP.
13 November, 2008 at 10:18 am
Post grad and 18 years working in atmos. science
What on earth went wrong for you to get to a place where you didn’t understand fundamentals like falsification, or that AGW could be stopped by the theory of falsification?
13 November, 2008 at 10:23 am
So are you disappoint DeaniaL that your hope of the republican party turning on Palin never eventuated?
I suppose the prospect of palin winning the republican ticket in 2012 must now horrify you?!
13 November, 2008 at 10:26 am
Thanks again for the laughs RadP.
You can try to convince yourself that you’ve blustered your way out of utter foolishness and absurdity – but you remain in an embarrassed club of 1.
13 November, 2008 at 10:37 am
Good onya Rad – showing all the usual intellectual rigour of Dutchy’s disciples.
13 November, 2008 at 10:42 am
Bolt is a denialist in every sense of the word: He hasn’t studied the stolen generations (I mean academically) or the science behind global warming (he’s incapable of this) – he argues (or distorts or misrepresents) the case based on where he thinks the issue falls politically.
You’ve absolutely nailed Bolt in this one paragraph Dean. Bolt analyses every single issue through the prism of ideology. Every. Single. One.
Suddenly he’s discovered that politicisation of the public service is anti-democratic? Suddenly government spin is deplorable? Suddenly knee-jerk support of the US government is sychophancy? Get fucked Bolt – as a central player in the Wilkie leak and smear you’re one of our most cravenly partisan and compromised players.
He and Matt aren’t so different. It’s all a game to them – it’s all about supporting your team (or more importantly, opposing the other team). I say we ignore them completely and move on to the vastly more important task of holding our new government(s) to account.
Rudd is already showing some Howard-like qualities in his refusal to account for his behaviour and his politicisation of the media and the public service. THAT’s where the mission is – not in refuting the increasingly irrelevant ramblings of ignorant trolls like Bolt and Matt.
I say lets get ‘RuddWatch’ back up and running.
13 November, 2008 at 10:55 am
I must say, Mondo, how much I’ve been disappointed in Rudd’s behavior over this alleged Bush smear.
Surely he’s better than this? If he actually tried to find solace in the laughter of a few pompous twats with a throw-away line re the lame duck then he better learn that his time in office will be far shorter than his subject.
13 November, 2008 at 10:57 am
Mondo,
For me, Rudd’s still an unknown. He had the advantage of not having had a huge history with the voters and he was handed the PMship largely on the grounds of the electorate desparately wanting to see the end of JWH.
But the stuff the Bolt-alikes go on with is pathetic beyond measure. At least the Howard-Haters had something a bit more solid to base it on than what the Rudd-Revilers have come up with to date.
G20 Gaffe – FFS!
13 November, 2008 at 11:05 am
G20 Gaffe – FFS!
Rudd’s G20 leak about bush was not just a Gaffe. It was a national embarrassment. Rudd tried to boost his own imagine at the expense of another, while also exposing another conversation with the leader of China. To add to this the G20 gaffe was a lie.
So Rudd was betraying the confidence of two of the world most powerful leaders all in the vain attempt to boost his own ego within the public domain.
This is Rudd playing primary school politics with world leaders on the international stage.
13 November, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Surely he’s better than this?”
Nah, I’ve been utterly unimpressed, he’s Tory lite as far as I can see. He’s been caught out on this, sad thing for the Tories though, they seem more concerned with Rudd’s dishonesty (Duh – he’s a politician) than they are with the possibility that Bush is a total fuckwit who we, especially the wingnuts, followed into catastrophic a war of choice.
I also believe he’s a populist, I cite the Henson affair as an example.
Not a fan of Rudd, then again I’m not a fan of Labor (what’s with the spelling of Labor, losing the ‘U’? is it so that we can easily differentiate them from real Labour? The party that used to look out for the worker)
13 November, 2008 at 11:10 am
Heh – right on queue Rad reinforces my point about wingnuts being more concerned about Rudd’s dishonesty than they are that the leader of the free world just isn’t up to the task.
Cheers Rad.
13 November, 2008 at 11:15 am
Once again RadP produces the perfect example to prove my point.
Just like MightyMatt used to do…funnily enough…
13 November, 2008 at 11:17 am
he’s Tory lite as far as I can see. He’s been caught out on this,
Now that they have launched a senate enquiry into Rudd’s behaviour, it will be interesting to see what the implications for Rudd are if the enquiry determines that Rudd did infact leak the phone call.
Heh – right on queue Rad reinforces my point about wingnuts being more concerned about Rudd’s dishonesty than they are that the leader of the free world just isn’t up to the task
What has Bush’s presidency got to do with it? Both Bush and Rudd have admitted that Bush knew what the G20 was. So it is 100% about Rudd’s dishonesty and actions. To say it is about Bush is to play into Rudd’s “hey look over there” diversionary tactics.
13 November, 2008 at 11:20 am
Just like MightyMatt used to do
You feel that you are losing the debate DeaniaL?! Hence the Mighty Matt card!
I will take that as you conceding defeat in this debate.
13 November, 2008 at 11:21 am
But the stuff the Bolt-alikes go on with is pathetic beyond measure.
That much is an absolute given Dean. It’s mindless, applies a clear double-standard, and is aimed ONLY at returning their favoured politicians to power. None of it is a meaningful contribution towards the national debate.
But if we spend all our time being outraged by how pathetic and dishonest the attacks by Bolt and his idiot flock are, we will have taken our eye off the ball. Rudd and Obama are running with it at the moment – they’re where the action is. We shouldn’t spend all our time fighting off the lunatic right-wing fringe, I mean Matt alone proves what a pointless exercise that is.
Personally I could live with seeing Rudd knocked over by Gillard before the end of his first term. Perhaps the threat of such an outcome might push Rudd to be a better PM.
13 November, 2008 at 11:22 am
RobJ,
Can you really be a (successful) politician without being populist?
It’s the issues that are used to demonstrate it that matter. I think Henson was ill-used but, at the same time and being a parent, I can understand the concern and how Rudd came to adopt the position he did.
Rudd’s so used to the wedging tactics of the Libs that he jumps at shadows.
13 November, 2008 at 11:24 am
Mondo,
I’ve already said that I expect Gillard will be our first female PM. Possibly our first Ginger PM as well?
13 November, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Now that they have launched a senate enquiry into Rudd’s behaviour, it will be interesting to see what the implications for Rudd are if the enquiry determines that Rudd did infact leak the phone call.”
No, they haven’t, Xenophon and Brown see it as a waste of time, the Libs are shitting themselves that if the senate inquiry did get up then the Journos from their beloved Australian would be subpoenaed, Fielding never had the numbers, he’s just being his usual attention seeking self. As per the World Today 10 minutes ago.
“oth Bush and Rudd have admitted that Bush knew what the G20 was.”
All of a sudden you’re prepared to take Rudd’s word for it? ah well, as you frequently demonstrate, consistency isn’t one of your strong points.
“To say it is about Bush is to play into Rudd’s “hey look over there” diversionary tactics.”
So you believe Rudd then? Bush didn’t make such an error? Tell me, what the fuck is all the fuss about then? Who leaked it? Probably Rudd, but how come no-one is asking the journos?
Before you bother responding with yet another asinine post it will be in your own interest to realise that I’m not sticking up for Rudd, I’m taking the piss out of the hypocritical wingnuts…
” “hey look over there””
What’s wrong with that? You do it all the time..
13 November, 2008 at 11:27 am
I will take that as you conceding defeat in this debate.
When you are eventually exposed, Matt, it’s comments like these that will leave you with no choice but to immediately disappear, tail between your legs.
You’ve staked your entire credibility on a lie. I hope you realise just what this says about you.
13 November, 2008 at 11:31 am
“Can you really be a (successful) politician without being populist?”
I hear you Dean, even Bob Brown dropped his forward thinking, radical drug policies for the sake of popularity, there are degrees however and Rudd to me seems to be very populist..
I don’t like him, sorry that’s just the way I am.. Too conservative for my liking.
“I think Henson was ill-used but, at the same time and being a parent, I can understand the concern and how Rudd came to adopt the position he did.”
I would have thought that Rudd was more intelligent than that, I reckon he was playing to the knee jerk crowd.. I’m a parent too, I’m not phased (fazed????) by Henson’s art, and I think many protest too much. I’m utterly indifferent to it.
“Rudd’s so used to the wedging tactics of the Libs that he jumps at shadows.”
There is that, he can just shut up though (Mohamed Haneef) rather than rant (Henson)
13 November, 2008 at 11:32 am
All of a sudden you’re prepared to take Rudd’s word for it? ah well, as you frequently demonstrate, consistency isn’t one of your strong points
Don’t be ridiculous. Bush has been dealing with the G20 throughout his presidency so it has nothing to do with taking Rudd’s word. Rudd admitting the truth is confirmed by the US governments records of the call and the Media reports of Bush’s past involvement in the G20.
So you believe Rudd then? Bush didn’t make such an error? Tell me, what the fuck is all the fuss about then? Who leaked it? Probably Rudd, but how come no-one is asking the journos?
Why is Rudd refusing to deny in parliament that he leaked the story?
13 November, 2008 at 11:36 am
When you are eventually exposed, Matt, it’s comments like these that will leave you with no choice but to immediately disappear, tail between your legs
And you have staked your credibility on claiming that I am your mythical matt. If you are so sure about your accusation then where’s your proof otherwise you need to give it away?!
13 November, 2008 at 11:38 am
“Don’t be ridiculous. Bush has been dealing with the G20 throughout his presidency so it has nothing to do with taking Rudd’s word.”
Never seen footage of Bush losing it mid sentence? You need to get out more.
“Why is Rudd refusing to deny in parliament that he leaked the story?”
from my last post:
“Who leaked it? Probably Rudd, but how come no-one is asking the journos?”
Just read my posts properly and save yourself some time…
13 November, 2008 at 11:41 am
Just read my posts properly and save yourself some time
Last time I heard, Rudd doesn’t invite the media into the room when he has a private conversation with a world leader.
13 November, 2008 at 11:58 am
G20 Vs Obama/AlQ*
*”If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats,”
Or throw in Costello’s gaffe after his meeting with Greenspan that effected global stockmarkets.
Ah yes. The Libs – what a lovely bunch.
13 November, 2008 at 11:59 am
What really needs to be debated now id Rudd’s war on the internet with his proposed mandatory internet filter.
AUSTRALIA’S mandatory net filter is being primed to block 10,000 websites as part of a blacklist of unspecified “unwanted content”.
And
“Under the current mandate that includes adult material, which would mean most material that could be rated R and, in some circumstances, material rated MA15+.”
No doubt the media’s love affair with Rudd will allow him to pass this nasty attack on freedom of speech on the internet. Now I know why they call him Chairman Rudd.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24645676-661,00.html
13 November, 2008 at 12:01 pm
And you have staked your credibility on claiming that I am your mythical matt.
Actully Matt – I haven’t – although I’m not surprised that you can’t tell the difference.
You see, if it turns out you are then you will be an utterly shameless liar.
Whereas if it turns out that you really aren’t Mighty Matt then I will simply be wrong. My judgement might be called into question by such an outcome – but not my credibility.
I know you’re not very good at application of reason and/or logic but even you should be able to see the difference between our two positions.
13 November, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Or throw in Costello’s gaffe after his meeting with Greenspan that effected global stockmarkets.
What about mark Latham’s gaffs about Bush?
DeaniaL have you joined Rudd’s ministry of properganda and spin?
13 November, 2008 at 12:03 pm
What really needs to be debated now id Rudd’s war on the internet with his proposed mandatory internet filter.
It’s being debated and criticised extensively over at Lefty’s site Matt.
You’ve been banned there however, so I’m not surprised you’re frustrated that you can’t participate.
13 November, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Whereas if it turns out that you really aren’t Mighty Matt then I will simply be wrong. My judgement might be called into question by such an outcome – but not my credibility
You credibility will be brought into question because you continue to claim that I am someone that I am not when you have NO proof to back up your slander.
Whereas if it turns out that you really aren’t Mighty Matt then I will simply be wrong.
And you will owe me one hell of an apology. Which brings up the question. Given that the onus of proof is on you as the accuser, when will you finally admit that you were wrong? Especially given that you have no proof and never will.
13 November, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Here’s the an excerpt which shows how RadP is being misleading. [The stuff about R and MA15 was said by a non-Gov spokesperson and is obviously based on speculation.]
“The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content,” Senator Conroy told Parliament today.
“While the ACMA blacklist is currently around 1300 URLs, the pilot will test against this list – as well as filtering for a range of URLs to around 10,000 – so that the impacts on network performance of a larger blacklist can be examined.”
An ACMA trial of web-filtering technology this year found it could slow internet access by as much as 87 per cent and by at least 2 per cent.
Electronic Frontiers Australia board member Colin Jacobs said his civil liberties group was concerned at what would be deemed “unwanted content”.
“It is unclear how ACMA will scale up their blacklist to 10,000 websites and what will go on the list,” he said.
“Conroy said the list would contain illegal and unwanted content but we still have to see what would end up on that list.
“Under the current mandate that includes adult material, which would mean most material that could be rated R and, in some circumstances, material rated MA15+.”
13 November, 2008 at 12:07 pm
It’s being debated and criticised extensively over at Lefty’s site Matt
What is the URL to Lefty’s site?
13 November, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Conroy said the list would contain illegal and unwanted content but we still have to see what would end up on that list
What is determined as unwanted content? That in itself should worry us all. Who get’s to determine what sites qualify for unwanted content?
13 November, 2008 at 12:11 pm
What is the URL to Lefty’s site?
Too obvious RadP!
13 November, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Latham’s gaffs about Bush?
Are you accusing Latham of attacking Bush with a fishing spear?
Sound like it’s not fit and proper(ganda)!
13 November, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Who get’s to determine what sites qualify for unwanted content?
I agree. It should be watched. I suspect there won’t be many sites that I’d be interested in visting amongst them but perhaps you have reason to worry, RadP?
13 November, 2008 at 12:19 pm
It’s on the blogroll Matt – feel free to pop over for a visit.
13 November, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I agree. It should be watched. I suspect there won’t be many sites that I’d be interested in visting amongst them but perhaps you have reason to worry, RadP?
Regardless of whether it will effect us or not, we should all be worried. What happens with a change of government in the future? Does that government get to redefine what they classify as unwanted content?!
I don’t have a problem with illegal sites being blocked, but I do have a problem with a policy which is worded with ambiguous terms which leaves the door open for the government to classify any site they want as unwanted content?!
13 November, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It’s on the blogroll Matt – feel free to pop over for a visit
i did but it is rather lame.
13 November, 2008 at 12:44 pm
i did but it is rather lame.
Did you leave a comment?
13 November, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Did you leave a comment?
Why do you ask?
BTW – The over use of sarcasm on the site is nauseating.
13 November, 2008 at 12:49 pm
It certainly pisses me off.
13 November, 2008 at 12:51 pm
It certainly pisses me off
I bet it does?!
13 November, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Why do you ask?
Because I can’t visit the site from work – for some reason my work computer regularly blocks it. As such I can’t see what you wrote.
What did you write Matt?
13 November, 2008 at 1:00 pm
What did you write Matt?
What would you like me to write? i can take requests if that’s what you are asking?!
13 November, 2008 at 1:17 pm
So you didn’t post a comment.
Is it because you are banned there?
13 November, 2008 at 1:18 pm
So you didn’t post a comment.
I never said that.
Is it because you are banned there
I am not banned from the site as I have never commented on the site before.
Maybe you need to go to the site to see what I wrote.
13 November, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mondo – there is a post from RadP on Lefty’s site.
13 November, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I don’t think it matters that much if RadP = MM or not.
The fact that so many people see such a striking similarity in commenting to someone who was banned for incessant trolling should be reason enough for RadP to pull his head in.
But RadP can hardly expect to be believed when he has been proven to lie.
13 November, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Mondo – there is a post from RadP on Lefty’s site.
Ohhh – he was playing games above. What a surprise.
It doesn’t matter anyway. It was two years ago that he was banned at Lefty’s. He could have changed IP address or Lefty could have lifted the ban.
I’m sure, however, that Matt will nonetheless claim that his being able to comment at Lefty’s is conclusive proof that he’s not Mighty Matt.
13 November, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Mighty Matt’s ban was lifted by Jeremy…I don’t know if you remember Mondo, but it transpired that he and I somehow had the same IP address…
How’s that for a coincidence…
13 November, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“How’s that for a coincidence…”
It’s bizarre, I’m sure IPs are unique, you can have a dynamic IP, if you’re using the same ISP it is possible that at different times you’d both have the same IP, but not at the same time.
13 November, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It’s not that much of a coincidence – at the time I recall that the shared IP address was put down to the fact that you both worked in the same building for the same company.
Are you still at the same place Gavin?
13 November, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m still in the same company (Telstra), but no longer in the same building…That was when I was working in the city, I’ve since changed groups and have moved to one of our Suburban sites.
13 November, 2008 at 4:19 pm
It doesn’t matter anyway. It was two years ago that he was banned at Lefty’s. He could have changed IP address or Lefty could have lifted the ban.
Dude, for the love of god give it up. You need to get over this Matt fetish of yours.
It is getting really old and you are beging to look obsessive.
13 November, 2008 at 4:29 pm
It is getting really old and you are beging to look obsessive.
In what sense is my insistence that Rad is an old troll ‘reborn’ at this site under a new name ‘obsessive’? It’s not as though it’s especially unprecedented or even unusual.
Tell you what – if you’ve got a problem with it then don’t read my posts. Skip over them and move on to the next one – I won’t mind.
And as far as your presumption that you can dictate my behaviour to me . . . well, suffice to say you’re significantly over-reaching in your assumed influence and authority there. It should go without saying that I don’t give a rats about how you think I ought to behave.
Rad is Mighty Matt – that’s my opinion (as well as at least a few other posters here). Until someone proves me wrong it will continue to be my opinion.
Deal with it Ron.
13 November, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Wow – it took tim two days to pick up on the latest anti-Deltoid post from Andy, and this is the best he can come up with? Lambert made a mistake – and then he corrected it! Holy cow!
13 November, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Why are the lefties (that provide pictures) that contribute to this site so ugly?
I mean, it’s one thing to spend hours on a blog that only 6-7 people actually read, but to parade your own ugliness as well? Seems pretty stupid and pathetic to me.
13 November, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I’m always amused by allegations of ugliness by people too cowardly to show their own faces.
13 November, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Is there a variety of forensic professional who specialises in identifying people by the quality of their spelling, grammar and reasoning processes? If so, look out RadMatt!
13 November, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“Rad is Mighty Matt – that’s my opinion (as well as at least a few other posters here). Until someone proves me wrong it will continue to be my opinion. ”
Hear, hear. Keep belting away Mondo. It’s absolutely fascinating. For all of us.
In fact, Rad (Matt) – Name 10 differences between you and your alleged alter ego. Just 10!
13 November, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Now that would be interesting!
13 November, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Come on RadMatt! Rise to the Daics challenge!
13 November, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Looks like the Sudanese will keep him (and his nutter fans) happy for a while.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_blood_says_theres_a_problem/#commentsmore
13 November, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Gtg: “Why are the lefties (that provide pictures) that contribute to this site so ugly? I mean, it’s one thing to spend hours on a blog that only 6-7 people actually read, but to parade your own ugliness as well? Seems pretty stupid and pathetic to me.”
hmmmm. a quick flick back through comments reveals a couple of cartoon characters, a fighter plane, jeremy, an adams apple, and people that you can’t say for sure are their actual selves. and then there’s you who further reinforces your own comment through your ill-informed, troll like blathering which is far more embarrassing than anything anybody on this site could replicate with a gravitar. or are you back to offer more intelligent insight to the obese and overweight after you were so comprehensively ridiculed and shamed the last time? or perhaps you subscribe to the tim blair rule of trashing people’s looks in that you yourself are butt fucking ugly but see yourself in the mirror as simply to die for and gorgeous? joe six pack (literally) and not tito the builder?
tossa!
13 November, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The Iron Leftist: its cause they are black and not raised white that makes the sudanese the problem. just look at the comments.
14 November, 2008 at 3:57 am
This is some pretty poor debating right here. Half the time you are sucking each other off and the rest of the time you are battling trolls. This site is an important service but you sycophants surely drive people away.
14 November, 2008 at 5:19 am
Forensic linguistics, yep.
I’m always amused by people who visit a site and then post a message telling everyone else on it how pathetic they are for being here because nobody visits the site.
14 November, 2008 at 6:31 am
In fact, Rad (Matt) – Name 10 differences between you and your alleged alter ego. Just 10!
LOL – Maybe if Mondo Rock could inform be on what his fantasy Matt is like then I might be able to name the differences. U
I suspect that Mondo Rock is dealing with erotic transference and he is using me to materialise his dream boat Matt fantasy.
Dude, for the love of god give it up. You need to get over this Matt fetish of yours.
Until Mondo Rock deals with the causes of his Matt educed erotic transference, he will not have the ability to get over his Matt Fetish.
14 November, 2008 at 6:40 am
Rad Pipper would like to make its presence known to all …
9.02 am
9.24 am
9.29 am
9.33 am
9.55 am
10.04 am
10.18 am
10.23 am
11.05 am
11.17 am
11.20 am
11.32 am
11.36 am
11.41 am
11.59 am
12.02 pm
12.06 pm
12.07 pm
12.10 pm
12.23 pm
12.40 pm
12.51 pm
1.00 pm
1.18 pm
6.31 am
Maybe you should give the F5 key a rest for a while and read a magazine or something. If callouses persist, see a doctor.
14 November, 2008 at 6:47 am
Hey Ross – if you can’t address the content, ridicule the form. Good thinking.
14 November, 2008 at 7:11 am
Oh look it’s Abu Chowder, the one who rates ACA and TT as classy journalism.
“Hey Ross – if you can’t address the content, ridicule the form. Good thinking.”
What content? Rad has been dismantled here many many times yet he continues to troll. But hey, you’re a self confessed troll so why would you care?
14 November, 2008 at 8:15 am
Bolt is demonstrating his uncanny ability to see through the facts, to the underlying truth.
In his recent darkie bashing post ‘The Blood Says There’s A Problem’ he admits that “official figures say the Sudanese crime rate in Victoria, at least, isn’t unusually high. Ditto for Queensland”
However, Andy is far to shrewd to be taken in by mere facts, and follows with “..the law is officially not been upheld when young African men break it”
Officially, eh?
I imagine its the fault of Australia’s inherent reverse racism (*) and the vile, Leftist, ‘bleeding hearts’ legal system.
(That’s the one where ‘darkies’ get all the advantages while hardworking battlers like Bolt and Timmeh carry the whitemans burden)
14 November, 2008 at 8:15 am
Hey Ross – if you can’t address the content, ridicule the form. Good thinking.
So much irony in so few words. Just a little bit of Chunder this time.
14 November, 2008 at 8:20 am
DbD,
That’s Andy demonstrating his vast knowledge of stats again. Here he recognises the numbers could be skewed by the fact that the police are obviously Leftists who let the Sudanese off the hook to enhance the multiculturalist argument.
Give him a bit of time and he’d probably argue that the police also actively seek out law-abiding whites and prosecute them to make the stats look even more favourable!
14 November, 2008 at 8:36 am
“the police also actively seek out law-abiding whites and prosecute them”
Of course they do Dean, why do you think all those cleancut Xavier boys were charged, or why the aussie heroes who resisted the ‘muslim invasion’ of Cronulla were assaulted by police.
Bloody reverse racism!
14 November, 2008 at 8:42 am
Re the Sudanese Immigrant issue.
A comment from someone that actually works with these people:
I work as part of a Community program with Sudanese and Afghan youth in Blacktown on my weekends in Blacktown, Sydney. We play football (soccer to you I guess), have a BBQ, and have a great time. What some of these kids have gone through in camps and in their homeland we have no equivalent to here in Australia. These people are not “bad” at all, in fact they are a wonderful bunch of kids and youths. They just need to re-adjust to a completely different culture, where might is not right and judging by the success of the program I am involved in, I am incredibely optimistic that we can do just that.
These people are hard working, honest and family for them is extremely important. I dont mind doing my bit to try and help them become good Australians, and I am proud to call them countrymen. Cut them a bit of slack, life for them in their old homelands is totally different to life in Australia.
A response to that from someone that doesn’t:
You must sleep very soundly at night Marty, being such a wonderful person and all.
I mean helping all these Africans to try and assimilate into a country that does not want them just because they are a bunch of trouble makers and just want to spend their life on welfare like they do in every other country that has been stupid enough to let them in.
I say good on you Marty.
You bleeding heart idiot.
No response from the Bolt.
I don’t think that Andy would actually support this view; but, he is very reluctant to voice disapproval of those that post such plainly racist material. He can’t handle being seen to criticise anyone from a “leftist perspective”. Just more evidence of the Hansonite Dog-whistling.
14 November, 2008 at 9:40 am
Bolt obviously approves of that overtly racist opinion, we all know he’s quick to SNIP what he may consider a smear from the ‘Left’
14 November, 2008 at 9:47 am
who was it saying that cheney et al would not be brought to account for some of the stuff that happened on their watch?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/senate_dems_to_white_house_pre.php
14 November, 2008 at 10:27 am
Did anyone see Blair slip in a snipe at the NYT finances today? This after Rupert’s predictions for news in oz.
14 November, 2008 at 1:23 pm
i’ve also noticed timmy’s reader replies are well down since the US elections. as usual, in slamming the NYT for a decline he’s again leading with his enormous glass jaw. poor love.
14 November, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I note that neither Bolt, nor any of his commenters offer any shred of an explanation as to what attributes or aspects of Sudanese culture or whatever, account for their inability to be suitable as immigrants to Australia.
I guess they can argue that the (apparent? possible?) high crime rates are enough to allow them to come to the conclusion without explanation. But, if that is the case, then how can Immigration determine which nationalities that have not been tried and tested, will be suitable in the future? If we can’t tie it down to a particular trait of their culture or nature, then how can we guard against such problems in the future? How do we determine which immigrants are suitable? I’d like to see the argument. But I suspect we won’t. I think such an explanation would be more illuminating about those that offered it, rather than providing any insight into the reality of the issue.
14 November, 2008 at 1:59 pm
of course they can’t offer any shred of explanation in relation to unsuitable character of the sudanese. all they can do is parrott far right extremist positions based on the superficial dogwhistling shit served up to them by andy. when i read some of the comments it’s embarrassing to think these people are fellow australians.
14 November, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I note that neither Bolt, nor any of his commenters offer any shred of an explanation as to what attributes or aspects of Sudanese culture or whatever, account for their inability to be suitable as immigrants to Australia.
Yes they do – Bolt spelled it out for them in the title to his first post. The problem is in “the blood” – i.e. they’re simply violent by nature. He’s cleverly given himself an out – he can argue that his title was meant to be taken literally – but his regulars sure as hell know what he means.
14 November, 2008 at 2:34 pm
After todays storms in Melbourne I’m just a little surprised that Andrew hasn’t declared the drought broken. Given that unseasonably cool weather in Queensland is taken as a sign the world is cooling.
14 November, 2008 at 3:24 pm
RadMat: “LOL – Maybe if Mondo Rock could inform be on what his fantasy Matt is like then I might be able to name the differences.”
I could help out here RadMatt: he follows Bolt/Blair’s direction on way too many issues; he never concedes a point to those who debate him; he thinks he knows a great deal more than he does; his grammar and spelling are shit; he uses wanky shorthand phrases like “LOL” all the time; and whenever he is asked a direct question, he uses diversionary tactics.
14 November, 2008 at 3:49 pm
He doesn’t need to declare the drought broken – just as long as he can criticise the Vic government for not doing enough to harvest the water there is.
14 November, 2008 at 5:56 pm
He was strangely quiet when a group of youths, sorry gang, in Melton belted a Sudanse student a few months back.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/four-admit-to-bashing-sudanese-teen-20080804-3pxr.html?page=-1
At least this has taken the heat off his other preferred target ‘moderate mulsims’. You know the ones that only want to moderately kill you.
14 November, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Iron Leftist, aren’t their laws against such incitement?
Isn’t it possible that Bolt may be guilty of racial vilification, tarring an ethnic group with a broad brush, on the mere basis of their physical appearance?
What’s the purpose of having laws against racial vilification when they are never going to be applied?
15 November, 2008 at 9:54 am
I would have thought so, even by using the ‘in the blood’ line. I guess those that have picked up on it have had their comments ‘not approved’.
Having said that, I can imagine Blota coming out of court after being found guilty and still declaring himself a martyr for free speech.
15 November, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“I can imagine Blota coming out of court after being found guilty and still declaring himself a martyr for free speech.”
It wouldn’t be the first time, would it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case
15 November, 2008 at 7:31 pm
OT: What was it you didn’t like about Howard?
Glad you asked. This captures it perfectly. From the Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/agreement-overboard-over-asylum-saga-20081114-67cc.html?page=-1
“Mr Howard says in the documentary that his decision to place Tasmanian jobs over forests in the closing days of the 2004 election was “as good an example as I can recall of my prime ministership when going with your gut instinct was the right thing to do”. He had earlier thought of offering “a big green package”, but his final decision meant that then Labor leader Mark Latham was rejected by logging unionists.
So, what is it that inspires and leads Howard to put in place policy that he considers constitutes “the right thing to do”?
Initially, he’s considering “a big green package” but then goes with “jobs over forests”. Howard is retrospectively in self-congratulatory mode for what he terms his “gut instinct”. But what is it that confirms to him that he made the right decision? That the forests are no longer in danger? That the jobs were worth more?
No, Howard is talking about political victory – his party’s victory and his personal victory in retaining the PMship.
I’m pretty sure Howard’s decision relating to Iraq was based on a similar mode of reasoning.
So glad you’re gone, JWH.
15 November, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Republican election tactics:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/
15 November, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Howard sums himself up beautifully. I’m not sure he is fully aware of the deep cynicism he is revealing here, but there is no doubt it is his defining characteristic. His admirers call it pragmatism. They are kidding themselves.
15 November, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Re: What I disliked about Howard
I disliked the zealot Howard supporters that only seek to shout down the facts. For example in todays Bolt we have a piece about “lefty” bias at the ABC. And at the core of the updated link provided by Bolt to prove the bias we find a difference of opinion between Howard and Admiral Barrie (then head of the ADF prior to Cosgrove). Barrie was sacked as head of the ADF (remaining head of the Navy) after the children overboard inquiry. Now Barrie will have a permanent black mark against him in the Australian history books when he did not even alter the children overboard photo’s.
He (acting CDF Angus Houston) rang Mr Reith to try to impress on him the truth but Mr Reith was not interested and told him to check his facts with Admiral Barrie when he returned – after the election.
Admiral Barrie told the ABC that Mr Howard and Mr Reith “chose to accept whichever advice they liked”.
Bolt supports Freedom of Speech – Only if you support his world view.
15 November, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Oh, nice… Obama’s been given the nickname of “Chimpy” on one of the comments here…
16 November, 2008 at 3:03 am
Hey, I think this blog is great … but … where is the Akerman Watch project? He’s another malicious intolerant RWF that needs ongoing closer scrutiny.
16 November, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Media outlet just got punked.
16 November, 2008 at 6:01 pm
lol!! media bias anyone:
“In 2006, Media Matters conducted a study on Sunday political talk shows, finding that “Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows — in some cases, dramatically so.” From 2001 to 2005, conservative guests outnumbered progressives “by 58 percent to 42 percent.””
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/15/sunday-conservative/
somehow i don’t think the bolt sheep will be complaining to hard about this.
17 November, 2008 at 9:48 am
Phillip Adams explains the method and mentality of the opinion writers that seek to agitate and stir:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24650439-5013491,00.html
I’m not much of a fan of those that do it irrespective of political leaning.
Sarcastic mockery and cynicism has it’s place but I think most of those that employ it do so to protect themselves from scrutiny of their ideas and the alternatives they might offer. So much easier to tear down and criticise than to be constructive….
And in anticipation of the inevitable from the idiotic: Yes, this site and those that comment are critical of B1 & B2 and mock them. But we do so for the very reason that the afore-mentioned is their modus operandi – almost solely.
17 November, 2008 at 10:05 am
DeanL – This bit sums it all up:
“What they fail to grasp is a central tenet of mass media: to provoke abuse consolidates a pundit’s position. Conservative colleagues such as Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen and Piers Akerman get at least as much hate-mail from the Left as I get from the Right. To be loathed is as professionally advantageous as it is to be liked. That’s just as true in radio. My first day on Melbourne’s 3AW 40 years ago seemed to end badly. The station manager was waiting outside the studio. “The switchboard has taken over 600 calls of complaint,” he told me. When I tried to apologise, he said: “Don’t! We’re thrilled!” ”
It is the exact reason why Bolt (and Blair) do what they do. To sell copy. All the paper wants is to generate page hits to sell advertising. They do not want the ‘news reported’ (as Rad put it) they want to create controversy and make people read their crap to agree or disagree. It is Hinch on TV, Sam Newman on the Footy Show, Alan Jones on radio. It is all based on a ’shockjock’ mentality.
Bolt knows how to shit stir. And he does that role well. A friend who works at an opposing media company said any paper would be glad to have him because he generates so much income through readership online and in the paper.
17 November, 2008 at 10:33 am
“So much easier to tear down and criticise than to be constructive….”
More fun, too!
17 November, 2008 at 10:56 am
BadBob / DeanL – One saying that comes to mind is “It is easier to criticise than to create”. Blair is a prime example of this. At least Bolt puts together arguments to back up his claims (as biased and deceitful as possible of course). Blair just snipes.
That is why Bolt will always be more popular and more read than Blair. Blair’s 4 line snipes are wearing to read and often make no sense without reading all the links. Not many of his readers can be bothered or lose what Blait was on about by the time they get through it all.
17 November, 2008 at 10:57 am
Bolt knows how to shit stir. And he does that role well. A friend who works at an opposing media company said any paper would be glad to have him because he generates so much income through readership online and in the paper.
Undoubtedly true. It takes a “special” sort of person to give themselves to that calling but, he’s the one that has to live with himself…like any other prostitute.
17 November, 2008 at 11:04 am
Bolt puts together a semblance of an argument and is clever in the way he does it. His chief weapon is to find a trifling or trivial error and then write off or discredit the opponent (see his recent efforts with Tim Lambert) whilst ignoring the core argument.
But he doesn’t offer alternatives – or, if he does, they are given without any consideration for implications. For example: Bolt puts forward “assimilation” as a solution to the problems that beset Aboriginal communities. Yet he never explains how this assimilation will work or what the process will entail. Nor does he tackle the question of individual choice, which he says conservatives value.
It’s a similar thing with the AGW debate. There’s an argument that we shouldn’t do anything because our population is small – why waste the money. Yet he didn’t want to look at that argument in relation to Iraq.
17 November, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hello Confessions,
It was me that said I didn’t think Cheney or any of the Republicans would be charged with war-crimes – I still doubt that they will – I did, however, not rule out the possibility of them and the corporates being charged under normal criminal law for the questionable business activities that they engaged in after the fall of Hussein.
Chade,
As offensive as nicknaming Obama “Chimpy” is, it is also true that many of his critics on the left gave the same nickname to Bush, equally as offensive I’d suggest.
17 November, 2008 at 11:17 am
he’s the one that has to live with himself…like any other prostitute.
Brilliant.
17 November, 2008 at 11:34 am
Matt/Rad (M.A.D.) seems to have crawled back into his hole.
Coincidently World of Warcraft’s Wrath of the Lich King was just released.
Hmmm?…
17 November, 2008 at 11:52 am
Gav, Bush was nicknamed ‘the commander in chimp’ and similar because of his very simian physical appearance.
Considering that calling a black guy a ‘monkey’ is a pretty common racist taunt and unlike Bush, Obama has no physical similarity to a chimp, i think its likely that its meant as a racial slur.
To my mind this makes the nickname more offensive when applied to Obama. Maybe i am reading too much into it, but i dont think so.
17 November, 2008 at 12:29 pm
See: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/havent_got_better_things_to_do/
How about Mt Andrewboltisafuckhead?
Surely he’s got better thing to do than be offended by it? And it would have historical truth and relevance.
17 November, 2008 at 12:53 pm
What on earth does he mean about “offence” being “a tradeable commodity”? Is anyone suggesting they want money for anything? Or to trade anything for anything? The story appears pretty simple to me: the original inhabitants want to remove an offensive name and replace it with the traditional name, and there’s a bit of a dispute over whose name should be used. Nothing especially exceptionable about that. Yet still his army of cretins are happy to post crap like “Mount Gimmemunny”. Just another pissweak dogwhistle, but the racist mongrels still come running.
17 November, 2008 at 12:55 pm
What on earth does he mean about “offence” being “a tradeable commodity”? Is anyone suggesting they want money for anything? Or to trade anything for anything? The story appears pretty simple to me: the original inhabitants want to remove an offensive name and replace it with the traditional name, and there’s a bit of a dispute over whose name should be used. Nothing especially exceptionable about that. Yet still his army of cretins are happy to post crap like “Mount Gimmemunny”. Just another pissweak dogwhistle, but the racist mongrels still come running.
17 November, 2008 at 12:55 pm
How about Mt. AndrewBoltIsARacistFuckhead?
17 November, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I think the Bush chimp reference also had a bit to do with his intelligence. There’s no question its use in relation to Obama is racist, just like there was no question Harbhajan Singh was as guilty as hell.
17 November, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hi DbD,
I agree that those calling Obama “Chimpy” are probably using it as a racial slur, which is obviously reprehensible — but unfortuneately, to be expected from some quarters.
However, I’m not so sure that it is more offensive than calling Bush a chimp, after all he has no more control over his physical appearance than Obama has over the colour of his skin.
Still, not worth arguing over…I just reckon its a shame that people feel the need to call political leaders names when criticising them rather than concentrating on attacking the policies they disagree with.
17 November, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Hello Bob,
Would it be racist of me to say that Harbijan calling Symonds a monkey is the height of hypocrisy ?
17 November, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Or Mt BoltardsRTWATS! (racist twats at that).
“I agree that those calling Obama “Chimpy” are probably using it as a racial slur, which is obviously reprehensible — but unfortuneately, to be expected from some quarters.
However, I’m not so sure that it is more offensive than calling Bush a chimp, ”
I think it is but that’s just me, Bush looks a bit like a chimp, and appears to be a bit dumb (like a chimp when compared to a human) What reasons would there be for calling Obama a chimp? He doesn’t look like one, he comes across as a highly intelligent person. I can only think of the colour of his skin…
“after all he has no more control over his physical appearance ”
Yeah, true, but hey what’s he doing being president if he looks like a stunned mullet (or a chimp ;0) ) when he inexplicably pauses mid sentence?
“I just reckon its a shame that people feel the need to call political leaders names when criticising them rather than concentrating on attacking the policies they disagree with.”
We all do it, I have no problems using names to ridicule people I think are quite evil…. (I’ll have to think up some names for John Howard – Lying Rodent isn’t bad – Phillip Ruddock??? Peter Reith? Downer (too easy)).
17 November, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“GavinM
17 November, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Hello Bob,
Would it be racist of me to say that Harbijan calling Symonds a monkey is the height of hypocrisy ?”
Probably, yes.
17 November, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hello Rob,
Yes, you’re right of course..we all do call politicians names, I’ll confess I’m guilty of it too — Howard still reminds me of a toad every time I look at him for some reason.
Oh, I should add — my comment re the hypocrisy of Harbijan — I meant is it hypocritical of him given that from what I can tell from TV, Harbijan and Symond’s skin hues are very similar…I also noticed when I saw the Indian crowd chanting “monkey” that many of those chanting were in fact very much darker than Symonds…
17 November, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Lying Rodent will do fine for Howard.
Ruddock is the Undead.
Reith is the Lord of The Underworld.
Downer is too big a fucking idiot for any nickname to embrace his bigness.
17 November, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Anti-African racism is quite de rigueur among the less savoury classes in India I’m told. Symonds has an African background.
17 November, 2008 at 1:42 pm
‘Ruddock is the Undead.’
I dont know, Ruddock looks more like Mr. Burns from The Simpsons to me!
17 November, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hello Bob,
I didn’t realise Symonds had an African background — I always assumed he was indigenous Australian, live and learn :).
Costello kind of reminds me of an undertaker, then again so did Ruddock — maybe its just me….
17 November, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Oh, I should add — my comment re the hypocrisy of Harbijan — I meant is it hypocritical of him given that from what I can tell from TV, Harbijan and Symond’s skin hues are very similar…I also noticed when I saw the Indian crowd chanting “monkey” that many of those chanting were in fact very much darker than Symonds…
This is a good example of the way that racism becomes simplified and/or distorted (by some, not you GavM). I doubt that there really are that many people that truly dislike other people for their physical appearance – after all, we don’t kill off fugly people amongst us, do we?
Tribalism and nationalism are the truly ugly and dangerous “derivatives” of racism. Favouring or disfavouring someone because of their connection to another grouping of people is really what it is about. The physical appearance is merely the identficiation.
It seems like quite a subtle difference at first. But I think it’s quite profound.
This is why I don’t think of Bolt as being racist – I don’t think Bolt gives a toss about colour of skin or the nature of physical features. But Bolt is definitely a tribalist, a nationalist and a culturalist. That’s why he’s dangerous and that’s why, those that fail to see the distinction between the simplistic definition of racism and it’s more dangerous forms will let the likes of Bolt off the hook by calling him racist.
17 November, 2008 at 1:52 pm
This is what Tim is down to:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/english_musted/
counting how many time Roebuck has the word ‘must’ in his columns.. FFS. That barrel is getting fairly empty at the Tele. What next for Tim? will he be flying out to the next ‘best behind in the world competition’?
17 November, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“Ruddock is the Undead.”
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines – ‘death cooled down’?
17 November, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The most ridiculous bit of racism i have ever seen came from an italian immigrant i used to work for.
He said, in his extraordinarily thick accent, “Eh, fucking immigants! They take our jobs, they sell the drugs, they no want to work, they are criminals. Fucking asians!”
I almost pissed myself laughing!
17 November, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You’re right DbD,
Each generation of immigrants, once they settle and become part of the community rail against the next wave of new arrivals — I guess now that the Asians have mixed in to our society, they and others already here will be giving it to the Africans that are now arriving…It seems a never ending cycle.
DeanL,
I reckon you’ve hit the nail on the head re Bolt, I often wonder too, wether he just writes to get a reaction or if he truly does believe what he writes…
17 November, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Gavin, Andrew Symonds was born in England, but one of his parents (not sure which one) was of Afro-Caribbean background. He was adopted out as an infant and his adoptive parents moved to Australia when he was three months old.
17 November, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hi Bob,
Thanks for that info…good to see we managed to pinch a player off the poms, they’ve nicked enough of ours over recent years..
Sorry Rob,
“Yeah, true, but hey what’s he doing being president if he looks like a stunned mullet (or a chimp ;0) ) when he inexplicably pauses mid sentence?”
Lots of people pause mid-sentence when they’re talking, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re thick, just means they’re looking for the right wording…..
By the way, have you seen Obama without his teleprompter ? He’s not so flash then either…Public speaking doesn’t come naturally to everyone, god knows, I used to hate having to do it and debating at school.
17 November, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Each generation of immigrants, once they settle and become part of the community rail against the next wave of new arrivals — I guess now that the Asians have mixed in to our society, they and others already here will be giving it to the Africans that are now arriving…It seems a never ending cycle.”
I see it as more like a pecking order, like the schoolyard where the big kids bully the slightly smaller kids, then the slightly smaller kids bully the much smaller kids, then when the big kids move on, the slightly smaller kids take over control of the bullying enterprise, and so it goes down the line.
Every new wave of immigrants gets abused by some sections of the community, so when they are replaced by a new wave, they take it out on them. Nothing will change as long as we keep abusing our immigrants.
17 November, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“I see it as more like a pecking order…”
Nicely put Bob, yes.
17 November, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Tribalism and nationalism are the truly ugly and dangerous “derivatives” of racism. Favouring or disfavouring someone because of their connection to another grouping of people is really what it is about. The physical appearance is merely the identficiation.
Quite an astute observation Dean. I think I agree with you.
17 November, 2008 at 3:44 pm
And Dean, you are also right to identify this as Bolt’s modus operandi. His vile piece on the Sudanese the other day was a case in point. It is the people who practise these derivatives of racism, as you call them, who are the ones who say “I’m not a racist, but….”
17 November, 2008 at 5:05 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/group_defined/
GROUP DEFINED, in which Tim Blair repeatedly shoots himself in both feet.
Hmmm. To what movement might these qualities apply:
[b] a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions; [/b]
Like ‘the war on terror’ where the threat of terrorism is so tremendous that it allows the US to ignore international law, lock people up without trial and tap phones without a warrant?
[b the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against its enemies, both internal and external; [/b]
Like the “They hate our freedom” mantra, or the US and Israeli policy of preemtive strikes? Or perhaps more like Israels illegal occupation of Palestinian territory or their collective punishment and attacks on civilian targets?
[b]dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences; [/b]
Too easy. Like the fear you all seem to have of allowing gays to marry, or of immigration, and of allowing your white, christian Australia to be diluted(polluted?) with foreign religions and people?
[b]the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary; [/b]
A Western Heart. Need i say more timmy? You have these jerks on your blogroll, i assume you must approve of the content.
[b]the need for authority by natural chiefs (always male), culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s historical destiny; the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;[/b]
Like, say , a commander in CHIEF who has the power to override his own countries laws, and ignore his political and military advisers, despite having the IQ of a baked potato?
[b]The beauty of violence and efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success[/b]
These quotes are from some of your own fans, posted on your Blog. (*)
“Kill him. It is what we want and that’s all that matters in this case.”
“If you don’t want to see him killed, I have no problem with that. Me, I would like to be able to look him in the eye while I splattered him with a .45. (Can you tell I’m a Texan born and raised?)”
17 November, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“Lots of people pause mid-sentence when they’re talking, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re thick, just means they’re looking for the right wording…..”
‘Lot’s of people’ aren’t the PotUS.
By the way, have you seen Obama without his teleprompter ? He’s not so flash then either…”
No, I haven’t, is it relevant? I’ve seen Bush stumble with the teleprompter though. Are you suggesting that there is a comparison between Bush and Obama when it comes to oration?
“Public speaking doesn’t come naturally to everyone, god knows, I used to hate having to do it and debating at school.”
I don’t understand how you could become president of the US without the skills, I know it’s happened I just don’t understand how. I bet Gordon Brown, John Howard, Tony Blair etc kicked arse at debating and public speaking.
Bush is an anomaly, I don’t understand why you’re sticking up for him, I don’t understand why you’d bother comparing Bush and Obama when it comes to speaking?
Bush looks like a chimp, Obama doesn’t, deal with it. ;o)
17 November, 2008 at 5:35 pm
DbD use greater than and less than signs instead of the brackets. eg: <b>Blair is a tosser </b>
17 November, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Doh!
17 November, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“in which Tim Blair repeatedly shoots himself in both feet.”
he seems to be doing that alot lately. slip sliding away (into irrelevence) should be his theme music.
18 November, 2008 at 7:41 am
There’s a bit of a fuss regarding the Whitehouse choosing not to display a photo of Bush greeting Rudd, whilst saving most of the other pictures of Bush greeting the leaders for the Whitehouse collection. This is seen as a bad thing. I for one would be happy if Bush didn’t want his photo taken with me, I most certainly would not want to have my photo taken with that warmongering, lying, incompetent twat!
I guess I’m no diplomat ;o)
18 November, 2008 at 8:49 am
NewLtd & Fairfax are falling over each other in their pursuit of giving the FIRST REVIEW of the film ‘Australia’.
It is exactly these times when Schembri’s monstrous ego explodes.
Like those annoying friends that have to go see every f**king film, on it’s opening night, just so they can give you a brilliant/annoying personal review…
18 November, 2008 at 8:56 am
There’s a bit of a fuss regarding the Whitehouse choosing not to display a photo of Bush greeting Rudd, whilst saving most of the other pictures of Bush greeting the leaders for the Whitehouse collection
It re-enforces what the media has been saying that Bush is offended at what Rudd did. Rudd stabbed bush in the back by telling a lie about their phone call, with the purpose of making himself look good.
What’s funny about this is that earlier this year Rudd was brown nosing bush by saluting him from across the room. Now he is stabbing him in the back.
It really shines a light on who Rudd really is. He is a back stabbing ego maniac, who is more interested in public adulation than doing what’s best for this country.
18 November, 2008 at 8:59 am
Who gives a fuck Rad? I’m no Rudd fan, I’m merely declaring my hatred for Bush! The incompetent, warmongering TWAT!
18 November, 2008 at 9:05 am
Who gives a fuck Rad? I’m no Rudd fan, I’m merely declaring my hatred for Bush! The incompetent, warmongering TWAT
Well that’s not true because you said;
There’s a bit of a fuss regarding the Whitehouse choosing not to display a photo of Bush greeting Rudd
So you do care because you commented on it.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles Rudd, given Rudd’s behaviour regarding Bush. I would think that Obama would be very cautious about getting to friendly with Rudd.
18 November, 2008 at 9:19 am
“So you do care because you commented on it. ”
Only a troll would think they know what I care about better than me, a troll or a fool or both!
18 November, 2008 at 9:26 am
Only a troll would think they know what I care about better than me, a troll or a fool or both!
Why did you comment on it then?
18 November, 2008 at 9:31 am
Because I felt like it, I thought it was an ideal opportunity to express my dislike for that prick Bush, it’s pretty damned clear to anyone with basic comprehension skills.
Here you go:
“There’s a bit of a fuss regarding the Whitehouse choosing not to display a photo of Bush greeting Rudd, whilst saving most of the other pictures of Bush greeting the leaders for the Whitehouse collection. This is seen as a bad thing. I for one would be happy if Bush didn’t want his photo taken with me, I most certainly would not want to have my photo taken with that warmongering, lying, incompetent twat!”
Reading between the lines is a waste of time, there’s nothing there! Putting words in others mouths is a sure fire sign that you have poor debating skills.
Now Rad, answer this? Why do you bother to post here when you get consistently owned and humiliated?
18 November, 2008 at 9:35 am
How’s the game going Matt/Rad?
18 November, 2008 at 9:51 am
Why do you bother to post here when you get consistently owned and humiliated?
Because he’s so dumb he doesn’t realise it’s happening.
18 November, 2008 at 10:08 am
Because he’s so dumb he doesn’t realise it’s happening.
Or you are so deluded that you believe that you are.
18 November, 2008 at 10:37 am
Rob,
“Bush looks like a chimp, Obama doesn’t, deal with it. ;o)”
I’m not defending Bush, I also didn’t say that he doesn’t look like a chimp….what I said was that it is equally offensive to call Obama and Bush “Chimp or Chimpy”, I actually believe it’s offensive and inappropriate — not to mention immature — to insult anybody based on their looks.
What do you look like Rob ?
As for comparing the 2 of them when it comes to speaking, I don’t think I can…The only time I’ve seen Obama speak is when he’s been giving a prepared speech off a teleprompter, which is why I posted the you-tube video…It just showed that, like anybody else, if you take away the prepared stuff he can stumble too, there’s nothing wrong with that — just shows he’s only human.
18 November, 2008 at 10:51 am
“what I said was that it is equally offensive to call Obama and Bush “Chimp or Chimpy”,”
I disagree..
“What do you look like Rob ?”
A 40 year old male, again, what I look like is utterly irrelevant, I have no desire to become the PotUS or leader of anything outside of my work. why do you keep popping up with irrelevancies (eg – you should see Obama without a teleprompter LOL)?
“The only time I’ve seen Obama speak is when he’s been giving a prepared speech off a teleprompter, which is why I posted the you-tube video…It just showed that, like anybody else, if you take away the prepared stuff he can stumble too, there’s nothing wrong with that — just shows he’s only human.”
Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections, here in Australia we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit…
18 November, 2008 at 11:57 am
No Rob,
You don’t get it…
Insulting people because of what they look like has nothing to do with their job…Doesn’t matter if they are President of the USA or the local dunny cleaner — what they look like is irrelevant and to insult them based on physical appearance is offensive and wrong — if you can’t see that, I really don’t hold out much hope for you.
Stumbling over your words, even when reading a teleprompter doesn’t make you an idiot…There’s any number of reasons people stumble over their words….nerves, speech impediment, even difficulty seeing the next words if reading…
The relevance of, and the reason I showed the Obama without his teleprompter speech, is because you said that he is a far better orator than Bush, perhaps he is, as I said, I’m yet to see him do anything off the cuff, — although that lipstick on a pig comment was probably something in hindsight he’d like to take back — but he still made a mess of that speech, which shows that anyone can stumble over their words.
Have you stopped to think that the reason Bush won 2 elections is because perhaps he isn’t such a bad public speaker, and those moments we saw were selected and fed to us by a media wanting a headline ? It does happen you know…
18 November, 2008 at 12:06 pm
are President of the USA or the local dunny cleaner — what they look like is irrelevant and to insult them based on physical appearance is offensive and wrong — if you can’t see that, I really don’t hold out much hope for you
I agree with you Gavin. It all comes down to having respect for your fellow human being. Just because you disagree with someone’s ideology it doesn’t give you the right to verbally abuse them with degrading name calling.
BTW – if Bush is an idiot, then what does that make Rob given that Bush has been more successfully than Rob can ever dream of.
18 November, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“No Rob,
You don’t get it…
Insulting people because of what they look like has nothing to do with their job…”
I do get it, Bush looks llike a chimp AND he’s the worst president in living history, a warmongering, incompetent prisk as it happens!
“Stumbling over your words, even when reading a teleprompter doesn’t make you an idiot…”
I’m talking stunned silence, mid-sentence..
“The relevance of, and the reason I showed the Obama without his teleprompter speech, is because you said that he is a far better orator than Bush,”
He is, don’t suppose you have any coverage of Obama stumbling WITH a teleprompter? Didn’t think so!
“I’m yet to see him do anything off the cuff, —”
You didn’t watch the debates then did you, the bracelet was a classic!
“although that lipstick on a pig comment was probably something in hindsight he’d like to take back — but he still made a mess of that speech,”
No, it just highlighted how many BOltards and other wingnuts who were just too damned ignarant to realise that the ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment was not coined by Obama, people have been saying it for years….
“Have you stopped to think that the reason Bush won 2 elections is because perhaps he isn’t such a bad public speaker, and those moments we saw were selected and fed to us by a media wanting a headline ? It does happen you know…”
He’sa a shit public speaker by world standards, that you clearly don’t realise this illustrates that you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about!
“nd those moments we saw were selected and fed to us by a media wanting a headline ? ”
here we go, left wing media conspiracy, that shit only flies with the likes of Boltards.
“I agree with you Gavin.”
There’s a surprise!
” It all comes down to having respect for your fellow human being. Just because you disagree with someone’s ideology it doesn’t give you the right to verbally abuse them with degrading name calling.”
Then you must hate Bolt and half the pricks that post there, why don’t you go back and lecture them, tell them about respect for other humans? After all that’s where the racist bigots hang!
“BTW – if Bush is an idiot, then what does that make Rob given that Bush has been more successfully than Rob can ever dream of.”
Helps when you’re born into a billionaire family and you get a cushy ride. Anyway I am more successful, for a kick off I have a lot less blood on my hands and I’m not internationally despised. I also understand that cutting taxes and increasing spending (massively) is stupid!!!! Then again you probably gauge success by bank balance, making Paris Hilton far cleverer than you (by your own rationale)
18 November, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Helps when you’re born into a billionaire family and you get a cushy ride. Anyway I am more successful, for a kick off I have a lot less blood on my hands and I’m not internationally despised. I also understand that cutting taxes and increasing spending (massively) is stupid!!!!
There are thousands of people born into billionaire families and most of them never achieve the success in life that Bush has. Bush has achieved far more than most humans alive today. Only an elite group have been president of the world’s richest and most powerful country.
So if Bush is an idiot then it doesn’t say much about you, given that you would never even dream of getting anywhere near the level of success that Bush has.
18 November, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Bush has achieved far more than most humans alive today. ”
More have died as a result of his stupid, evil policies than most other people alive today. Then there’s the financial catastrophe that he’s PRESIDED over.
Like I say, it depends on how you measure success, something I measure very differently to you!
“Only an elite group have been president of the world’s richest and most powerful country. ”
And one of them has been CRAP! The other day you were saying you were no fan of Bush, now you’re claiming he’s one of the most succesful humans ever….. You really are a foolish troll….
18 November, 2008 at 12:35 pm
More have died as a result of his stupid, evil policies than most other people alive today. Then there’s the financial catastrophe that he’s PRESIDED over.
That both sides of politics in the US have presided over. The foundations for the subprime mortgage crash were established during the Clinton administration.
And one of them has been CRAP! The other day you were saying you were no fan of Bush, now you’re claiming he’s one of the most succesful humans ever…..
I am no fan of Bush but I am not so ignorant that I would think that he was stupid. You think his stupid because of your own prejudices and intolerance towards his religious and ideological beliefs. This is you more wanting him to be stupid than his really being stupid.
The reality is that it takes a person with great intelligence to be able to become the president of the USA.
I don’t have to like the guy to accept that.
18 November, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“That both sides of politics in the US have presided over. The foundations for the subprime mortgage crash were established during the Clinton administration.”
What about all the dead people, The dead people Rad, why did you ignore that point, the dead, the tortured, the 2 million displaced Iraqis, what about them? Five minutes ago you were preaching about respect for other humans, what about the humans that have been snuffed out as a result of Bush’s idiotic policy?
what did Bush do with the $400 BILLION surplus he inherited from Clinton? What about it Rad, C’mon?? What happened to the surplus? The surplus Rad?
“I am no fan of Bush ”
Yes you are, he’s is an appalling president but you’re claiming he’s one of the most successful people alive. You just got caught out again with the inconsistent line you have to use so that you can continue trolling.
“You think his stupid because of your own prejudices and intolerance towards his religious and ideological beliefs. ”
Actually I’m judging him by the results, a clusterfuck of a war and an economy in ruins (C’mon, try the Clinton line again, you know the guy who left a surplus) You think you know what others ‘think’ because you’re a fool.
“The reality is that it takes a person with great intelligence to be able to become the president of the USA. ”
So what’s Bush’s IQ? Given his disastrous presidency and the fact that he’s had his life handed to him on a plate what are you basing your claim on?
Rad <3 GW LOL
18 November, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Yes you are, he’s is an appalling president but you’re claiming he’s one of the most successful people alive. You just got caught out again with the inconsistent line you have to use so that you can continue trolling
That’s your problem Rob, you can’t seem to distinguish between liking someone and recognising their intelligence. Just because you hate Bush, it should not prevent you from recognising his intelligence and abilities that got him to where he is today.
What about all the dead people, The dead people Rad, why did you ignore that point, the dead, the tortured, the 2 million displaced Iraqis, what about them?
What a rant Rob. I hate to tell you Rob but the war in Iraq would not have been the brain child of Bush. As president he would have had final say and executive veto power but there would have been a cast of thousands within the US government (including both sides of US politics) and military that would have gone into planning and executing the liberation of Iraq.
Five minutes ago you were preaching about respect for other humans, what about the humans that have been snuffed out as a result of Bush’s idiotic policy?
Don’t be ridiculous. You cannot compare the Iraq war to what one human calls another. Sadam wasn’t exactly the model human being. His crimes against humanity waged against the Kurds with chemical warfare showed what respect he had for human life.
18 November, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“What a rant Rob.”
Hmm, I thought you had respect for humans, what about the dead Rad, dead becasue of Bush?
Look Rad, I’ve just skimmed your post but I notice that you haven’t addressed the issue of the disappearing surplus? Why is that? Because it highlights that you’re merely a troll without a clue?
“His crimes against humanity waged against the Kurds with chemical warfare showed what respect he had for human life.”
Oh – look over there!
“Don’t be ridiculous. You cannot compare the Iraq war to what one human calls another”
The invasion of Iraq show’s an utter disregard for humanity (2 million displaced, how many dead?). Fuck Hussein – two wrongs do not make a right!
The surplus? Rad, again you tried a ‘look over there’ (Clinton) again it backfired and highlighted your utter ignorance.
Rad, the surplus?
18 November, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hmm, I thought you had respect for humans, what about the dead Rad, dead becasue of Bush?
What about the dead because of saddam and what about those that have lived because saddam was brought to trial for his crimes.
Look Rad, I’ve just skimmed your post but I notice that you haven’t addressed the issue of the disappearing surplus? Why is that? Because it highlights that you’re merely a troll without a clue?
Because the status of a countries surplus has nothing to do with a leader’s intelligence. Using your argument then Rudd would be a moron because he is spending the surplus that Howard delivered.
Oh – look over there
Don’t be ridiculous. If you are going to talk about those that have died because of the Iraq war, then you also need to acknowledge those that have been saved because of the Iraq war. The Kurds were being ethnically cleansed under saddam’s rule, the liberation of Iraq has save thousands of them.
The invasion of Iraq show’s an utter disregard for humanity (2 million displaced, how many dead?). Fuck Hussein – two wrongs do not make a right!
Turning your back on the problem and allowing saddam to continue his chemical warfare on the Kurds isn’t right either.
18 November, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“Turning your back on the problem and allowing saddam to continue his chemical warfare on the Kurds isn’t right either.”
You’d better go and lobby GW to attack Turkey, being the ignorant troll that you are, you probably never even realised that Turkey kills more Kurds than Iraq, but they’re our ally, in fact when Hussein was our ally and killing Kurds we let him, Rumsfeld even shook his hand, the US gave Hussein intel to enable him to gas Iranians too, I bet you never knew that either..
“Because the status of a countries surplus has nothing to do with a leader’s intelligence.”
But you tried to share the blame between Bush and Clinton (who is clearly a very intelligent person) when Clinton was fiscally responsible and Bush wasn’t!
“Turning your back on the problem ”
Actually it was the US who turned their back on the Kurds! Not me. Learn a bit of history, they never gave a shit about the Kurds until Hussein was no longer in favour. They still don’t, the US lets Turkey into Iraqi airspace specifically to kill Kurds.
“, then you also need to acknowledge those that have been saved because of the Iraq war”
Who? What are their names? people who aren’t dead haven’t necessarily been saved!
18 November, 2008 at 1:54 pm
But you tried to share the blame between Bush and Clinton (who is clearly a very intelligent person) when Clinton was fiscally responsible and Bush wasn’t!
Oh Pleeeease. You cannot be serious. The Surplus has nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis. The fact that you would try and connect the two as evidence of bush’s intelligence shows your ignorance of the the triggers that caused the current financial meltdown.
Who? What are their names? people who aren’t dead haven’t necessarily been saved!
FFS Rob! Now you are being pathetic.
18 November, 2008 at 1:55 pm
After browsing this site for the last hour or so, I can only say that I’ve never come across such a more complete bunch of foul mouthed, immature, intolerant people in my life.
You define yourselves by and idiot like Andrew Bolt, and yet the ugliness and dare I say it evilness displayed on here far outweighs anything on his pathetic blog.
You all really need to step back and have a look at what you are really about.
As they say, no-one know how’s to hate like the left, but I wouldn’t want to smear them with linking them to what’s expressed on this blog.
18 November, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“foul mouthed,”
Better than the racist and sexist rubbish that asses for the Blog we like to criticise. I’ve said it before, those who are offended by ‘foul language’ more so than racist or sexist comments have an issue with perspective.
“intolerant”
Of bigots? Absolutely, and proud of it!
“dare I say it evilness”
Well, you dared, now show us the ‘evilness’
“far outweighs anything on his pathetic blog.”
Clearly you’ve never read Bolt, or you could just be lying?
“As they say, no-one know how’s to hate like the left,”
Who says that? Oh that’s right, bigoted wingnuts like Andrew Bolt, you ever read the ‘Whitlam Hospitalised’ thread at Bolt’s? Obviously not or you wouldn’t have made such an ignorant comment or you’re lying (again).
“Who? What are their names? people who aren’t dead haven’t necessarily been saved!
FFS Rob! Now you are being pathetic.”
Really Rad? You make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you can’t (surprise), you’d be the pathetic one or you wouldn’t have made a comment about something you can’t possibly quantify…
18 November, 2008 at 2:40 pm
BTW Rad, why is it OK for Turkey to kill Kurds but not Iraq, even though once upon a time it was fine for Iraq too?
I personally value ALL human life and oppose war where possible, I’m not a pacifist and believe in the right of self defence, waging war should be a last resort, something your hero, that imbecile Bush disregarded and told lies to justify, lies you swallowed and probably still believe considering your ignorance.
18 November, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Thanks for the polite response RobJ.
Yes, I’m quite familiar with Andrew Bolt’s blog, and also I’m very confidant the moderators do not allow the sort of vitriol that regularly gets aired here. In saying that, I also find his blog repulsive.
It can generally be said that when you have to resort to personal abuse, you have lost the argument, just is the case with physical violence that the right is often accused of. I say” have to”, because from my brief perusal of this website, there is very little actual debate, leading me too believe that the participants are simply not capable of doing so.
Either way, it does not help your cause.
The means DO NOT justify the end.
18 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
So HMak,
Is there anything you would like to add to the debate? a topic, item, post from Bolt’s or Tim Blair’s blog?
As for what is allowed to be posted. There are numerous links and stories of what has been allowed to stay on the Bolt blogs until it is pointed out as being personally abusive or threatening.
18 November, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Dam Buster,
What happens when it is pointed out? It’s removed. Does that happen here? No.
Vitriol, personal abuse and ridicule appear to be the mainstays of this blog.
Are you saying you support this method of getting your point across?
18 November, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Sorry, Dam Buster, I didn’t address the rest of you post. No, I’m not adding anything to the debate, or linking to Blair/Bolt. Is that prerequisite here?
Personally I think this type of blog just gives idiots like him, and his choir more attention. It may make you guys feel good to express all that frustration, but at a cost of greater exposure of their views.
18 November, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Not sure about Bush’s IQ Rob, check this link…It seems neutral, I can’t find a definitive IQ score for him anywhere but this gives an estimate based on tests that he has taken in the past:
http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm
As to the Iraq war, I certainly won’t waste any tears over Hussein, I believed then, and still do today that Bush did the world a favour by getting rid of him, and not just because of the Kurds, there’s no doubt that the Hussein regime was one of the most malevolent the world has seen and a destabilising influence in the region, with Saddam himself being one of the worst despots since World War 2, I saw first hand in Kuwait just how evil his regime was.
Might have been better if Bush had said up front that the reason for the invasion was to topple Saddam instead of the WMD line.
18 November, 2008 at 4:01 pm
HMak – There have been a few bannings here for abuse. I agree at times that there are some rough comments in here. Personally I agree with you that if you have to resort to personal abuse (playing the man instead of the ball) you do lose the argument, or at least your argument appears a whole lot weaker.
No doubt there are a few of Bolt’s readers (Hi guys) who come in here from time to time to see what has been written.
I would welcome more balanced debate in here as long as it is not the continuous trolling that has occured as this is what ends up with any name calling.
19 November, 2008 at 5:45 am
I like how you’re trying to defend a racist comment by turning it onto another subject, Gavin. I didn’t mention Bush. I wasn’t intending to discuss Bush.
Calling Obama “Chimpy” is racist, and if you can defend it, well… it’s your credibility, not mine. I wouldn’t be pissing it up against the wall, myself…
19 November, 2008 at 6:37 am
“I’m very confidant the moderators do not allow the sort of vitriol that regularly gets aired here. ”
Yes, he wont tolerate cursing but will tolerate racism and sexism. I know which I prefer, in fact swearing to me is like water off a duck’s back, I guess I’m fortunate.
“because from my brief perusal of this website, there is very little actual debate, leading me too believe that the participants are simply not capable of doing so.
Either way, it does not help your cause.”
It really doesn’t matter to me what you think I am or aren’t capable of but you’re welcome to air your views. As for helping my cause, it’s an internet Blog I participate in, nothing more, nothing less, there is no ’cause’.
“Might have been better if Bush had said up front that the reason for the invasion was to topple Saddam instead of the WMD line.”
Now why do you think he didn’t give that as a reason? Maybe it’s because Iraq was a sovereign nation and to invade it because you don’t like it’s leader would be illegal???? So he just told lies to justify his illegal invasion,.
“with Saddam himself being one of the worst despots since World War 2,”
You are currently lobbying the US to invade Congo, Sudan and N Korea? If not, why not?
19 November, 2008 at 7:37 am
Really Rad? You make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you can’t (surprise), you’d be the pathetic one or you wouldn’t have made a comment about something you can’t possibly quantify
You are being childish Rob. Of course you can’t name them. Like you can’t name those that are living now due to a decreased road toll from safety enhancement made to cars. Using your logic then improvements made to car safety have saved no lives because no one can name the people that have been saved.
The reality is Rob, that by removing Saddam from Power, lives were saved. The lives of the Iraqi people that were suffering under his brutal regime, the Kurdish population that saddam had a history of ethnically cleansing.
What it all comes down to in the end is how History and the future Iraq population will view the war. Given that the war is now being won and the insurgence are being wiped out, it looks like future Iraqis will be happy that Saddam was removed from power.
19 November, 2008 at 7:49 am
“The reality is Rob, that by removing Saddam from Power, lives were saved. ”
And 4 000 US soldiers have died, countless Iraqi’s and 2 MILLION displaced.. in an action that you did and continue to support (respect for human life – LOL) Yeah, sure Rad, you make the claim, you back it up!
“Like you can’t name those that are living now due to a decreased road toll from safety enhancement made to cars.”
Yeah, but I never brought it up either, ie you’re making a weak analogy to defend your weak assumption.
19 November, 2008 at 8:19 am
And 4 000 US soldiers have died, countless Iraqi’s and 2 MILLION displaced.. in an action that you did and continue to support (respect for human life – LOL) Yeah, sure Rad, you make the claim, you back it up!
So Rob are you saying that Sadam’s ragime was better for Iraq’s future than the current, democratically elected government?
19 November, 2008 at 8:31 am
“So Rob are you saying that Sadam’s ragime was better for Iraq’s future than the current, democratically elected government?”
No, here you go again, trying to put words in others mouths. You’re just tossing in a distraction to conceal the fact that you know that two wrongs don’t make a right even though you supported the invasion of Iraq and continue to do so, pointing over there saying “Saddam was bad….”, this does not justify Bush’s invasion, if it does then he should have gone to the Sudan, Congo or N Korea first.. There are plenty of despots, the despot Hussein was also a despot when the West supported him…
19 November, 2008 at 8:31 am
RobJ – You can add Zimbabwe and half of the African nations into areas where the USA should invade.
19 November, 2008 at 8:38 am
No, here you go again, trying to put words in others mouths. You’re just tossing in a distraction to conceal the fact that you know that two wrongs don’t make a right even though you supported the invasion of Iraq and continue to do so, pointing over there saying
No I’m not, you are now dodging the question.
Saddam was bad….”, this does not justify Bush’s invasion
If Iraq is better off for future generation of Iraqis then the Liberation of Iraq was justified. Liberation and freedom has always come at a cost. Millions died in world war 2 to get rid of Hitler and the Japanese regime. The world is better off today for that.
if it does then he should have gone to the Sudan, Congo or N Korea first.. There are plenty of despots, the despot Hussein was also a despot when the West supported him…
It’s not America’s responsibility to liberate every country. They do not have the resources or capacity to do it all. Remember that the US are still dealing with Afghanistan. Maybe it’s time the rest of the world took responsibility and did their part to rid the world of the world’s despots.
19 November, 2008 at 8:41 am
BTW Rob, given that you oppose the war in Iraq because of the casualties, what are your thoughts of Obama’s support of the war in Afghanistan? Do you oppose Obama’s pledge to continue the war in Afganistan?
19 November, 2008 at 8:59 am
Maybe it’s time the rest of the world took responsibility and did their part to rid the world of the world’s despots.
We are Matt/Rad.
Andrew Bolt and Timmeh Blair are tabloid despots.
19 November, 2008 at 9:06 am
“No I’m not, you are now dodging the question. ”
Hah – your hypocrisy knows no bounds, I think I need a break from playing with the foolish troll.
19 November, 2008 at 9:23 am
Hello Chade,
Please show me where in my posts I defended a racist comment.
I’m pretty sure I said it was wrong to call anyone names because of their appearance…
Rob,
“You are currently lobbying the US to invade Congo, Sudan and N Korea? If not, why not?”
What’s your point Rob ? By the way you forgot Zimbabwe.
I’ve said in countless posts on other threads that I believe the real reason for Bush invading Iraq was to secure oil supplies — but that doesn’t change the fact that the removal of Hussein was a good outcome for the region and the rest of the world.
I still think he should have been finished off as part of Desert Storm, my unit was less than 20kms from Baghdad with no organised resistance in front of us when we were told that the objectives had been achieved and to go no further. Unfortuneately there was no mandate to go after Hussein…
By the way re the Congo, I have real difficulty with the situation there, due to France’s African policies under Mitterand in the 80’s my unit spent a lot of time there supporting the Mobutu government, which most of us despised, the problem though was that the rebel leaders were no better, and had they got power they would have started massacreing those that they perceived as enemies…such is the lot of a soldier and such is the problem with many African nations where tribalism and old tribal feuds still dominate the mindset of most of the people there.
19 November, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Unfortuneately there was no mandate to go after Hussein…”
Exactly, the coalition would have crumbled.. It was not an option, not that that worried Bush jnr, with his bravado and 4 000 dead American soldiers and countless dead Iraqis, along with 2 million displaced Iraqis (1 trillion dollars??). I don’t think it was worth it, you may, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
“I have real difficulty with the situation there, due to France’s African policies under Mitterand in the 80’s my unit spent a lot of time there supporting the Mobutu government, which most of us despised, the problem though was that the rebel leaders were no better, and had they got power they would have started massacreing those that they perceived as enemies…”
See, I suppose it depends on the stakes, the Congo, if everyone dies then it’s no skin of our nose.. Afghanistan? If everyone dies probably the same deal but we did after all ally ourselves with the Northern alliance who are no better (arguably worse) than the ruling Taleban. Losing the Taleban is a good thing but will the replacement be any better or just better for Western interests? I guess the point I’m making with regard to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that we didn’t invade for altruistic reasons, we did it to secure ‘western interests’ so to say ‘but we got rid of Hussein’ is rather irrelevant to the argument.
My statements about the DRC, Sudan etc are flippant I admit, I’m highlighting a point that if the main game was to remove Hussein then surely other countries would have been ahead in the queue?
19 November, 2008 at 10:01 am
I guess the point I’m making with regard to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that we didn’t invade for altruistic reasons, we did it to secure ‘western interests’ so to say ‘but we got rid of Hussein’ is rather irrelevant to the argument.
Getting rid of Saddam WAS in ‘western interest’.
19 November, 2008 at 10:17 am
You’ve pretty much said Bush got called one [for non-racial reasons], and that’s just as bad as Obama being called one too [for racial reasons]…
19 November, 2008 at 10:22 am
Bolt gets Fact Again
http://uphereincazaly.blogspot.com/2008/11/bolt-gets-fact.html
19 November, 2008 at 10:23 am
“Getting rid of Saddam WAS in ‘western interest’.”
And when it was in our interest to have him as leader of Iraq, we kept him there, he was still a despot – still killing Kurds, just like Turkey is doing today, reinforcing my point, we didn’t invade Iraq for altruistic reasons!
19 November, 2008 at 10:31 am
And when it was in our interest to have him as leader of Iraq, we kept him there, he was still a despot – still killing Kurds, just like Turkey is doing today, reinforcing my point, we didn’t invade Iraq for altruistic reasons
Saddam was openly defying UN regulation to allow in weapons inspectors.
Rob you view of the political situation in Iraq over the last 30 years is very 2 dimensional if you try to use the argument that we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80’s as a reason for condemning the liberation of Iraq today.
For starters, in democratic countries governments change overtime. Also saddam’s defiance of the UN also changed over time.
19 November, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Given that the war is now being won and the insurgence are being wiped out”
God Rad, you do fall for the typist’s spin don’t you.
FYI, Al Qaeda is a small part of the war in Iraq and they didn’t care about Iraq until the US arrived. The war can not be ‘won’ like Bolt tries hard to make his sheep believe. The current war in Iraq has been stirred up by the US invasion and is mainly between the various Iraqi groups themselves.
Have you any idea who these groups are and who they support?
Islamic army of Iraq
1920 Revolution Brigades
Mahdi Army
Blackwater Worldwide
And did you know that Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist till 2004 and is not that popular with most of the Iraqi’s?
BTW. Before you misrepresent my view, Sadam and his lot were bad, as bad as China (which the US and the West (including us) are happy to deal with, with blinkers on).
I will go out on a limb and answer the regular question ‘if invading Iraq was wrong, what should have happened?”.
1. An international response coordinated from the UN.
2. Honest explanation of the reason for the invasion and its likely outcome.
3. Any military action to be undertaken by countries that apply their political attacks and military actions around the globe without hypocrisy or a vested interest (like oil).
4. A guiding principle that military conflict should be avoided at all costs, because war is never the only way to solve these disputes and generally only escalate the innocent casualties.
5. Very careful limiting our own freedoms under the ‘war’ excuse, because this clearly hands the extremists on both sides a victory, to the Neo-con extremists who like to torture and the Islamic extremists who hate our freedom.
19 November, 2008 at 10:54 am
Come on Chade. Calling Bush “chimpy” because he allegedly looked like a chimpanzee (which is an amazingly stupid comment – the only similarity is that he has four limbs, and chimpanzees have four limbs) is no better than calling Obama one. Particularly as they allegedly have a common ancestor from the late 16th/early 17th century.
The truth of the matter is that using stupid insults reflects on the person making the comment, rather than the person the comment is directed at. Leftists who use insults of the Chimpy McHitlerhaliBushton variety are just haters with nothing useful to say. If Obama is getting some of what Bush got back, maybe it will give an opportunity for haters on the left to realise their mistakes.
I have similar problems with the use of “little Johnny Howard”. What, short people shouldn’t be prime minister?
As for RobJ – perhaps his comments on Bush’s IQ would be taken more seriously if he realised that the US doesn’t have compulsory voting (see comment @ 18 November, 2008 at 10:51 am).
Perhaps he should also not have suggested that Pauline Hanson (a Queensland politician) benefited from the votes of Herald Sun readers (a popular Victorian paper).
Now RobJ “answer this? Why do you bother to post here when you get consistently owned and humiliated?”
19 November, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Rob you view of the political situation in Iraq over the last 30 years is very 2 dimensional if you try to use the argument that we supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80’s as a reason for condemning the liberation of Iraq today.”
Supported him whilst he was gassing Iranians actually, the very same thing cited as one of the many reasons (after WMD) for removing him…
“Rob you view of the political situation in Iraq over the last 30 years is very 2 dimensional”
That’s a laugh (see your quote below):
“given that war is now being won ”
You have a very Boltesque view of the Iraq war, he’s declared it won half a dozen times now, once should have been enough if he was right. Read Craigy’s excellent post and learn something about Iraq. This point is exactly what Bush should have paid attention to:
“4. A guiding principle that military conflict should be avoided at all costs, because war is never the only way to solve these disputes and generally only escalate the innocent casualties.”
19 November, 2008 at 11:07 am
Chade,
Where in that am I defending a racist comment ?…I said that to call Obama and Bush “Chimpy” or “Chimp” is equally offensive…Wether it is based on physical appearance or race is irrelevant.
Yes Rob,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on wether the cost of removing Saddam was worth it…I do agree with you though that it wasn’t for altruistic reasons, lets face it very few things on the stage of world politics are.
As to the other countries being ahead in the queue, you could be right, but they don’t have oil ;) Although I guess you could also make the case that none of them have invaded their neighbours in the last 50 years or so…I know North Korea have threatened but that seems to be more political grandstanding than a real intent.
Craig,
I don’t think the West is dealing with China with blinkers on, its just that the economic reality of the times is that we have to trade with China because of its enormous economic potential.
Just one point about getting a coordinated response from the UN…Do you remember how well that worked in Rwanda, Somalia and Sarajevo ?
On your other points:
Point 2 — 100% correct
Point 3 — Would love to find one, I don’t think you’ll find any country in history thats gone to war without a vested interest.
Point 4 — I don’t imagine Hussein would have stepped down voluntarily, also can’t see that the home grown opposition would ever have been strong enough to remove him. Either politically or militarily.
Point 5 — Not sure what you mean by “limiting our freedoms”, do you mean Rules of Engagement ? If so, they have to be very carefully thought out so as not to put our troops in untenable positions (refer Rwanda, Somalia and Sarajevo, you could include Lebanon 1983 in that as well).
19 November, 2008 at 11:13 am
“Now RobJ “answer this? Why do you bother to post here when you get consistently owned and humiliated?””
Because I don’t, Rad get’s consistently owned, pay attention Nic if you’re going to play here…
“As for RobJ – perhaps his comments on Bush’s IQ would be taken more seriously if he realised that the US doesn’t have compulsory voting (see comment @ 18 November, 2008 at 10:51 am).”
I do your comprehension skills obviously fail you:
“Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections, here in Australia we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit…”
Show me where I claim the US has compulsory voting? Have a look at the references, learn to read, or rather learn to stop reading between the lines and drawing bullshit conclusions.
“Perhaps he should also not have suggested that Pauline Hanson (a Queensland politician) benefited from the votes of Herald Sun readers (a popular Victorian paper).”
Oh, doesn’t ACA and TT get broadcast in Qld? I just listed high profile crap Aussie media, obviously it went straight over your head…
19 November, 2008 at 11:15 am
Meant to add,
The war actually has been won…it’s the peace that hasn’t been.
Winning hearts and minds after the war is over is at least equally as important as winning the conflict, and that is where the US has failed, due mainly I believe to the Corporate greed that was allowed to run rampant after Hussein fell.
Its interesting to note that the regions where the British and Australians were based are relatively calm now, which probably highlights the differing attitudes of the coalition forces and the behaviour of their governments.
19 November, 2008 at 11:25 am
Umm sorry Rob,
but this is from your quote
“Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections…..”
By the way did you look at that link I posted on Bush’s intelligence level ? Apparently he’s never sat a formal IQ test, but from the results of a SAT (College Aptitude) test in his pre-college days it seems he’s about the same IQ score level as JFK.
19 November, 2008 at 11:25 am
RobJ – your attempted justification amuses me.
You wrote that the election of Bush is a
“damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections…”
Bush was not elected under a system of compulsory voting – so you cannot suggest that compulsory voting is bad, because it leads to the election of people like Bush. No reading between the lines is necessary to reach the conclusion that your argument is illogical.
ACA, TT and the Herald Sun are all very popular. People who watch those shows or read that paper are average Australians. Some of them voted for the Howard led Coalition, some would have voted for the Rudd or Latham led ALP. Others would vote Green. If you hate them, you hate ordinary Australians.
By all means make an argument against the shows or the paper – but don’t suggest that people who watch them or read the paper are inferior. You end up sounding like an elitist who hates ordinary people. People will therefore tend to discount your views.
19 November, 2008 at 11:26 am
Because I don’t, Rad get’s consistently owned, pay attention Nic if you’re going to play here…
Ah yes you do Rob. This threat clearly shows that.
19 November, 2008 at 11:30 am
As to Bush’s IQ – even if it is a valid measure, there is no way of measuring it from a person’s spoken language.
Snopes is good on a specific myth that Bush has the lowest IQ of all presidents of the past 50 years.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.asp
19 November, 2008 at 11:35 am
As a further aside, RobJ if one is going to suggest that someone is consistently owned, should not one know how to spell the word “gets”?
19 November, 2008 at 11:38 am
As to Bush’s IQ – even if it is a valid measure, there is no way of measuring it from a person’s spoken language
You are right Nic, but I would take it even further. I would expect that the skills needed to fight an election campaign and win along with the skills required to government the world’s most powerful country for the full term of 8 years requires a high level of intelligence and experience.
Even though Bush leaves office with a historically low approval rate, he never lost an election while he was president. Given the global political environment over the last 8 years, that is a massive accomplishment.
Now so you don’t get confused Rob. Personally I don’t like bush or agree with his ideology, but that doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging his accomplishments and intelligence.
19 November, 2008 at 11:39 am
GavinM,
The UN is a mess. My point didn’t go as far as supporting the way the UN deals with despots. The UN didn’t do a good job with Iraq and the problems there prior to the invasion. It is just that the UN is the best we have, short of military action by dishonest Governments like the Bush administration.
The failure of the UN opened the way for the neo-cons (and 9-11 of course).
On point three, if no country can be found to operate in the best interests of all the innocents, then this is another good reason to resist any kind of military aggression from either side. We were very ready to go to war and have clearly made a mess of it, in part due to the vested interests of the neo-cons and the ‘New American Century’ mob.
Point four, the question should be about what is best for the people of Iraq, history tells us that the invasion has not reduced the misery of these people and we need to look for other answers in the future. At some stage the military will leave and then we will have to start the ‘peace’ process for real.
Point Five, terrorism laws, detention without charge, rendition, Gitmo….this sort of thing.
19 November, 2008 at 11:40 am
“You wrote that the election of Bush is a
“damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections…””
I did , but you’ve quoted it out of context to try and excuse your crap comprehension skills, here it is again without your prefix:
“Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections, here in Australia we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit…”
I guess your just confused. LOL
“Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections, here in Australia we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit…””
“If you hate them, you hate ordinary Australians.”
Hate? I don’t hate people because they’re ignorant or stupid, Why do you make such a claim, because you’re so crap at debating you need to resort to dishonesty? You don’t have to participate but please continue, your dishonest efforts are rather amusing.
“you end up sounding like an elitist who hates ordinary people. People will therefore tend to discount your views.”
There you go with that word ‘hate’ again. Nic, if regarding the Herald Sun, ACA, or TT as crap journalism makes me an elitist then I’m proud to be elitist. The ‘hate’ part is your own addition because you’re either dihonest or too stupid to read and understand plain English.
“Because I don’t, Rad get’s consistently owned, pay attention Nic if you’re going to play here…
Ah yes you do Rob. This threat clearly shows that.”
This Blog does, you or Nic may not agree but there’s no surprise there…
19 November, 2008 at 11:47 am
Erm, you don’t get it do you, Bush stumbles regardless of whether he’s got a teleprompter or not. He became president, says a lot for the electorate, how the fuck did he convince them when he had appalling public speaking skills? A damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections, here in Australia we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit…”
Rob, you are not making sense. What on earth does bush have to do with the argument against compulsory voting here in Australia.
What is it you are trying to say?
It comes across that you are trying to use the election of Bush as an argument against compulsory voting. Given the US has voluntary voting, you either think that the US has compulsory voting OR you think that the election of bush is a success story of voluntary voting and should be used to argue against compulsory voting.
19 November, 2008 at 11:55 am
RobJ
You clearly hate the readers of the Herald Sun and the viewers of ACA and TT. That is why you describe them as “ignorant or stupid”. You insult them because they are ordinary people and you obviously hate ordinary people enough to call them “ignorant or stupid”.
I like you RobJ, you are fun to debate. We have pointed out that either you believe that the US has compulsory voting or you have made a completely illogical argument. You continue to deny that this is the only valid reading of your comment and directly quote that passage twice. As I said, you are amusing. Particularly, when you suggest that it is I who has bad reading comprehension skills.
I am continuing to press this because of the way you treat Rad Pipper. If you choose to allege that Rad Pipper “get’s (sic) owned” – then you should be prepared to accept valid criticism of your own comments.
19 November, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Yes Craig,
I agree with you….The way it is now the peace process is going to be very difficult when the military leave in 2010(?).
I guess we can only hope that the Iraqi government is stable enough by then to resist any threats that could plunge the country into an even more catastrophic civil war.
19 November, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“I am continuing to press this because of the way you treat Rad Pipper”
Aw didums… If Rad didn’t troll so much he’d be treated much better, there’s evidence of this (cordial debate between Rad, myself and others,I’d link you but it seems you’re still having issues reading plain English.
19 November, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I agree with you….The way it is now the peace process is going to be very difficult when the military leave in 2010(?).
That’s if they do leave in 2010. If there is a chance that Iraq will degrade into chaos and anarchy if the US pulls out in 2010, then I would expect Obama to keep the troops in longer. Especially if there is a chance of Iraq being a basket case for the world in 2012 when Obama is wanting to be re-elected into his second term. Even though US voters want the troops out, I don’t think they would be happy if Iraq became a problem because the US pulled the troops out too early.
19 November, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The point you ignore Rad is that the US has to pull out sometime (soon would be good for them given the economic situation).
This was always going to be a problem, something that those who opposed a military solution have been pointing out since the invasion.
19 November, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The point you ignore Rad is that the US has to pull out sometime (soon would be good for them given the economic situation).
I agree, the do have to leave at some point. But my point was that even though Obama is saying that he will do it in 2010, this date is not non-negotiable.
Given the progress that the US has made in the last 12 months with the surge, it is looking more and more likely that the situation in Iraq will be stable enough for a successful withdrawal of US troops in 2010.
19 November, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The Iraq is won, the war was just because it removed Saddam argument back and forth seems silly to me. The event(the war) has happened now, Saddam is gone, things will never be the same in Iraq again, hopefully this is for the better.
I would be more interested in hearing an explanation of how Iraqi’s lives have been improved. Is the government democracy or is another Saddam type figure going to take over once the US forces leave? Iraq looks an extraordinarily dangerous place at the moment, weekly bombings and kidnappings don’t make me want to go there to sip pina coladas by the tigris anytime soon.
The US military seems to have lost much prestige in Iraq, what with taking so long to be in control of the militias operating all over the country. The mission accomplished episode seemed a little premature and very amateur. Then there are all the no bid contracts, many of which are under investigation. It might all turn out ok, but it’s a mess at present.
It would be nice to be able to hear debate about Iraq without all the political punditry. Bolt is a tiresome broken record, reading his ludicrously one sided ranting makes me feel slimly, thus I don’t expose my self to him.
19 November, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“As a further aside, RobJ if one is going to suggest that someone is consistently owned, should not one know how to spell the word “gets”?”
Pathetic. You need to watch for typos now Nic, If you know what a typographical error is? It seems you are confusing such obvious errors with spelling mistakes. Everybody knows how to spell ‘gets’, you’re a very pedantic person, maybe you should direct your pedantry to self improvement of your atrocious comprehension skills.
19 November, 2008 at 2:47 pm
RobJ, I know what a typographical error is. I am not immune from them. However, I don’t go around telling people that they are “owned” – and then amusingly failing to spell a simple four letter word. I also know when to close brackets and when not to capitalise letters. You seem to have trouble with that in your last two comments, which makes your calling me “pathetic” even more amusing that your labelling of Rad Pipper as “owned”. Come on, you have to laugh at yourself sometimes. I know I do (laugh at you that is).
Please, help me with my “atrocious comprehension skills”. I say that your statement can only be read to mean either:
(a) you believe that the US has compulsory voting; or
(b) you have no ability to construct a logical argument.
Please, provide me with an alternative explanation for your passage:
The election of Bush is a “damned good argument against compulsory voting I reckon, it makes the idiots vote and results in outcomes where twats win elections…”
Clearly, if you knew that the US presidential election is not the result of a compulsory vote, the logic of your statement is that:
non-compulsory voting led to the election of Bush, therefore non-compulsory voting is good.
Note that I have assumed that you do not like the election of Bush. I hope I am not reading in between the lines of your comment – however I feel justified in this assumption based on your use of the word “twat” and general dislike of him.
I also note that you have appeared to concede my point about your hatred of ordinary people who watch ACA, TT and read the Herald Sun. Or is there some other alternative reading of your other statement from your offending paragraph?
19 November, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“RobJ, I know what a typographical error is. I am not immune from them. However, I don’t go around telling people that they are “owned””
Oh, then how come you accused me of making a spelling error? Telling porkies again to bolster your argument? Shame.
“I also note that you have appeared to concede my point about your hatred of ordinary people who watch ACA, TT and read the Herald Sun.”
FFS – You can read what hasn’t been written. BTW – Take a look at Rad getting pwned (oops typo) – in the other thread.
I’ve only read the first and last paragraph of your last effort so if I haven’t addressed most of your post apologies ;o)
“I also know when to close brackets and when not to capitalise letters.”
You really are a pedantic twat aren’t you! Did you not realise that “labeling” only has one two ‘l’s”? not three. LOL. If you’re going to pick up on typos you ought to be sure you haven’t made any yourself or worse a spelling error on a simple word like ‘labeling’
19 November, 2008 at 3:16 pm
You can hardly describe my claim that I make typographical errors as a porkie, if you can find one in my post.
RobJ – you’ve completely beclowned yourself on this thread. Yet, you accuse me of being “dishonest”, a “pathetic twat” and having “atrocious comprehension skills”. If you are not prepared to read my comments in full, don’t insult me.
19 November, 2008 at 8:37 pm
This is a pretty childish argument, don’t you think guys? Rob, you were a bit sloppy in the way you expressed your point about compulsory voting, but it’s reasonably clear what he meant Nic. Nic, stop defending RadMatt, he’s pathetic. You might be a bit of a conservative, but you’re better than that. He’s like a crude version of Bolt: he looks for any angle he can find, no matter how tendentious and tangential to the point of an argument, to discredit what he sees as “the Left” and bolster his “side”. I don’t like the abuse he cops either, but when you’re dealing with a person who doesn’t have the humility to recognise when he’s out of his depth, ridicule is sometimes the only weapon left. Personally I think it’s better to ignore him, but one doesn’t always live up to one’s ideals.
Now as to Bush’s intelligence, never mind about measurements of IQ, just tell me this: is it the act of an intelligent man to announce after 9/11 that the West would be launching a “crusade” against terrorism? Would an intelligent man be ignorant of the resonance of that word in the Islamic world, not to speak of its etymological roots?
19 November, 2008 at 10:09 pm
andrew bolt, owned by crikey. AGAIN:
“Andrew Bolt, perhaps encouraged by the ‘revenge of the nerds’ regime change at Melbourne’s Herald Sun is off the long run this morning, returning to one of his pet themes, the eerie juxtaposition of crime and dark skin. Kevin Andrews was right, Bolt reminds us, to “worry and urge caution” over our intake of African refugees, people who, it appears, all too readily turn to crime. Bolt concludes after a lengthy (he does bang on) survey of the available statistics.
Here is some other number crunching, just to put this poisonous little call to arms into perspective.
Says Bolt, “The Victoria Police Crime Statistics 2006-07 record that 115 Somalis allegedly committed a crime that year. Given the 2006 Census says 2626 Somalia-born people live in Victoria, the police figures mean one in 23 Somalis was allegedly involved in crime in just one year. For the rest of us, it’s just one in 85.”
So he’s saying that 1 in 23 Somalis of all ages allegedly commit offences in a given year in Victoria. Which is barely different to the 1 in 24 of all Victorians between the ages of 15-19 that allegedly commit offences in a given year. Most of the Somali offenders are actually between 15 and 24. The document that this all comes from can be seen here (it’s only a page). So really you’d have to view the Somali crime rate as a triumph of successful social integration. No better, no worse than the rest of us.”
tossa. no better at interpreting climate stats than any other stats. then again, more lies maybe?
20 November, 2008 at 6:45 am
“This is a pretty childish argument,”
Your right BadBob, I’m a tool for even responding to Nic considering Nic wasn’t actually looking to debate any topics, rather pick pedantic holes in my post. I’ll resolve to be a better poster and not get involved in childish, irrelevant arguments.
20 November, 2008 at 8:40 am
For those who are interested in another one of Andrew’s fact checks:
http://uphereincazaly.blogspot.com/2008/11/bolt-gets-fact.html
cheers.
20 November, 2008 at 11:44 am
A poster calling himself Jonathan Green has provided a link to Crikey’s rebuttal to Andrew’s ‘Nixon proves it: she did mislead’ thread but Andrew has deleted the link telling Jonathan to argue his case there. More biased censorship from Andrew Bolt, trying to smother dissenting views.
20 November, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It maye havv bean a tad chieldish an arrgument RobJ but 2 mee anal retentive, pedantic people are the 1’s who are definatttelly <strong)ignorant or stupid…(SIC)
20 November, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I see Monsignor Bolt hasn’t touched on Greer’s assault on Michelle Obama. Shows his dedication to being far Right when, in the past, we’ve repeatedly read about his hatred of Australia’s leading feminist.
Let’s hope the BBC does an episode of “Who Do You Think You Are” featuring Bolt and the BNP’s membership list…
20 November, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Actually Idlaviv, I remember now, Nic is following his/her usual MO, cheer leading for the trolls and ending up making tit of him/herself.
A few months ago Nic was cheering on Abu Chowder from the sidelines, telling the regulars off for using foul language, the word ‘cunt’ was being thrown around with gay abandon, Nic was lecturing us about it, all the while not realising it was his/her hero troll, Abu Chowder throwing the most foul language about, Nic got owned on this issue, being caught out cheer leading a troll in a thread he/she clearly hadn’t read properly.
Nic also tried to pull the ‘your an elitist if you think TT is shit’ stunt then as well, and he/she and Abu Chowder got owned on this too…. Now Nic is back to cheer lead for another troll.
20 November, 2008 at 1:33 pm
What’s Germaine doing bothering about such trivia?
20 November, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Being careful about how you write isn’t anally retentive, it’s just a basic courtesy to those who have to read it. Nic wrote a fair bit of crap in defence of RadMatt, but her points about language usage were probably legitimate.
20 November, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Sorry RobJ, you made a stupid comment that was completely unsupported by either logic or facts. You got called on it and spend the best part of an afternoon completely failing to defend yourself.
But of course, I’m the one who made a ‘tit’ of myself and got ‘owned’.
By the way, the TT/ACA/Herald Sun thing is a serious point. I’m not saying that you are an elitist if you think the shows or the paper are bad. I’m saying you are an elitist and a fool if you condemn people for watching or reading them.
Particularly if you are making the point that compulsory voting is bad because the people who watch those shows have to vote and we end up with candidates like Pauline Hanson winning.
I don’t watch TT or ACA and I hardly ever read the Herald Sun. Whether I think they are bad or not is beside the point.
20 November, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Rob, you were a bit sloppy in the way you expressed your point about compulsory voting, but it’s reasonably clear what he meant”
____
“but her points about language usage were probably legitimate.”
But pedantic nevertheless.
20 November, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Talking about logic, Confessions – this part in Crikey’s comments doesn’t make sense:
“So he’s saying that 1 in 23 Somalis of all ages allegedly commit offences in a given year in Victoria. Which is barely different to the 1 in 24 of all Victorians between the ages of 15-19 that allegedly commit offences in a given year. Most of the Somali offenders are actually between 15 and 24.”
He’s not comparing the same thing. For his argument to work, he’d need to be comparing the 1 in 24 number to the number of Somali-Victorians between the ages of 15-19 that allegedly commit offences in a given year.
Saying that the majority of offenders are in that age group doesn’t help make the comparison. The comparison would only work if all the population of Somali-Victorians were aged 15-19.
I don’t think Bolt has been owned by Crikey on this point.
20 November, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Your point about elitism is a bit confusing Nic. There seems to be a lot of fuzzy thinking on this issue. Condemning people for reading a paper or watching a TV program is probably a bit strong, but is it elitist to point out that tabloid product is generally inferior? Is it elitist to argue that people who consume these media are generally of lower intelligence? Or are we just expected to pretend that it’s all equally valid, like say RadMatt’s opinions and Mondo’s? And isn’t this precisely the kind of post-modernist relativism that the Right rails against?
20 November, 2008 at 2:09 pm
BadBob,
You comments and my responses
“Condemning people for reading a paper or watching a TV program is probably a bit strong, but is it elitist to point out that tabloid product is generally inferior?” No, by all means if you can make an arguement to that end. Bear in mind though, that the tabloid product is popular and fills a need in the market.
“Is it elitist to argue that people who consume these media are generally of lower intelligence?” Yes, and wrong unless you have facts to back it up. I really don’t think it is true – but if you can back it up, fine.
Remember, this is RobJ’s comment:
“we force the readers of the Herald Sun and watchers of Today Tonight to go to the polling booth, idiots like Pauline Hanson benefit”
My original point is that the people he is condemning as voting for Hanson are a significant portion of the population. I bet a significant of ACA/TT watchers etc. voted Greens, Liberal, Labour etc. Probably in substantially the same ratio as the wider community.
20 November, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Apologies, that should have read “your” comments.
20 November, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Nic, the statistical analysis provided by Crikey does two things:
(1) It shows Bolt has used the statistics crudely and selectively without analysing them to ensure that the comparison between Somali Victorians and the general population is valid; and
(2) It demonstrates that the incidence of crime among Somali Victorians is probably only slightly higher than the rest of the population. As you would expect from a population drawn from a war zone, for Christ’s sake.
The Crikey analysis could have been more searching, but at least it’s better than Bolt’s. In any case, this is a truly pernicious piece from Bolt. What is he suggesting? (Because he always “suggests” on race issues, he never comes right out with it. He leaves that to his fans.) Clearly, he wants the government to discriminate in its immigration policy on the basis of country of origin. Not race of course – oh no, never. It’s CULTURE we’re talking about here. Like hell.
20 November, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Nic, why do I need to bear in mind that tabloid media are popular and fill a need in the market? What does that have to do with my assessment of their quality? If they’re crap, they’re crap. They might serve some sort of purpose, but beyond teaching 10-year-olds how to read I doubt they have much social value.
I still fail to see how it is elitist to make the judgement that consumers of tabloid media tend, on the whole, to be of lower intelligence and a lower education level than those who read broadsheets and watch Lateline. You seem to be saying that the elitism consists in making this assumption without evidence. So if you had the evidence (which I’m sure is available, but I can’t be bothered looking for it), it wouldn’t be elitist?
20 November, 2008 at 2:40 pm
BadBob, I don’t think it does what you think it does. It is statistically comparing apples to oranges. As I said, the 1-23 is of all Somalis – so that figure includes a large amount of old grannies and babies. Presumably unlikely to be committing too many offences. 1-24 is of Victorians aged 15-24, presumably more likely to be committing offences. So you cannot draw the conclusion that Crikey is drawing from the figures.
There is nothing gained from using dodgy statistics to back up an argument (even here, where the argument that we should treat refugees from all parts of the world equally is morally correct).
Personally, I don’t think Bolt is using this in a racist way. It looks to me to be more an attack on Christine Nixon.
20 November, 2008 at 2:48 pm
BadBob,
It is elitist to make a judgement that one group of people (which doesn’t contain you) are of lower intelligence than another group of people (which does), unless you have proof. If you have proof, it is not elitist – it is just a fact.
RobJ’s problem is that he is making value judgements about people’s intelligence, while himself displaying an ability to write coherently and logically.
20 November, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“RobJ’s problem is that he is making value judgements about people’s intelligence, while himself displaying an ability to write coherently and logically.”
Your problem is Nic that you think you can read others minds. BTW – earlier, when I said we’ve been over this before when you were cheer leading for Abu Chowder, here’s the url:
http://blairboltwatch.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/civility-and-logic-from-our-righty-friends/#comments
I see no point in going around and around in circles thus I’ll refrain from ‘debating’ with you.
20 November, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Two points Nic: If you can’t see the racism in Bolt’s arguments about Sudanese immigrants, you’re not looking. And I’m not sure I have proof that you would accept, but it’s pretty obvious to me that there is a gap between the intelligence levels of the two groups, and if you’re being honest rather than pedantic, you’d accept that. It’s not a put-down to state a fact. It’s only a put-down if you believe lower intelligence makes you less deserving of respect. That’s where I might part company with RobJ.
20 November, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“He’s not comparing the same thing.”
that’s exactly the point crikey is making. compare apples with apples not pears or fruitcake.
“Saying that the majority of offenders are in that age group doesn’t help make the comparison. The comparison would only work if all the population of Somali-Victorians were aged 15-19.”
if somalis as a whole are under-represented in older age groups then statistical analysis needs to control for this. the easiest way to do that is compare actual age groups on issues like crime. when you do this with the crime rate the rates between somalis and the total population are very similar.
“As I said, the 1-23 is of all Somalis – so that figure includes a large amount of old grannies and babies. ”
no babies and only 1 granny according to crikeys source:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0806_vicpol2.pdf?source=cmailer
the somali crime rate is heavily concentrated in the 15-24yr age group.
at the end of the day i guess it comes down to who you’d rather believe: a proven liar and someone who has a history of distorting and misrepresenting statistics to suit his own ideological agenda, or the editor of a so-called ‘gossip site’.
20 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
BadBob,
We might disagree on whether there is a difference, but it is clear to me that you aren’t using that as a put-down.
I agree, the Sudanese crime-statistics can be used in a racist way. However, both sides of the argument should be based on correct facts or moral persuasion. It is wrong to counter a racist argument with dodgy statistics.
Personally, I would respond to such an argument by saying that all refugee groups have difficulty adjusting to life in a different country, what can we do with or for specific groups to help them integrate better.
20 November, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Confessions, the point is that you should be comparing either the ratio of offenders to total population for Victorians and Somalis or the ratio of offenders to 15-24 population. Crikey is making the wrong comparison by picking one from each.
It might be the case, that “the rates between somalis and the total population are very similar”, but the 1-23 vs 1-24 figure doesn’t do this – in fact argues against it being the same if the majority of offenders are in the 15-24 population.
No matter what Bolt has done otherwise, he’s got Crikey on this.
20 November, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Nic: where you have one section of the population underrepresented in several age groups it is wrong to use the total population as a comparison – as it doesn’t reflect the true statistical picture. this is the reason (for eg) disease prevelence comparisons between different population groups is always presented in age cohorts as it gives a much more accurrate representation of disease distribution. what bolt has done is lazy and incorrect and crikey have nailed him for it. either bolt didn’t know how to present statistics, or has decided to use total population as a way of smearing somalis and sudanese.
20 November, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Confessions – I agree – total population is probably the wrong figure to use for the reasons you give. But you have to compare like for like. So Crikey should be only be comparing in the age groups that Somalis are represented in – e.g. by comparing Somalis aged 15-24 to all Victorians aged 15-24. Instead they are comparing all Somalis to Victorians aged 15-24. This has the effect of making the Somali ratio look better than it is, by including grannies and children in the base population for Somalis.
20 November, 2008 at 4:09 pm
yes, agreed nic, and that’s my fault for not reading my original post correctly. my point (same as crikey’s) is that when you compare the crime rate among somali 15-24yr (even including up to 29yrs) with vics of the same age the rate is nowhere near the alarming figure bolt has used. he has also used this to smear the police commissioner, accusing her of misreprestnting the stats.
as i said, maybe bolt doesn’t know about comparing and presenting statistics or perhaps more sinister motive. but in the end he has a history of distorting statistics to suit his own culture war agenda.
20 November, 2008 at 5:22 pm
We are fully entitled, confessions and Nic, to assume the worst about Bolt’s intentions, because of his appalling record on race issues. Over many years he has argued for the superiority of white, Anglo-Saxon, “Christian” culture over any other, and whenever he touches on issues of race or immigration he is always pushing this same agenda – sometimes explicitly, but usually it is disguised as concern for social cohesion or law and order, or as an attack on the supposed victim mentality of ethnic and cultural minorities. The man cannot be trusted, and he clearly cares little for the ill-feeling and social division engendered by his poisonous and ill-considered scribblings. Many posters here have speculated as to whether he really believes everything he writes. I believe he does, but he uses a range of rhetorical tricks to attract the maximum controversy and to appeal to his narrow band of bigots..
20 November, 2008 at 6:23 pm
“We are fully entitled, confessions and Nic, to assume the worst about Bolt’s intentions, because of his appalling record on race issues.”
when you say it like that i agree. and to demonstrate bolt has another prison related post today, this time on aboriginals. when you consider his rant about somalies and africans and crime, saying vic police hush up somali crime (see update 4 on the nixon thread), then consider his rant about the koori court being racist you have to ask does he actually want anything done about the incarceration rates and re-offending rates? or does he just want to shout and preach and have hysterics? you also have to ask if he understands what the term ‘racism’ means.
the facts show that aboriginals are over-represented in jails. the facts show low english literacy, absnece of interpreters for such offenders and 3 strikes laws (where relevant) contribute to these rates. the facts also show that first time offenders who are jailed are more likely to re-offend and be jailed again. the facts also show that aboriginal women are more than 3 times as likely to be jailed for unpaid fines.
simply jailing people is not reducing these incarceration and re-offending rates. so let’s see if koori courts can reduce jail for first time offenders and eliminate the recidivism that follows – isn’t that what we want as a society? and let’s ask andy: does he see himself as a spoke in the solutions wheel, or as just another spare tyre, sitting on the fringes screaming about the problems?
20 November, 2008 at 7:19 pm
[i]Iron Leftist, aren’t their laws against such incitement?
Isn’t it possible that Bolt may be guilty of racial vilification, tarring an ethnic group with a broad brush, on the mere basis of their physical appearance?
What’s the purpose of having laws against racial vilification when they are never going to be applied?[/i]
I stated this today here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nixon_proves_it_she_did_mislead/#commentsmore
[i]It’s in the blood Andrew, in the blood.[/i]
Then he accused me of being a racist. Of course he had no problem with an earlier post mentioned here by DeanL (on 14 November, 2008 at 8:42 am).
Of course, one of his whiteknight fans has lept to his defense as to the ‘blood’ reference. No doubt, if he ever replies, that’ll be his excuse.
I can’t imagine how a twat that looks like a fat version of Tim Robbins has so many fans.
20 November, 2008 at 7:59 pm
on 7.30 report tonight they showed andrew forrest. he said “as australians you can’t help but be proud of aboriginal australians…..we need to help our fellow brothers and sisters…..”
andy and timmy and your sheep: your move. are you willing to be part of the solution or do you still long to be part of the problem?
20 November, 2008 at 11:26 pm
more on the koori court stuff. in his post andy says:
“Racism has in many decades not been this officially enshrined.”
only to conceed this:
“ANDREW REPLIES: This court will in fact apply the usual laws with the usual range of penalties, not tribal law with tribal penalties.” (quite different from his implication, right?)
to a poster who gets all confused:
” Eskimo replied to watty
Thu 20 Nov 08 (01:15pm)
Will the first convicted person sentenced to being speared through the leg be able to appeal to the whitefellas court?”
so. is it racism as defined by bolt to have the koori court, or is it in fact the usual rules of law applied in a different setting? this is highly disingenous of andy. he implies one thing in his post, and is forced to identify the reality in comments presumable because of legal ramification. why can’t the actual admission be an UPDATE like it would if it were something that supported his comments?
andrew bolt: YOUR MOVE.
21 November, 2008 at 5:53 am
That was great Iron Leftist re. Chief Commissioner Nixon.
Horror Film was good also.
What is it with Teh Right and their hatred for woman?
Eskimo replied to watty
Sounds like something from a Spongebob Squarepants screenplay?
21 November, 2008 at 11:06 am
Now Bolt, via a Bolt monkey, has zeroed in on the stolen generations…
of world of warcraft.
WTF.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/still_not_cyber_sorry#45004
21 November, 2008 at 12:15 pm
One little gem from that thread, ending a long-winded argument supporting the idea that Aborigines were “primitive”, from some genius called Adam:
“A spade is a spade…”
No play on words intended, of course – surely Adam isn’t smart enough for that. I’ve yet to meet a smart racist….
21 November, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Next he’ll be warning his readers about the underreported danger posed by orcs in our community.
21 November, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Rest assured that Matt/Rad will be frantically saving as many virtual children as possible.
Love how a few of his groupie sluts admit to playing the game.
AB may refrain from doing one of those ‘Games make Lefty’s kill people’ stories for a while…
21 November, 2008 at 12:29 pm
But “Games Make Lefties Susceptible to Right-wing Propaganda about Abos” is fine.
21 November, 2008 at 12:41 pm
OK, fess up time…I play WoW — I know I might be a little old for pc games, but hey, its an escape — I also know the quest, it gives me 770 rep points with the Kal’uak, (think thats how its spelt), and I really want their fishing pole.
Interesting that he hasn’t done a piece about the quest that gets you to kill orcas though…
21 November, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I broke my vows to look at his blog and now I feel dirty. I even tried to post something. Bless me Father….
21 November, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mase of Melbourne is making a brave fist of trying to talk sense into a bunch of ethnocentric pinheads. Bolt must be so proud of the quality of support he attracts.
21 November, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“I know I might be a little old for pc games,”
How old are you? I’m 40 and If I had the time I’d play, I love games I’m just time poor :o( Thus when I do play I need to play games I can get straight into – no more RTS or SimCity for me.
21 November, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Hi Rob
I’m 45, nearly 46…and I blame my kids for introducing me to WoW ;) — although I will say in my defense, I enjoy playing it as much for the opportunity to talk “live” to people from many different countries whilst at the same time playing what is a quite entertaining game.
21 November, 2008 at 1:55 pm
What has it taught you about the Stolen Generation Gavin?
21 November, 2008 at 1:58 pm
My wife blames me for my son’s passion for video games, I just put it down to his genes.
It’s not an ideal hobby for a kid (6) but it kills TV (IMHO).
“I enjoy playing it as much for the opportunity to talk “live” to people from many different countries whilst at the same time playing what is a quite entertaining game.”
That reminds me, I need to get Xbox Live happening.
21 November, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hello Bob,
Lol…nothing…Other than when I hand in the quest I get 5 gold, 20300 xp and 770 rep points for every 12 baby wolvars that I “rescue”…They don’t have names though, so don’t ask me to name 10 ok ;)….
Actually, I don’t quite agree with Mase though Bob, his assertion that the Aborigines lived harmoniously with the environment is questionable, given that one of their hunting tactics was to set fire to the bush…that must have resulted in at least a bit of over-kill…
I’d also question his thoughts on wether they were a primitive culture or not…I think compared to European culture of the day, there’s no doubt they were primitive, this isn’t to say they were in any way inferior as people, I can’t think of any nomadic race that hasn’t had a primitive culture, simply because being on the move all the time meant they tended not to need to invent technology for things like farming and industry.
Rob,
My wife hates pc games…she just shakes her head and walks out whenever I start playing…and mumbles something about being as bad as the kids…
21 November, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“given that one of their hunting tactics was to set fire to the bush…that must have resulted in at least a bit of over-kill…”
It could be that the environment is resistant to bush fire, property and farms aren’t but Aboriginals didn’t have to worry about that. ie if it weren’t for property and agriculture, bush fires wouldn’t be an issue, they occur naturally outside of rain forest.
“I’d also question his thoughts on wether they were a primitive culture or not…”
I would say yes, we’re humans, we adapt to our environment, we don’t necessarily change for the sake of it. As far as success of cultures I would argue that the Australian Aborigines are the most successful, they’ve probably got songs and stories going back to the last Ice Age, no other culture comes close. I understand that Aboriginal culture enjoyed a larger proportion of leisure time than any other culture.
“My wife hates pc games…she just shakes her head and walks out whenever I start playing…and mumbles something about being as bad as the kids…”
Heh, my wife accepts it, I’ve been playing since I was a kid and even though I don’t get to play as much as I like I reckon I’ll be a gamer for life. (Just bought my boy a Nintendo DS for Christmas, my better half isn’t chuffed but it’s what he wants so she’s not complaining, she did say we should get him a bike, he’s getting both :o) )
21 November, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The word “primitive” is so loaded that it no longer serves any useful purpose in this context. The Australian Aborigines, like the Kung of the Kalahari and many other indigenous peoples, may not have had a highly-developed material culture but their spirituality and understanding of their environment was a great deal more sophisticated than that of the contemporary West. Their use of fire was sustainable over thousands of millennia, although it did cause some gradual environmental change. By contrast, the application of Western technologies in this continent has caused catastrophic damage in just 200 years. So their culture was superior in some ways, inferior in others. Why is that so difficult for Bolt and his idiots to come to terms with?
21 November, 2008 at 2:44 pm
because bolt sheep can’t think for themselves makes them primitive.
21 November, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“Why is that so difficult for Bolt and his idiots to come to terms with?”
Is that a rhetorical question?
There are buffoons over at Bolt’s today in the ‘only the left deserve privacy’ thread claiming (or may as well be) that they are the sole determinants of what constitutes a British citizen, ie someone claiming that Sikhs and Hindus are ‘ethnically and culturally’ Indian therefore cannot be British. It has been pointed out that there have been coloured people in Britain for much longer than there have been whites in Australia, unfortunately facts are irrelevant to rabid Boltards.
21 November, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Rob & Bob,
You are of course right about cultures being adapted to suit the environment…Although I was thinking more in terms of the effect of fire on wildlife when I said over-kill, and I’m not sure the use of fire really was sustainable — it probably was for a nomadic people who could leave an area they’d just torched and come back again when it had recovered, but it obviously wouldn’t work for a permanent population.
As you say, every culture has its pros and cons, our Western one is great for luxurious living, not so great for the environment…the aboriginal one, not so luxurious, but ultimately probably better for the Earth, although not sustainable for large populations.
As to the publishing of the BNP membership list, I probably don’t have too much of a problem with it, although I reckon publishing their addresses was going too far, thats just an open invitation for the nut-cases..
Nice one Rob, Nintendo DS v’s bike — which one will win ? And will he have to wrestle the Nintendo off his dad ? ;) — (My son would).
21 November, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“thousands of millennia” should read “thousands of years”
21 November, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I think the BNP people are pretty safe. Most of the violent nutcases who might be tempted to take vigilante action are members anyway.
21 November, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Hmm…You could be right Bob, although they are reporting that some have received threats already….
21 November, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Gavin, the Aborigines generally used low-temperature burns which did minimal damage to woody flora, provided nutrients for the soil, and aided in the germination of eucalypt and acacia seeds, as well as those of some other species. They did not start bushfires as we know them today, but their controlled burning made bushfires less damaging when they did occur. What the fire regime did do was to favour the fire-resistant species, which is why eucalypt and acacia became the dominant species on the continent. On occasion, they also used fire to flush out animals for hunting. This regime was practised for thousands of years so it’s pretty clear it was sustainable.
22 November, 2008 at 8:24 am
Poor Andy’s War on Crikey isn’t going so well – Possum has just produced crime and poll statistics to debunk his claim that Christine Nixon hurt the Libs’ reelection prospects.
22 November, 2008 at 8:44 am
wait! don’t tell me, these will be discarded because pollytics is a leftist gossip site?
23 November, 2008 at 10:28 am
AB seems to have skipped all the preliminaries and gone for a Godwin, straight from the out set with this [url="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mein_link/#commentsmore"]post[/url] which is just a tad nastier that the one that TB made on the same subject. Neither blogger has done much more than throw some burly in the water, and sat back to watch the feeding frenzy. Surprise ,Surprise.
24 November, 2008 at 9:46 am
Hi Bob,
As I said, it was sustainable for a small population with a nomadic lifestyle, but clearly wouldn’t have been for a settled, larger population. Which is why their culture is described as “primitive”.
Advanced cultures are generally considered to be those that involve settling and cultivating a region, which in turn leads to development and industry.
I’m not sure about the low temperature burn theory, from my experience once a fire gets started amongst grass, trees and bushes it’s pretty difficult to control its temperature.
27 November, 2008 at 8:53 am
I don’t read Bolts site much nowadays but I just read his troll peice about the movie Australia and all I can say is that him and all his commenters are just a bunch of wankers.
I have never seen a bigger bunch of wankers on one site before. The comments made on the Australia movie comments page just undermines every skeptik argument they make.
Bolt complains that Australian movies don’t make money but when a successfull one comes along he does everything he can to white-ant the movie and make the movie a flop.
27 November, 2008 at 9:12 am
I just trawled through the pure drivel that is the Tim Blair site (what no page 3 girls yet?) and found a ridiculous peice about google trends and global warming.
So I plugged in Tim Blair and found that since January 2006 there has been a distinct waning interest in his trite opinion. Americans don’t seem to seek his opinion either. And quite frankly he is just not getting through to the non-english speaking Muslims.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22tim+blair%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
:-)
27 November, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“Bolt complains that Australian movies don’t make money but when a successfull one comes along he does everything he can to white-ant the movie and make the movie a flop.”
has bolt ever been positive about an australian movie starring aboriginals?
28 November, 2008 at 8:06 am
Seriously, are you defending Baz’s movie? Surely the massive amounts of publicity for it is enough to put you off it? I know I have no interest to see what appears to be the biggest load of sentimental tripe.
And Windrider, I assume that Tim is unable to get through to non-English speaking Muslims, because he writes in English and people without English are therefore unable to read him. Maybe that is just me though.
28 November, 2008 at 8:28 am
“Seriously, are you defending Baz’s movie? ”
seriously, what gave you that idea? windrider correctly identifies th ehypocracy of bolt in moaning about the australian film industry not succeeding but here we have a potential blockbuster and all he can do is complain. perosnally i believe it’s because he is never positive about movies that have aboriginal people in them. maybe that is just me though.
28 November, 2008 at 9:20 am
I’m just not sure that anyone should be defending that awful movie – even if you disagree with Bolt’s attack on it – there is still plenty to dislike about it.
But anyone, Bolt’s latest article is correct. There is simply no way that suggesting that Obama would have been stolen if he was Australian could be correct. For a start, as Bolt points out – Obama was not an American native.
28 November, 2008 at 2:11 pm
… there is still plenty to dislike about it.
lol that has to be one of the funniest lines I have read about Australia the movie. I was watching Adam Hills on abc iview and he said a very funny thing about unique german words particularly Scheissenbedauern – (German, literally “shit regret”) the disappointment one feels when something turns out not nearly as badly as one had expected.
Oh and Nic, yes it is only you.
28 November, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Rereading my last comment. I see that I mixed up the order of “native” and “American”. Of course he was a native of the USA, but not a Native American.
28 November, 2008 at 2:27 pm
rereading your last comment. i think the south sea islanders kidnapped (stolen) to work in our sugar cane industry in the 19th century might disagree with you. they weren’t native australians either. funny how bolt doesn’t mention them?
28 November, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Confessions – that is a little different from what Bolt or Baz were talking about. Baz’s comments are specifically that Obama would be stolen and forced to be brought up as a European if he was in Australia. Which is silly, as Bolt and others have pointed out.
The kidnapping of south sea islanders was a crime at the time and should never have been allowed to occur in a civilised country.
28 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Ok Nic so blackbirding (or stealing) South Sea Islanders was wrong. But you do realize that Aboriginal people were blackbirded as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbirding
28 November, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I seem to have lost a comment.
Blackbirding was the practice of stealing South Sea islanders to work. Aboriginals were also blackbirded too. So Nic by your own argument you are condemning the stealing of Aborigines – Which your hero Bolt never said happened.
28 November, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Sorry abou the 3 posts – It appears that the wikipedia link required moderation.
28 November, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Nic please read up on the history of slavery in the US. Windrider has already filled in the history of slavery in australia – indigenous and imported slaves. if your saying bolt is arguing that obama can’t be ’stolen’ because he isn’t indigenous then bolt isn’t aware of the methods used to get people during the slave trade. also by the same boltard analogy the kanakas weren’t stolen either, except history tells us they were. once again bolt tells untruths to push his own strange idealogical agenda.
by the way, what did you think of the movie when you first saw it?
29 November, 2008 at 8:30 am
“There is simply no way that suggesting that Obama would have been stolen if he was Australian could be correct. For a start, as Bolt points out – Obama was not a native American.”
Just a few weeks ago Bolt was comparing Aboriginals to African Americans asking “Where is our own Obama?” and why is it that the Aboriginals cant get their act together.
I was ’snipped’ after pointing out that he was not comparing apples with apples, and that if Obama was an American indian, perhaps the comparison would be valid.
Interestingly, after that post was snipped, another post where i called someone an ignorant fuckwit was let througth moderation.
I suspect an attempt to moderate/edit posts to prove his point that ‘no one hates like the left’ while removing posts that make him look foolish in any way.
The man really is pathetic.
15 December, 2008 at 11:55 am
‘A dam would have been less deadly’
Claims that hack, Andrew Bolt. So Andrew figures that if there weren’t water restrictions because there were more dams than there would be no violent criminals? That all peoples violent tendencies would evaporate.
If only life were that simple, that black and white.
Comments are closed.