Why Bigotry is Not OK, Mr Brandis.
The following article is by Mariam Veiszadeh and first appeared at the SMH.
Whether it’s in their treatment of asylum seekers, their policy of secrecy or their intention to amend the Racial Discrimination Act, it seems that the Abbott government is intent on destroying Australia’s moral compass.
Attorney-General, George Brandis, defending the Government’s intention to repeal s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, told the Senate Monday that “people have the right to be bigots”. It appears that in George Brandis’s world view, bigots are the persecuted minority whose rights need to be staunchly defended.
Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do an act that “is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people” on racial or ethnic grounds.”
It is followed by s18D (which is conveniently ignored by many conservative commentators) which seeks to balance the objectives of s18C with the need to protect justifiable freedoms of speech and expression.
The provisions seek to offer legislative protection to the most vulnerable and marginalised members of our society – our indigenous population, culturally and ethnically diverse communities and religious minority groups.
Whilst in the past politicians, particularly in the lead up to an election, have sought to indirectly play on the public’s fears, Senator Brandis’s comments have taken it to a whole new level. This is the first time that I can recall, where a Senior Minister has directly endorsed (and thereby encouraged) having bigoted views.
There’s no reading between the lines here – Brandis has specifically said that “people have the right to be bigots, you know.” This is somewhat unprecedented.
What’s concerning is that these remarks are not coming from some rogue back bencher (such as Senator Cory Bernardi), but rather from our nation’s top law maker.
As Western nations, we pride ourselves on emerging out of the darkness of our tainted histories, it seems however with its recent track record, the Abbott Government is hell bent on pulling us back into the dark era.
Whilst Abbott and Brandis keep reiterating that people have a right to make comments that upset or offend people, it is important to consider the position of the individual who makes the comments in question.
Central to the debate is the fact that there is almost always a power imbalance between the person(s) who make the offending remarks and those whom the remarks are aimed at. This is clear when you take a look at the groups of people who have sought protection under s18C.
They mostly come from marginalised, minority communities and they do not, under any stretch of the imagination, stand on an equal footing with their perpetrators.
The simple, perhaps controversial truth is this – white middle aged men in powerful positions are not the ones who are at the top of the list of people who regularly face discrimination.
So why is it then that the proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act seek to protect this category of people?
History has shown us that where racial vilification is publicly sanctioned by those in high office, mere words can have a powerful ability to incite hatred and violence.
As with any democratic right, freedom of speech should be tempered with responsibility and it is counter productive if those who continuously spew hateful and misleading vitriol are the very individuals who continue to thrive from the protection that freedom of speech offers.
We should be very afraid when our top law maker seems more passionate about protecting the rights of bigots than the rights of the most marginalised members of our society.
Mariam Veiszadeh is a lawyer, community advocate and Welcome to Australia ambassador.
theguttertrash.com 
Holocaust denial: Tony Abbott, George Brandis unable to say how race-hate law changes would work:
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denial-tony-abbott-george-brandis-unable-to-say-how-racehate-law-changes-would-work-20140326-35hkt.html#ixzz2x1Zfk5hS
If bigotry was outlawed, Cafe Whispers would not be allowed to exist.
I’ve been to Auschwitz-Birkenau and seen first-hand evidence of the Holocaust. I vehemently disagree with deniers, and will tell them they are wrong till the cows come home. But it should not be a crime for them to say they don’t believe it, even if their motives aren’t pure. They should suffer the ridicule and scorn of the community, but they should not be criminalised.
‘They should suffer the ridicule and scorn of the community, but they should not be criminalised.’
Strongly agree.
Brandis should be applauded both for his comment and for his proposed amendments.
The right to fee speech is meaningless if it does not protect offensive speech. The question is not whether bigotry is right or wrong but rather whether it should be criminalised.
There are plenty of comments here that display anti-christian bigotry but no one in their right mind would want to criminalise them or to go back to the era of blasphemy laws. The fact that Fred Toben was gaoled for his ant-Semitic statements is far more offensive than his statements themselves.
The amendments proposed by Brandis criminalise intimidation and vilification. Of course Veiszadeh did not mention this because she is bigoted against white middle aged men like Brandis. Otherwise she would have written a balanced piece that looked at both sides of the argument. This is not to say that her bigotry should be criminalised. The contempt she has rightly earned by the hypocrisy and stupidity displayed in her article is its own reward.
Perhaps she might grasp the point if her own rhetorical style is used to to put the counter argument: young brown women in positions of power are the true face of racism in Australia.
Thankfully, in our system everyone is equal before the law. That means even white middle aged men can criticise minority groups. Opponents of these amendmernts don’t like that.
Its an opinion piece from a non-journalist, so balance is not required.
‘Mariam Veiszadeh is a lawyer, community advocate and Welcome to Australia ambassador.’
Brandis should be applauded both for his comment and for his proposed amendments.
With any luck the ignorant prick will be removed from office! And that ain’t bigotry! That’s opinion!
There are plenty of comments here that display anti-christian bigotry but no one in their right mind would want to criminalise them or to go back to the era of blasphemy laws.
The “comments here” are not bigotry … they are fact – unless you can disprove them – and not anti-Christian but against all organised religion I don’t like to discriminate! Let’s list a few reasons I and a couple of others here dislike any religion all…
Hypocrisy, lying, cheating, deceit, warmongering, rape, paedophilia, attacking proven science, murder, political interference …
I do confess that the catliks get the brunt of my own comments and for personal reasons many here have read … but don’t think I just favour them – they bring their own little spotlight into everyone’s world … 🙂
The amendments proposed by Brandis criminalise intimidation and vilification.
Intimidation and vilification of/by whom?
Sir Oliver Twist, methinks …
Haha
White middle aged male namely Andrew Bolt upsets 30 something Nappysan White Woman and he’s a rascist
That’s funny
There are plenty of bigots around and they really don’t need more encouragement.
On the other hand…it’s currently illegal to insult people on ethnic grounds, but it’s ok to insult people on the basis of sexual orientation? Physical impairment? Religion?
I’m really quite unsure where the line between legal insults and illegal ones should be.
“The “comments here” are not bigotry … they are fact”
The defence of every bigot. You are no different to the rest. All bigots think their prejudices are fact-based. Which is precisely why bigotry per se should not be criminal.
“I’m really quite unsure where the line between legal insults and illegal ones should be.”
There should not be one. Where would the world be without insults?
Intimidation, harrassment, assault, public nuisance and the like are illegal already.
Anyone who calls a certain group “catlicks” has to be a bigot from the Old Dart stuck in their bigotry of the 1950s
Lapsed catlicks should be allowed some license.
Stupid leftist bigot abuse victims…how very dare they.
Cardinal Magnificent was thinking to himself, “Now, what would jeebus do?”…then he did the opposite; but the leftists are the true bigots, as always.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/pell-vigorous-defence-against-ellis-was-to-deter-other-claimants
“In December 2004 Pell became aware of the “offer of compromise” from Ellis of $750,000, but he rejected it “because I felt it was just too high”.
Furness suggested an offer of compromise was “a starting point, not an end point”, in discussions and negotiations. Pell said he understood that “now”, but didn’t at the time.
On Tuesday it was revealed that the Sydney archdiocese controls more than $1.24bn in assets and turns over an enormous annual surplus. The archdiocese has paid less than $8m to victims of clerical abuse since Pell’s appointment as archbishop 2001 after receiving 204 claims.”
Anti-Christian bigotry…bwahahahahaha….
So, laughing at people who believe in unicorns is bigotry too I suppose? Burden of proof?
Just so it’s clear I think all gods/deities/fables/fairy tales/myths/ghost stories/humancentric cults are a pile of crap. Not just the Christian ones.
Christians seem to imagine they have claim to greater legitimacy because they don’t run around beheading or claiming multiple wives; but that doesn’t make the fantasy reality.
“The fact that Fred Toben was gaoled for his ant-Semitic statements is far more offensive than his statements themselves.”
This, I can agree with.
“Thankfully, in our system everyone is equal before the law.”
Yeah…that’s why Thompson only got 6 months. 🙄
Equality is a fiction.
Toilet, that article is a pretty poor characterisation of the evidence given at the RC which I watched today.
*This is not to defend in any way the actions of abusive priests nor those who sought to conceal them, of which Cardinal Pell to my knowledge is neither.
* How surprisement.
Cardinal Magnificent is TRULY the embodiment of that story about the arisen zombie rewritten into a cult by people many, many years after his death & decomposition.
Onya snacty, keep fighting the good fight, only it’s lost on the majority of us outside of the boundaries of the ‘club’.
‘Yeah…that’s why Thompson only got 6 months.’
I heard he got a year, but will only be incarcerated for three months. Now that he is appealing I was wondering if the judge could increase his incarceration?
Cardinal Magnificent simply sought to minimise the material damage to his corporation…kinda like a cynical CEO, rather than the highest representative of what he thinks is god’s own church (the only real one of course…all of the rest being wrong by default to his rightness) in this country.
Neither he, nor you (if that’s your intention) is fooling many except the inculcated on this, snacty.
You can’t win being an apologist or an obscurantist on this issue. But I expect an increased effort to do so anyway.
” Now that he is appealing I was wondering if the judge could increase his incarceration?”
I would hope so…but we actually aren’t all equal in the eyes of the law when it comes down to it.
Witness the ongoing case of Bernard Finnigan…then compare to child porn accused who weren’t members of the SA ALP legislative council.
Money & status means you are ‘more’ equal before the law, when it comes to mounting an obstructive defence.
Sorry, Toilet, but the lefty rag to which you linked didn’t give an honest account of what occurred at the RC. Forgive me for pointing that out.
*How surprisement.
‘…but we actually aren’t all equal in the eyes of the law when it comes down to it.’
Money can buy a silk and I have heard stories from friends of corrupt practice by lawyers, so I can’t discount what you say.
My question was to whether Thomson’s Appeal may render him in greater strife.
Egg, it could well. I have a friend who worked for a major bank, developed a gambling problem, knocked off a couple of hundred grand, and served two years. He had his sentence reduced TO two years because prior to getting caught, he’d paid the money back and it was in doing so that he got found out.
the level of impoverished arguments by Brandis and Mr-Rabbit display how deep the zombies are in teabag theory, now promoting the Looney Palin stuff to become `Law`,
Cronnulla bogans will be pleased too, along with bolt _ #teabags
You are no different to the rest.
The rest of what/who? … simply accusing someone doesn’t make it so …
The catlik church is guilty of all the actions I listed … prove which one is not the case?
False accusation (bearing false witness) just a demonstration of your defence of the catlik/ “faith” and actually breaches your own teaching … and hypocrisy …
I don’t believe fairy-tales therefore I am bigoted? Don’t think so …
Bad luck or poetic justice.
With the Appeal Courts can they increase Thomson’s incarceration?
*Cardinal Pedo-Protector is entirely innocent.
The appropriate response for Catholics is, after a careful assessment of the evidence, to be thoroughly ashamed at the treatment the church has inflicted on its victims. There is no point defending the indefensible. It only adds to the suffering.
Anyone who calls a certain group “catlicks” has to be a bigot from the Old Dart stuck in their bigotry of the 1950s
And anyone who trots out Trotsky at every opportunity has to be a bigot from WGAF stuck in their bigotry from the 1950’s … what a fkn stupid argument … if it ever was intended as one … more like christian support for the needy …
*Cardinals never ran `nazi-underground-railway` either. _ #oh-snacky
Egg, yes they can. And I hope they do.
Splatter, that, for years is pretty well all I’ve seen from Pell on the issue.
It’s telling that it is the Ellis case that is being used as the flagship case in the RC. There are far stronger cases, from an institutional response failing perspective, that could, and should, have been used.
Yes, all Catholics suck because TB has a Catholic sister who is a bitch.
Either he’ll serve time in Victoria or my local member Bronny will come knock in’ on his door.
Bigoted: “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.”
‘Egg, yes they can. And I hope they do.’
What if his defence says Craig is mentally ill? Pathological Liar Syndrome.
TB has a Catholic sister who is a bitch.
… and a few ex-friends and acquaintances … add a liberal dollop of current and a few business dealings through out the years and a couple of heart to heart off the record discussions with disillusioned priests and your pretty close, James … before that I was dragged arguing, questioning and non believing through, St Michaels’ C of E Primary School, in the Old Dart … if you want to understand bigotry try living as a disbeliever ALL your life!
I still enjoy watching the scramble to defend the defenceless tho’ … a quick check of the wealth in the Vatican compared to the child poverty in the world and you’ve gotta ask what JC would do if he were the pope … based on the stories I’ve read, I reckon I’d have a reasonable guess …
I enjoyed being in the choir … 🙄
Bigoted: “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.”
Yep, as I said … disprove anyone of the facts I listed above … and that describes the religious bigotry I experienced throughout my life … except a couple of disheartened and disillusioned priests … over a few scotches – makes the tongue wag … 😉
Could say the same about any institution, TB. Why the prejudice?
In all the various groups I’ve been exposed to over the decades, not one has taught tolerance and respect for the views of others like the Catholic school I was at.
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/03/22/weekend-pic-guessing-competition/#comment-49853
Who is poorly characterising whom? hmmm…
“Why the prejudice?”
What prejudice? This is TB you are talking about. Uniquely among humans he doesn’t have any prejudices. Just facts.
” Forgive me for pointing that out.”
You are simply reverting to type, no need to seek my forgiveness. Few would be astonished at your strategy.
Splatter @ 6:03…what I’d consider to be a ‘christian’ response (and I don’t mean that to be derogatory)…rather than the response of the Catholic Corporations legal defence.
Lost on snacty.
This…”Could say the same about any institution, TB. Why the prejudice?”…is of course what I mean when I pre-empt it with…”You can’t win being an apologist or an obscurantist on this issue. But I expect an increased effort to do so anyway.”
At least splatter clearly recognises the disparity between the ‘teachings’ & the exhibited behaviour of the hierarchy.
My own family taught me better values than I ever learned at the Catholic Boarding school I attended. Long before I went there as a non-adherent.
#oh-snacky WRONG.
dog clubs have failed to transition into the modern world,
instead of sticking to their `mysticism` knitting,
dog clubs continually try to inject themselves into `ruling-over` everybody, including those that are NOT dog club members,
so those that are NOT members of dog clubs tend to object strongly and loudly when dog-clubs start meddling in science-labs, state marriage laws, peoples medical decisions-abortion/voluntary-euthanasia
TB isn’t the one conducting the investigation into child sexual abuse.
Snacty goes in hard for the ‘look-over-there’…
Not at all lost on me, Toilet.
And I can’t comment on what occurred Monday because I didn’t watch. But her summary of today’s proceeding was misleading at best. I know this because I watched.
“On Tuesday it was revealed that the Sydney archdiocese controls more than $1.24bn in assets and turns over an enormous annual surplus. The archdiocese has paid less than $8m to victims of clerical abuse since Pell’s appointment as archbishop 2001 after receiving 204 claims.”
So, I suppose the ‘leftist rag’ (ie. anything other than a NewsLtd. publication) got this incorrect did they?
Pell is defiling his own legacy.
People outside of the church won’t be too surprised…even some within it will have expected their Cardinal to have acted more as a humanitarian than a Public Relations Anti Litigator.
Shit scared that the gloss would be knocked off of the moralising façade out the front of the joint…and he’s actually tarnished it more than if he’d just sucked it up & ‘done the right thing’; y’know, tried to be like that bloke who he claims to follow.
*Cardinal Pedo-Protector is not challenged or held to account by members of the dog-club either, take a look at what #oh-snacky is spouting, the same old `circle-the-wagons` apologist shit, but as long as it`s `somebody-elses` child, dog club members don`t seem to empathize either.
Have you read up at all on this stuff, Toilet?
What “stuff” snacty?
The sexual abuse in the Catholic Church stuff.
Just the `stuff` oh-snacky.? Not the `cover-up` of `stuff`.? Not the perpetrators of `stuff`.?
What prejudice? This is TB you are talking about. Uniquely among humans he doesn’t have any prejudices. Just facts.
More silly statements … he doesn’t have any prejudices … either I’m human or I’m not … however, I do try to deal with my prejudices based on logic … not religion/idealogy … and a talk and pat on the head by my local priest … I’m an adult human … (most of the time) …
… you may note I haven’t called you a bigot either … even tho’ you obviously believe in your superior knowledge and intellect …
Still waiting for you to disprove the facts I listed … third time now …
Have you read up at all on this stuff, Toilet?
LOL! WTF does that mean … wheedle between the lines of EVIDENCE …
FACT …
Dr Pell, appearing before the royal commission into child sexual abuse, admitted the Catholic church did not deal fairly with victim John Ellis “from a Christian point of view”, but in a legal sense it did nothing improper.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pell-worried-by-us-abuse-payouts/story-e6frfku9-1226865331892
What a bigot I am … 🙄
Quiet here? … oh … funny time in Mexico still … munch, munch …
Oh-snacky makes the mistake that every `iota` of bullshit needs to be read-up about.
Nonsense oh-snacky, we only had to watch Cardinal Pedo-Protector being questioned, and watching him squirm, to realize he has behaved abhorrently.
dog club members should clear their minds, switch off their bias, and watch the video
Sorry. I have kids. Tea bag makes an interesting observation.
But Teabag clearly didn’t watch Pell being questioned.
teabag did see Cardinal Pedo-Protector squirming on the news, if that`s what you infer
Well I watched all day and didn’t see him squirm once. Now as to institutional abuse. And its response. Does it strike you as odd that they’ve had Pell in the cooker for 2 full days and haven’t touched on actual abuse or it’s cover up?
then we`re talking about different news clips, Cardinal Pedo-Protector was looking squirmish over his own `adjudication` of the victim, denial, defense of perp
Teabag makes shit up, he’s single minded.
That’s right Egg. Because at no stage did he deny the abuse or defend the perp.
Cardinal Pedo-Protector as `adjudicator`, at the original `adjudication`, defended both church and perp, and engaged in victim blaming, when questioned about it, he was squirmish, this was on one of the news programs, lateline.? etc
He did none of those things and I doubt Lateline represented that he did.
Hang on, has Lateline been on yet?
And Pell wasn’t the original adjudicator, Monsignor Rayner was. I think you’re telling porkies, Teabag.
Pell should have let his conscience be a guide, but in an effort to reduce payouts he listened to his lawyers and now its costing them a pretty penny.
Interesting that the Appeals Court had earlier said the Church trustees were not financially responsible for the act of a errant priest.
But it should not be a crime for them to say they don’t believe it, even if their motives aren’t pure. They should suffer the ridicule and scorn of the community, but they should not be criminalised.
I’m pretty sure that under 18c you are not ‘criminilised’, but, regardless, the act they want to repeal is not about preventing a person to argue a case that might not be purely motivated by them, it is against arguing in “good faith”. In other words, argue the most heinous crap you want, just don’t make shit up to try and support your case.
If Holocaust Deniers can argue within the facts that it didn’t happen, I am sure that they would be allowed to continue. Unfortunately for them, the facts don’t agree with their case, which makes their argument difficult to present under our current legislation. Which is as it should be. There is already too much misinformation out there without assholes deliberately obfuscating highly sensitive issues.
Bolt has not been prevented from continuing his dubiously motivated argument against light skinned Aborigine’s, just as long as he does so “in good faith”. Put simply, he has been told not to lie. As a wise person once said, don’t write crap, it can’t be that hard.
Unless your “argument” is that piss weak that you must rely on bullshit to advance it.
What the hell is wrong with you people ?
I was surfing at Cronulla after Jones whipped up all that hatred and I was ashamed to be Australian.
Get a grip, put your ideology aside for a microsecond and pinch yourself…
This is a very sad day for free speech in Australia when it is hijacked by an ideologist intent on social engineering at the bequest of a hack racists journalist.
That was quite the irony of the day, Egg. Lawyers lecturing Pell that he should have ignored the legal advice. But the writ named Pell also, and the Trustees were of an entirely different entity. It was pretty poor by the Plaintiff’s lawyers.
What probably wasn’t reported was that on winning the case, Pell authorised a $500k ex gratia payment as well as paying the plaintiff’s legal costs.
Ah Ricky , incitement remains illegal under the proposed amendment.
incitement remains illegal under the proposed amendment.
True. This legislation is all about allowing bigots to be able to lie in order to support their bigotry.
Bigotry is being hampered by the truth, set it free!
Lying in order to embarrass is covered by defamation.
””””””””””he instructed lawyers to vigorously dispute the claims of a sexually abused former altar boy in court, even though he knew the claims were true.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pell-worried-by-us-abuse-payouts/story-e6frfku9-1226865331892
””””””””””””””””””
Rayner`s `adjudication`, Cardinal Pedo-Protector`s `adjudication`,
WGAF, both/either is shit-house, #dumpty #oh-snacky
‘Pell authorised a $500k ex gratia payment as well as paying the plaintiff’s legal costs.’
Good and timely.
Lying in order to embarrass is covered by defamation.
So why would they remove this particular legislation then? Is it because it is targeted specifically towards racism, which can help highlight the particular form of defamation being practised by the guilty party?
This is why I understood the bolt complainants used 18c, in order to more explicitly highlight just what bolt was doing. And this Government want to protect this from happening in the future? Or that is what it looks like from here. It is obvious it is not about free speech, else bolt wouldn’t be allowed to continue to comment as he has.
Cardinal Pedo-Protector”””””’admitted the Catholic church did not deal fairly with victim John Ellis “from a Christian point of view””””””
and
We’ve seen a sociopathic lack of empathy this morning from this man,(Cardinal Pedo-Protector)” said Anthony Foster whose two daughters were raped by a priest in Melbourne
and
(Cardinal Pedo-Protector)””””””””’told the commission on Wednesday that disputing that Mr Ellis had been abused by pedophile priest Father Aidan Duggan in the 1970s did not mean he denied the abuse took place.
The church had already found that Mr Ellis had been abused by Fr Duggan but in 2006 Dr Pell instructed the church’s lawyers to proceed with an appeal in which Mr Ellis was cross-examined at length about the veracity of his claims.”””””””””
#oh snacky who needs to tell porkies, maybe a couple of `micro`details are slightly wrong, but your dogs club is shredding itself, without my help
In the case of Thomson he has embarrassed himself and defamed others, but I argue he’s not responsible because Craig has been a pathological liar for most of his life. He’s mentally ill and its gone undiagnosed.
I expect the Appeals Court will recognise his psychiatric condition and show leniency.
There is a difference between denying and putting to proof, a distinction on which a good deal of time was spent today, which seems to have been ignored. It is standard practice in law to require allegations to be proved in litigated matters.
As I understand it, and Pell sensibly didn’t go there today despite plenty of goading, there was significant doubt at the time that Ellis was genuine. I suspect that remains the case.
Pretty much defines the poster boy for the governments ideologic compliance to the puppeteers, when challenged in fact melts in the sun like an ice cube masquerading as magnum
http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2011/10/24/1319413522/name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt
Amusing that those who are against “free-er speech” are big fans of Twitter where race hate , bigotry and insults seemingly are more common than dirt.
Not to generalise or anything 🙄
Free-er speech.. oh fuck you do stand up?
So that would be from the News Ltd website Kneel? your just a zombie mate, a pitiful patsy. They rely on simpletons like you to spread their propaganda.
Well i agree with it also.
Lefties are full of hate. e.g. that Union leader Kennedy who said Joyce should be shot in the back of the head.
Also lefties are natural totalitarians. There would be no free speech with lefties in control.
So that would be from the News Ltd website Kneel? your just a zombie mate, a pitiful patsy. They rely on simpletons like you to spread their propaganda.
You just quoted Manne FFS!
Manne is an idiot and its appropriate that the left regard him as their leading light intellectual.
‘No, this is not what much of the media claims — an argument between people who want more free speech and those who want less racism.
‘I actually want both, as does every member of the Abbott Government.
‘The real debate is about trust. The divide is between those who trust the Australian people and those who fear them. Between those who think Australians are basically decent and those convinced we’re riddled with racists chewing at the bit.’
Andrew Bolt
18c has nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the comments giving rise to the offence. It’s more about the subjective nature of the taking of the offence which offends the free speech principles.
Yep, I’ll pay that.
======
‘INDIGENOUS leader Sue Gordon, the retired magistrate who led the Northern Territory intervention, has backed the Abbott government’s changes to racial discrimination laws, arguing the suppression of racism only makes it worse, driving it underground.
‘The former head of John Howard’s indigenous council has taken a very different view from Warren Mundine, the head of Tony Abbott’s indigenous council, who yesterday told The Australian the race changes were outrageous and retrograde.’
Patricia Karvelas / Oz
Squirming is in the eyes of the squirmee.
‘Political correctness, with regard to people who identify as Aboriginal Australians, has reached the ridiculous stage where one can be accused of being racist simply by questioning the motives of some people who identify as being Aboriginal.
‘Or there is the obvious elephant in the room. Why is it that someone with multiple ancestries chooses to build their identity around being Aboriginal, when having only one of your 16 great-great-grandparents being Aboriginal qualifies you to claim being Aboriginal? People are free to identify how they wish, but they should not be surprised when they are questioned about it.’
Dillon / Oz
Meanwhile back in the old dart ….
‘Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage clashed on immigration tonight as they went head to head in a live TV debate on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
‘A snap poll showed 57 per cent of people watching thought Mr Farage won the contest, after claiming Britain’s borders were open to 485million people from across the EU block.
‘But Mr Clegg, backed by only 36 per cent, accused Ukip of claiming every person in Romania and Bulgaria would move to Britain and warned leaving the EU would put jobs and the economic recovery at risk by ‘pulling up the drawbridge’.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590108/Nick-v-Nigel-Lib-Dem-Ukip-leaders-head-head-live-TV-debate-Britain-leave-European-Union.html#ixzz2x6WochfZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
18c has nothing to do with the accuracy or otherwise of the comments giving rise to the offence.
The judge appears to have disagreed with you
Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.
He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918
Mind you, perhaps all is not lost with the Liberal party
Federal cabinet forced George Brandis to soften his original proposal to loosen constraints on racist insults and hate speech.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-brandis-rolled-on-changes-to-racial-discrimination-act-20140326-35iyh.html#ixzz2x6bkH5d2
Although, I would hazard a guess it is simply Credlin polishing the turd after Brandis and his stupid “bigotry” comment. Delayed only for now.
Jihad the Judge found that the inaccuracies were what caused the offence. It was an odd reasoning but in any event there is nothing in 18c which requires the offence to be caused by the veracity or otherwise of the offending words.
there is nothing in 18c which requires the offence to be caused by the veracity or otherwise of the offending words.
Not specifically, no, but you are on much stronger ground to argue that you are debating “in good faith” if you are adhering to facts. Therefore, if bolt had stuck to facts, he would probably not have run afoul of the charge. It is clear by the judges decision that facts are a determining factor in “good faith” arguments.
Of course, if bolt stuck with the facts, he probably wouldn’t have had a story to write. This is the core of the judges decision. He made stuff up in order to pursue his bigotry. By the definition of 18c, this is clearly not allowed.
Perhaps. But 18c nevertheless is not reliant on inaccuracies to cause the offence.
I rarely agree with Mundine, but he is spot on here
“You’re not allowed to walk down the street and swear because it’s offensive,” said Mundine. “We have a number of laws already. We have libel laws. We have a whole wide range of laws.
“I just find it … funny, that we are quite accepting that no one should swear in public, but it’s OK for people to be bigots and I find that a bizarre situation. I can assure people, more people died from bigotry than people died from being swore at.”
…………
“You can swear in your own house, you can swear in your own lounge room, but as soon as you step out in the public arena then you start, you know, you start impinging on freedoms of people.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/26/warren-mundine-urges-tony-abbott-dont-change-discrimination-act
Freedom of speech is not freedom to say whatever you bloody well like.
But 18c nevertheless is not reliant on inaccuracies to cause the offence.
No. But it is the most pertinent when deciding on the “good faith” clause. There isn’t much else I can imagine that would determine that? Open to suggestions though, I’m sure there are some out there 😉
“Freedom of speech is not freedom to say whatever you bloody well like.”
That is precisely what it is.
That is precisely what it is.
Then why are you not allowed to swear in public, and do you agree that you should be able to?
Yes I quoted Emeritus Professor Manne in the Quaterly Essay displaying the sheer idiotic hypocracey of Bolt, hardly the same.. What is your point? Sorry…. For Fuck sake 🙄
“Then why are you not allowed to swear in public, and do you agree that you should be able to?”
I do.
What is swearing, anyway? Is it saying fuck, or even cunt, words you hear on TV, movies, and other popular media every day?
Can these words actually hurt someone, apart from their sensibilities?
If someone chooses to be a member of polite society, then maybe they’ll moderate where and when they use these words, if at all.
But it should not be illegal to make certain sounds with your voicebox which then vibrate through the air and vibrate on someones’s eardrum, conveying perceived sounds to the brain, which the hearer may or may not deem to be swear words, and which they may or may not deem to be offensive.
Can these words actually hurt someone, apart from their sensibilities?
Do you have children? Do you mind them being exposed to those words indiscriminately?
I stopped taking my kids to the footy because of the propensity for this language. The authorities have recently clamped down on it, but too late for my kids, who have been turned of footy completely.
Free speech, the murdoch way
Luckily, on “teh internets”, not much dies
http://archive.is/jYavH
I don’t like swearing in public, especially in front of children, but I don’t think think it should be illegal. Then again, there exists a law against “offensive behavior” which covers all kinds of behaviour which, depending on circumstances, may or may not be offensive to a “reasonable person”.
Then again, there exists a law against “offensive behavior”
AAUUUGGHH my fweedoms is being curtailed! ❓
“Do you have children? Do you mind them being exposed to those words indiscriminately?”
Yes. No.
I noticed a lot of “Fuck Tony Abbott” shirts around lately. In Public. Oh the horror, the horror! Maybe there is a special rule which allows Abbott-haters to swear in public?
(My only pseudo-suggestion is to read more Moorcock; to garner some semblance of remote expertise in the intertemporal arcana of circa 18th/19th Century lexical theories and relativistic translocational mores. Perhaps.)
And it seems OK for the ABC to broadcast images of Chris Kenny fucking a dog with the word Dogfucker appended for the benefit of its doltish audience who may have missed the point. I don’t think the police have visited them yet.
‘….but too late for my kids, who have been turned off footy completely.’
Burly types with no necks are renown for swearing, its not cricket.
My only pseudo-suggestion is to read more Moorcock
Fuck Yea! 😉
I don’t think the police have visited them yet.
Wasn’t he going to sue them?
And, that was a low life piece. But, I think I have mentioned before about how poorly the ABC adhere to their charter. They fail abysmally, on many occasions.
“Wasn’t he going to sue them?”
My point was that the idea that swearing in public per se is illegal is clearly false.
The fact that Kenny is suing the ABC for defamation shows only how ridiculous our defamation laws are. They are just a means for getting cash to high profile public figures. Jo Bananas-Peterson was paid off by News corp and Bob Ellis provided Abbott and Costello with a pretty payday. Sarah Hanson-Dung is suing Zoo Mag for photoshopping her head onto a swimsuit body.
I cant think but why? If people got a money back guarantee on this dud It would take a thousand years to pay back the national debt 🙂
Interesting how all you pseudo intellects and bush lawyers are attaching the downfall of civilisation and social discourse to a problem that was not a problem till that hack jouno got done for lies, brand propagation, stupidity and sheer fuckwittery.
There was no problem before Brandis went on what fiberals do best ” a faux crusade”. I suppose its like all things fiberal, The economy, infrastructure and a list too tedious and nauseating to regurgitate..say one thing and do another, divert attention from their own sheer incompetence stupidity.
People like myself of the centre ground (yes kneelly ) leaning left and right hate fundamentalist anything and we punish for it. We are the real conservatives, not this bunch of teabag wannabee’s who treat the country like a footy match win or lose us or them… Its quite alarming.
Seriously? Are you comparing the chaser to what’s said in a Sky interview, pinch yourself for a second…
My point was that the idea that swearing in public per se is illegal is clearly false.
How false?
Police officers will soon be able to issue on-the-spot fines of up to $500 to anyone who uses offensive language, more than triple the current penalty of $150, although, if you are on the train and fined by a Transit Officer, the penalty can be $400.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/public-swearing-fines-increase-to-500-20140206-324hs.html#ixzz2x7MHnTWJ
Cops in most states have always had the power to arrest someone for swearing, offensive behaviour. The onus is on the arresting copper.. What the fuck has this got to do with 18c of the racial discrimination act?
What are you attaching this white middle class perspective to racial vilification? What so you can understand or relate to it? Good luck with that. Strikes me as somewhat odd.
Egg I suggest you read that essay as it displays Bolts ignorance when his Bill Orielyism is exposed for the fraud it is. Notice he is very quite about “The stolen Generation” now. His irresponsibility caught up with him, he is not an intellectual, moreover a performing seal.
Squirming is in the eyes of the squirmee.
Yeah, and bigotry is in the eyes of the bigot … using that analogy, ToSY …
Yer too clever by half sometimes …
I don’t like swearing in public, especially in front of children, but I don’t think think it should be illegal.
Just wondering how you prevent a group of loud mouthed tools swearing their heads off in a park when you out trying to have a day with the kids? Let’s remember, not everybody is reasonable.
“What the fuck has this got to do with 18c of the racial discrimination act? What are you attaching this white middle class perspective to racial vilification?”
Ask Warren Mundine, he brought it up.
Therefore, if bolt had stuck to facts, he would probably not have run afoul of the charge.
You may recall my challenge yesterday …
… not yet answered I see …
… just the insult of being called a bigot left without apology – now that is defamation …
… simply stating facts is not bigotry … they are just irrefutable facts …
“Interesting how all you pseudo intellects and bush lawyers are attaching the downfall of civilisation and social discourse to a problem that was not a problem till that hack jouno got done for lies, brand propagation, stupidity and sheer fuckwittery.”
You mean until the authoritarian left flexed its nuts and decided to intimidate a journalist who was critical of their foibles. Nothing worse than uppity teabag, eh?
As to the offensive language laws, the Law Reform Commission rightly wants to be rid of them. Magistrates often find that merely swearing does not amount to offensive language. A friend’s son was acquitted of telling a policeman to “fuck off”, which is every Australian’s god-given right.
Further these laws don’t apply in newspaper columns, on blogs or broadcast media, so the comparison is crap. Offensive language (which presumably includes “bigoted” comments) is already banned in public places, so if you are going for consistency, it is already there.
You may recall my challenge yesterday …
… not yet answered I see …
Or I may not? Since I only jumped in here last night, I didn’t read the entire post, as it strayed of onto Catholic talk.
“You may recall my challenge yesterday …
… not yet answered I see …
… just the insult of being called a bigot left without apology – now that is defamation …
… simply stating facts is not bigotry … they are just irrefutable facts …”
Your bigotry is self-evident it. Even in your comment denying it:
“The “comments here” are not bigotry … they are fact – unless you can disprove them – and not anti-Christian but against all organised religion I don’t like to discriminate! Let’s list a few reasons I and a couple of others here dislike any religion all…
Hypocrisy, lying, cheating, deceit, warmongering, rape, paedophilia, attacking proven science, murder, political interference …
I do confess that the catliks get the brunt of my own comments and for personal reasons many here have read”
QED.
Yeah, and bigotry is in the eyes of the bigot … using that analogy, ToSY …
Yer too clever by half sometimes …
Actually, squirm being an intransitive verb, there is no such thing as a “squirmee”. Nor was Tony’s phrase an analogy. I’d suggest that Tony was actually referring to the observer rather than Pell in his use of the term, “squirmee” as otherwise he would have used “squirmer”.
TB, you’re not as clever as you profess.
All this talk of free speech, yet no-one concerned enough to point out that there is no right to free speech in australia. I would like that to be a topic of national debate where we talk of a bill of rights and individual freedoms .
Anyone would think that bigotry and ignorance, basically being an uneducated, bad mannered, loudmouth was something to aspire to and be proud of.
“A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.”
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”
[Benjamin Franklin]
Kittylitter, there is an implied right to freedom of political expression in the Constitution. A right that has been upheld often by the High Court of Australia.
No one here aspires to, or advocates an aspiration for, bigotry. Nor indeed does Brandis, Abbott, or the Federal Government. One side of the argument says bigotry needs to be legislated against, the other says it is best dealt with by open debate.
All this talk of free speech, yet no-one concerned enough to point out that there is no right to free speech in australia.
I’m kinda getting there though AO 😉
(I must admit, I was a little intrigued by the way in which legal-neophyte Pell has deftly avoided using the word damage(s) in his testimonies; it probably takes some especially clear-thinking to frankly and fearlessly pretend that the nexus, if any, between hurt and harm and wounding caused, and the quanta in which such are usually measured, is not to be gauged at law, or otherwise, by anything other than the regretful wording of an undisputed moral oversight. Still, it’s good; and I welcome his doing more of his goodly work on behalf of the thousands and millions and billions.)
No one here aspires to, or advocates an aspiration for, bigotry.
You need to read bolt more critically perhaps?
JJ, the “good faith” exemption is in 18d. Bromberg was apparently inside the mind of Bolt when he ruled that the choice to be Aboriginal made by mixed descent Aborigines was not a genuinely held belief of Bolt’s.
The fact is that there is a broad group of Australians who are content to see the use of taxpayer funds to bridge the gap for Australians disadvantaged by reason of their Aboriginality, but are less content to see such funds hijacked by those who haven’t suffered such disadvantage but are able to access government largesse simply by laying claim to Aboriginal ancestry, however remote. The issue of the distribution of taxpayer funds is a political one, as is the issue of how best to deal with the problem of Aboriginal disadvantage. Whether or not Bolt got certain details wrong in his articles is hardly the point. It is a valid point for discussion, and the use of s18c to stifle such discussion has rendered s18c incompatible with the values that are necessary for even this particular discussion today. The subjective nature of the “offence” makes it even worse.
Meta, he hasn’t.
You need to read bolt more critically perhaps?
I think Bolt on occasion inspires bigotry, but I don’t believe he aspires to it nor do I believe he intends his readers to arrive at that point.
Bromberg was apparently inside the mind of Bolt when he ruled that the choice to be Aboriginal made by mixed descent Aborigines was not a genuinely held belief of Bolt’s.
He was obviously in it enough to realise he wasn’t operating “in good faith”
but I don’t believe he aspires to it
Perhaps not, but he doesn’t mind inciting it in the more easily led. He has a position of power. He uses that power very poorly imo.
For those fans of the UN, free speech is enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 19.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Perhaps, JJ, although he has a pretty large readership. Are you suggesting he should moderate what he writes lest those “easily and unintentionally inspired” be so inspired?
Yes, Tony, but some are more able to access that right than others.
“One side of the argument says bigotry needs to be legislated against, the other says it is best dealt with by open debate.”
Pretty much.
That’s right Sancty. It’s an aspirational declaration. 😉
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
Fair nuff, but……..
Freedom of speech is not absolute.
Society and the legal system recognize limits on the freedom of speech.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/L04main.htm
Are you suggesting he should moderate what he writes
Hell yes. His constant misrepresentation of facts and deliberate omission of other facts informs the reading public in a manner that actually misinforms. Plato would cringe.
But, the judge didn’t. He just said, “don’t write crap, it can’t be that hard” Or was that someone else?
In my view, Mr Bolt’s conduct involved a lack of good faith. What Mr Bolt did and what he failed to do, did not evince a conscientious approach to advancing freedom of expression in a way designed to honour the values asserted by the RDA. Insufficient care and diligence was taken to minimise the offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation suffered by the people likely to be affected by the conduct and insufficient care and diligence was applied to guard against the offensive conduct reinforcing, encouraging or emboldening racial prejudice. The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides. For those reasons I am positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith.
………..
It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people. I have not found Mr Bolt and HWT to have contravened s 18C simply because the Newspaper Articles dealt with subject matter of that kind. I have found a contravention because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with.
………….
For those reasons and because of the need for the terms of an injunction to be clear and precise, I agree with Mr Bolt and HWT that the terms of an injunction should not extend to the publication of articles whose content is substantially the same as, or substantially similar to, that contained in the Newspaper Articles.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Eatock%20v%20Bolt%20%29
However, Tony, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted into Australian Law in 1980. The part about free speech, however, was adopted with reservations. Basically, advocates of free speech, beyond the aforementioned freedom of political expression, are fucked if looking to International Law for assistance. That’s dealt with in Article 19.
Article 20 is interesting.
JJ, there was a second part to that question which, when removed, alters the substance of the question. We have been debating “in good faith” here. Let’s keep it that way.
JJ, there was a second part to that question which, when removed, alters the substance of the question.
My opinion remains the same irrespective of how much I copied. Apply it to the entire sentence. My opinion is broader than that narrow field though
At any rate, on the margins you have extremists like me that would allow all and any speech, no matter how offensive; then, on the other side, you have those with totalitarian tendencies that want to ban every single utterance they don’t like or agree with. The law, probably, should be somewhere in the moderate middle.
Kittylitter, there is an implied right to freedom of political expression in the Constitution. A right that has been upheld often by the High Court of Australia.
An implied right is not the same as an actual right though is it james? And it makes freedom of speech political rather than and intrinsic, individually held right.
I hardly ever agree with the ipa shill chris berg, but he seems to make a bit of sense here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-31/berg-australias-march-to-free-speech-has-begun/5179508
Here is michael kirby putting both sides of the BoR argument:
http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0
I refer you to this in the pro BoR, which is why I feel it is necessary
…Putting rights above politics: It is necessary also to put some of the values of our society above the party political debate. That is what a bill of rights can do. It can express the enduring values of a good society. It can do so in the constitutional document which gives the cement to the social cohesion of a true Commonwealth. Without it, our constitution is mechanical. It lacks the expression of the aspiration of the people to live in a free and just society, where freedom and justice go beyond political slogans and shibboleths…
just listening to parliament before I’m off to work, seems as expected bronny bishop has made a mockery of the parliament and an unbiased speaker!
The law, probably, should be somewhere in the moderate middle.
You mean, kinda like what we have now? 😉
Absolutely… why is this being changed at all? Everything was working fine..it is the middle ground. There is no great injustice, no stifled free speech..its just a fuckwit protecting another fuckwit who wants to win an ideology war.
Brandis is a radical, incapable of keeping his own prejudicial inference out of his job. He is unworthy and incapable of being a good Attorney General. I know Robert McClellan and his father really well … He is very very conservative with a big sense of social justice, he would not touch it with a barge pole as its above politics and most certainly the place of the Attorney General to champion. This mandate furfey is wearing a bit thing, this mob is like a jack in the box full of lies and exploding bondi cigars
Most reasonable people operate that way in real life… As I said Bandis attaching himself to Bolt is very very dangerous and a reveal of ideology overriding good governance.
In my opinion the judge in Bolt’s case behaved appallingly. It is, at the very least unseemly to have a Jewish barrister smearing Bolt with the Holocaust to a Jewish judge and for the judge to let him get away with it. At that point the outcome was clear to me.
(Without extremes, there is no middle.)
(Without extremes, there is no middle.)
Sounds like Russia, they have no middle. From extreme left, to extreme right
Yep
Its apparent to me by that statement where you are coming from.. 🙄
Exercising your racist right already splatter? I will remind you its a draft.
Abbotts vision for Australia, us and them, have have not,
That is not a racist statement. Just a comment on the unseemly conduct of the proceedings. Smearing Bolt with the Holocaust is far more offensive in any circumstances, let alone permitting a barrister to use it as a legal argument in court.
TB, you’re not as clever as you profess.
Unlike you, James … I have never professed to be “clever” …
I may share my experiences and learning but and generally just offer alternative points of view OR disprove BS …
For those fans of the UN, free speech is enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Appropriate link, ToSY …
At any rate, on the margins you have extremists like me that would allow all and any speech, no matter how offensive
Like the time you took the huff a few months ago … 🙂
An implied right is not the same as an actual right though is it james? And it makes freedom of speech political rather than and intrinsic, individually held right.
Implied in the Constitution made actual by the common law as articulated through various High Court decisions.
“Like the time you took the huff a few months ago …”
Fuck you TB ya silly old cunt. (That’s not bigoted, just a statement of fact.) 😉
Unlike you, James … I have never professed to be “clever” …
I may share my experiences and learning but and generally just offer alternative points of view OR disprove BS …
Interpretation is in the eye of the interpretee.
KL, that’s why it’s not illegal, though it IS, at least by my standards, inappropriate, to say Ditch the Witch and Fuck Tony Abbott.
“Good and timely.”
Sickly pander.
James is putting his learned semantics to good use.
Exhibit A- “Perhaps. But 18c nevertheless is not reliant on inaccuracies to cause the offence.”
ToSY aside, this rings true…
“Interesting how all you pseudo intellects and bush lawyers are attaching the downfall of civilisation and social discourse to a problem that was not a problem till that hack jouno got done for lies, brand propagation, stupidity and sheer fuckwittery. “
Sure if you say so
No doubt about Bolt, he has a go at Anti everything and stands for nothing. He lights a fuse and has no dynamite, all piss and no steam…A fizzy little Catherine wheel of underwhelming intellectual substance at best…yet you all fall for it, lies and all. Like Hadley he can talk, and talk and talk….but he has cloth ears and a pea brain.
I reiterate, where is his great works? Great essays? oh he has a column you say…goodo then.
I feel he met his match with Emeritus Professor Manne but don’t let that get in the way of a good unsubstantiated sensationalist opinion that whips up the bigotry and hate to sell papers… fuck people are dumb 🙄
His constant misrepresentation of facts and deliberate omission of other facts informs the reading public in a manner that actually misinforms. Plato would cringe.
A-fkn-men
“Unlike you, James … I have never professed to be “clever” …”
But you don’t need to TB.
Otherwise it would be an easily recognised oxymoron
LOL
Whether the lapsed-catholic jnr legal fraternity wish it weren’t so or not…Pell has soiled the motif in the eyes of the wider public.
Hiding behind legal obfuscation & regulatory absolutes isn’t lost on most of us outside of the bubble.
I’m not sure that James coming back, after a long indistinguished lurk, & playing ‘look at me use my new skillz on teh bloggerz’ should be confused with being ‘clever’, particularly.
“I feel he met his match with Emeritus Professor Manne”
All in the eye of the beholder, Ricky. Manne is a contemptible fool par excellence in my book.
“I feel he met his match with Emeritus Professor Manne”
LOL
You are joking ……….aren’t you ?
Otherwise what part of you feels that ?
Oh don’t worry
And what would that be by sweeping generalisation. One is an eminent professor, published and recognised as an expert in the field with volumes of case studies and factual accounts to support his work and the other is a sensationalist journalist with nothing but sensationalist opinion? Don’t be so arrogant as to discount someone based on inconvenient ideology, that’s a very very foolish and ignorant domain of inferior thinking, the type of fool hearty bigotry that elected this lying rabble.
The part that deals with actual fact. Do yourself a favor and read that Essay Walrus you may learn something…. There are plenty of references to check, thats what academics do, substantiate …..oh dont worry indeed.
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Fuck you TB ya silly old cunt. (That’s not bigoted, just a statement of fact.)
Chuckle! Good job I wasn’t drinking when I read that, ToSY …
Every once in a while 😉
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Otherwise it would be an easily recognised oxymoron
Oh, shite! I missed that, Ser T … you must be more cleverer than me … 🙂
Clever can be an indistinct quantity, TB.
Dumb as dogshit is much easier to recognise.
Yep Bolt sure has a lot of them fooled… even the Current AG and minister for brain fart bitch slapped childish fuckwittery…
”””””””””’Amusing that those who are against “free-er speech” are big fans of Twitter where race hate , bigotry and insults seemingly are more common than dirt.”””””””’
blubbers, there is a big difference between,
1-a half-wit with a tweet, blog, fakebook or `other` account, AND,
2-a half-wit with a major press company and billionaire behind`em
Dumb as dogshit is much easier to recognise.
Don’t you mean dogbotherers?
Manne is a prattling idiot. Here is what he said in 2010 speaking about Vietnamese refugees:
He has got this completely arse-up. Why do you think that is? He is either dumb as dogshit or he thinks his readers are. Labor and the left hated and vilified the refugees.
Now that l`ve seen the rest of `our` teabags comments, and the usual suspects are dutifully arguing the teabag position, l notice #oh-snacky babbling on `finer` legal points, but misses the `full-and-big-picture`.
Junking 18c+d and anything else, is not about `the-average-citizen`s free-speech, lt is about removing an obstacle for monster-teabag-media.
But keep chortling your nonsense for bolt and rupert to operate nothing more than a `troll-farm`, but remember, if YOUR child ends up being `bullied` on say, fakebook,
Remember, YOU CAMPAIGNED AND CHEERED FOR IT,
Quite frankly, you teabags with children are right fcuking dumb-arses.
God forbid James uses some of his Book-learnin’.
‘Sickly pander.’
Pell had misplaced his moral compass and found it just in the nick of time.
Fuck off.. my father was a boss with the PMG, then Telecom and a senior Union official. The left position at the time was accept and employ. You could not get any more left than my father he was a socialist….I don’t know what universe you were livin in. We had Vietnamese neighbors, racism was deplored and fought at every turn. he was a life member of St George Soccer association and run a multicultural club…
So fuck off know it all 🙄
Pell is a pedo protecting immoral cunt with a high sense of his own importance… He’s Abbotts moral mentor say no more…next
‘No doubt about Bolt, he has a go at Anti everything and stands for nothing.’
That’s not quite true, he is the polar opposite of Mann who believes in AGW. In a few short years we should be able to clearly see which one is the idiot.
Toilet, whether you take it from me or not, the Guardian reporting of the RC has borne very little resemblance to what I witnessed. If you are at all interested in the actual truth, I suggest you compare the reports with the transcript. What occurred in the last couple of days was a disgraceful stitch up designed for the headlines they have achieved. By way of example, presenting to Pell that colleagues had stated things as fact when they hadn’t. Lawyers lecturing Pell on the morality of doing that which is TAUGHT TO FUCKING LAW STUDENTS IN THE FIRST FUCKING LECTURE OF TORTS LAW ! That is, to ensure the correct defendant is named.
“In a few short years we should be able to clearly see which one is the idiot.”
Agree with that.
(Look over there…more PC extremism at the UN: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1
And to think, it too, isn’t yet on the discussion agenda.
Even as Abbott re-runs set pieces from the successful ’99er Referendum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999#Preamble_question )
booklearnin`osy, no matter how much fancy book learnin somebody does, they may never become `intelligent` if they swallow teabag theory unquestioned, or have given their mind to dog-club
I suggest we already know by that comment
See above 🙂
Again Egg where is his great work of authoritative denial on the subject, his definitive peer reviewed expose? filed under bullshit with his
volumes of empirical scientific datapamphlet of self promoting denial on the stolen generation denial?Sheer genius blokes.. Professor v’s shock jock Love Splatters childish attempt at rebuttal augmented with opinion, “the left hates refo’s” spectacular stuff.
Indeed
Very interesting, Meta. Some of those declarations and rights are unique to indigenous people. The political point that Bolt was trying to make, and which he has been muzzled from talking further about (and which his newspaper had to expunge from its record, and promise never to republish), is: for the purposes of these and other laws, regulations, rights and declarations that apply uniquely to indigenous people, what constitutes an indigenous person?
””””””Pell had misplaced his moral compass and found it just in the nick of time.””””””’
fascinating dumpty, and which child did he actually `prevent` from being sexually assaulted
Oh, hang on. Did I just break the law?
l also notice `our` teabags have adjectives for defense of pell
eg `disgraceful stitch up`
but with-hold the adjectives when the crime, cover-up or victim is mentioned
and which he has been muzzled from talking further about
Repetition might be the only way for the quite obvious inaccuracy of that statement to sink in
It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people. I have not found Mr Bolt and HWT to have contravened s 18C simply because the Newspaper Articles dealt with subject matter of that kind. I have found a contravention because of the manner in which that subject matter was dealt with.
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/03/26/why-bigotry-is-not-ok-mr-brandis/#comment-50310
You are having a lend right? surely people are not that stupid, they can’t possibly be
Oh wait they are… thats a bummer 😕
just cram stupid, complicit, culpable, guilty, immoral and indefensible into a sentence and it should cover most of what sums phoney Toney’s moral come puss. Anyways a bloke who’s morally bankrupt is off to sort out the vatican finances, should fit right at home over there with the swingin dicks of molest’in
Bromberg J looked inside Bolt’s head and “concluded that the conduct of Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times is not exempted by section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act from being unlawful because: (i) it was not done reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment, within the requirements of section 18D(c)(ii) of the Racial Discrimination Act”
So, naturally, Mordy awarded “the relief sought by Ms Eatock in relation to the Newspaper Articles [which] may be summarised as follows:
A declaration that the writing and publication of the Newspaper Articles by Mr Bolt and HWT, was unlawful;
An order restraining Mr Bolt and HWT from republishing or further publishing the Newspaper Articles or articles whose content is substantially the same as, or substantially similar to, that contained in the Newspaper Articles;
An order requiring Mr Bolt and HWT to remove the Newspaper Articles from any online site under their control or direction;
An order that HWT publish an apology; and
Costs.”
Yes Tony, basically, he can’t write the same made up garbage again about the particular complainants , but he can prosecute the same case.
His lack of actually doing that lends me to believe his argument was pretty flimsy to start with
It probably all comes down to your/my/Mordy’s/the legal definition of “substantially the same as, or substantially similar to”.
He has actually prosecuted the same case. Just in very short terms.
Exactly what has Pell done to upset you, Ricky. Try to be specific.
Or, more importantly, Bolt’s/HWT’s lawyers’/legal advisors’ interpretation of that phrase.
“Do yourself a favor and read that Essay Walrus you may learn something…. ”
I took your advice and you were right about learning something after reading it again.
And that is I still hate fucking evasive bullshit and total fiction of the type Manne uses.
But you are certainly free to believe it
Exactly what has Pell done to upset you, Ricky. Try to be specific.
JFC! If there is a Dog it must be shaking its head …
‘Again Egg where is his great work of authoritative denial on the subject, his definitive peer reviewed expose?’
Mann has an orthodox view of such matters, whereas the Bolter is unorthodox in his approach. I have a visual on how its all going to turn out, but I cannot elaborate.
we would like to thank #oh-snacky`s sponsor
http://nambla.org/welcome.html
for sponsoring his comments tonight
Well TB I have two friends who have both Committed Suicide having endured miserable lives after being abused my catholic priests. On sued the catholic church and Pell tried to stop it all, he did get a payout eventually and had to sign a confidentiality agreement. He just left a note that said why me?
The other contacted Pell who was less than compassionate to say the least after which he left a note to his wife saying he could not live with the shame then blew his brains out.
Pell is everything that personifies why I have utter contempt for utter hypocrisy and disgraceful culpability of the catholic church. When I hear a pig like Pell suggest that taxpayers should shell out for his sins, I am too angry for words. He covered this shit up , had full knowledge of it and protected those animals, he is a lower than the fuckers that did it in my opinion.
You’re a pig headed foolish man Walrus.. please feel free to substantiate what is a lie, I’m intrigued that you know something that the Professor does not, possibly some fact I have missed that you have read in Bolts collum? Enlighten me please.
we would also like to thank http://www.kkk.com
for allowing Tpad`osy to appear at our venue tonight
I call bullshit, Ricky.
So tonight on Lateline we have
Nicholas Stern talking about how terrible it would be to abolish the Carbon Tax
Then
No Monash University story on how it disguises it’s real carbon footprint
Then
Censure motion on Bronwyn Bishop
Then
Another attack on the Catholic Church at the R C
Then,
How the PBS under the current government , which is apparently Liberal, is trying to kill cancer patients
Yep
Nothing unusual to see here from a taxpayer impartial Tony Jones
Move on folks
I reckon you are just a Thommo clone Penn
A true compulsive
”””””””’Bromberg J looked inside Bolt’s head and “concluded that the conduct of Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times is not exempted by section 18D”””””””’
so Tpad`osy, ya didn`t have the nads to include the Link to ya`copy`n`paste, not really credible huh.?
Penn = Pann
What like evidence, laws, sworn statements, journals, historical documents… Jesus mate
What approach? he is nowhere on this issue like he is on most issues. You only read him because you are blinded by his factless assertions on climate change. He is 100% fake
“You’re a pig headed foolish man Walrus.. please feel free to substantiate what is a lie, I’m intrigued that you know something that the Professor does not, possibly some fact I have missed that you have read in Bolts collum? Enlighten me please.”
Read the essay from the “centre” ground you claim to be from rather than the Commo Left that you act as
Observation Point
Thought not, I’ll take that as you have nothing, nada zip What does that even mean? I could read it on one leg..facts are facts.. Bolt is a fake and a liar.
“we would also like to thank http://www.kkk.com for allowing Tpad`osy to appear at our venue tonight”
Typically moronic comment from the resident troll. (I never use that term, but in Teabag’s case it’s entirely appropriate.)
“so Tpad`osy, ya didn`t have the nads to include the Link to ya`copy`n`paste, not really credible huh.?”
Jherek Jagged supplied it, twice, you imbecile. But here it is again, just for your benefit. Knock yourself out.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Eatock%20v%20Bolt%20%29
Bromberg J looked inside Bolt’s head and “concluded that the conduct of Mr Bolt and the Herald & Weekly Times is not exempted by section 18D
Actually, he carefully and quite forensically laid out in that Link Tony exactly how he determined the outcome. And it wasn’t from looking inside someones head. It was by examining the facts presented to him.
Finally, I should add that I am positively satisfied that the elements which needed to be established in order for s 18D to have application, have not been established. In other words, if the burden of proof rested with Ms Eatock it has been satisfied. Further, if it had been necessary to assess the s 18C conduct by reference to the narrower sub-group, I would have arrived at the same conclusions in relation to s 18D.
‘What like evidence, laws, sworn statements, journals, historical documents…’
He accepts what the overwhelming peer review says, Mann supports the orthodoxy.
‘What approach?’
Instead of peer review (which has been corrupted) he embraces post normal science on the blogosphere.
and more
One of the difficulties with the s 18D case advanced by Mr Bolt and HWT is that they put their submissions in the absence of any recognition that the Court may find s 18C to have been satisfied by reference to one or more of the imputations upon which Ms Eatock relied. Somewhat like what might be done in a defence to a defamation case, Mr Bolt and HWT identified a comment or imputations said to be conveyed by the Articles. They then sought to justify that imputation by reference to s 18D. In doing that, they ran the same risk that a respondent runs in a defamation case, that the alternative imputations relied upon and sought to be justified will either not be accepted as having been conveyed by the publication or, alternatively, be regarded as separate and distinct from the defamatory imputations upon which the applicant relies.
Having taken that course, Mr Bolt and HWT made no specific submissions as to why, if the Court was to make a finding of s 18C conduct on the basis of the imputations upon which Ms Eatock relied (or similar imputations), that conduct ought nevertheless be excused pursuant to s 18D.
It is a very long document, which spells out in minute detail the reasoning behind the judgement. To simplify it as “getting in bolts head” (I’d want gloves for that) belittles the process gone through to come to this determination. Of course, that is the point of it I assume 😉
There are some other pertinent points relevant to the previous discussion which is highlighted in hte Judgement. Namely, bolts persistence in omitting relevant facts to suit his case, or just getting them wrong.
Some of the facts relied upon as the basis of the comments made about motivation have been proven to be untrue
……….
The omission of a series of relevant facts, having the result that the factual scenario represented in a publication is quite unbalanced and potentially misleading to the average reader, results in a situation that the facts have not, relevantly, truly been stated.
And the issue of “free” speech itself
In my view, even outside of political discourse, freedom of expression is not merely a freedom to speak inoffensively: R (on the application of Gaunt) v Office of Communications (OFCOM) [2011] EWCA Civ 692 at [22] (Lord Neuberger MR). But there are areas of discourse where incivility is less acceptable, including because it is more damaging to social harmony. Additionally, a distinction may be drawn between harsh language directed at a person and harsh language directed at a person’s opinion:
….
Each of those positions is based upon the recognition that the orders which are made should be clear and precise including so that freedom of expression is not unnecessarily stifled.
And this rubbish that bolt has been “muzzled”
It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people.
Perhaps the fact that bolt keeps talking about it without the judge complaining is the most persuasive argument that he has not been silenced, simply embarrassed.
So tonight on Lateline we have
A long list of failures by this Government.
Remember the good ol days, where they used to focus on earlobes and 20 year old smears [sigh]
“Yes Tony, basically, he can’t write the same made up garbage again about the particular complainants , but he can prosecute the same case.
His lack of actually doing that lends me to believe his argument was pretty flimsy to start with.”
“Perhaps the fact that bolt keeps talking about it without the judge complaining is the most persuasive argument that he has not been silenced, simply embarrassed.”
So which is it? Does he keep talking about it, or doesn’t he? I say he doesn’t, because Bromberg has gagged him. But you can quite easily prove me wrong. Just provide an example.
Does he keep talking about it, or doesn’t he?
He keeps talking about it Tony, whinging about not being allowed to talk about it ❓ But, he does not put forward any other argument in support of his assertion. The judge has specifically said this is allowed (as attested to by bolt continuing to whinge about it). But bolt doesn’t appear to have found any “facts” to prosecute his case.
Just provide an example.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/no_not_all_aboriginal_leaders_agree_with_bans_on_free_speech/
“Fuck off.. my father was a boss with the PMG, then Telecom and a senior Union official. The left position at the time was accept and employ.”
As is usual when
communists(sorry not allowed to use that word) socialists take over they killed off a million or so of their class enemies. Because of Australia’s involvement it had a special duty to protect the Vietnamese who worked with them. But the Australian left obviously thought anyone fleeing a socialist paradise must not be a genuine refugee and should have stayed there to be killed.When Australia evacuated from Vietnam Whitlam deliberately left behind to die those Vietnamese who had worked with Australia. The Senate report into the matter concluded:
This is from Clyde Cameron:
Here is what ALP Immigration spokesman Senator Tony Mulvahill said:
Race-baiting ALP leftist Clyde Cameron asked this question in parliament:
Like most of the communist infiltrated Labor party of the time Mulvahill was a big fan of
communistsocialist redistribution.As to the union movement Clyde Cameron reported:
A can of worms.
‘A WESTERN Sydney imam believes the Abbott government’s proposed repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act will create a situation that favours Jews and discriminates against indigenous Australians and other minority groups.’
Baxendale / Oz
I was at primary school at the time and will never forget the racism displayed by the children of ALP activists.
“I was at primary school at the time and will never forget the racism displayed by the children of ALP activists.”
Oh FFS. You’re starting to sound like Neil……. 🙄
It’s true, Reb. Very early 80s and there were half a dozen kids who were relentlessly racist towards the half dozen or so Vietnamese boat people who’d been placed in our class. It was some years later that the active political affiliations of their parents were apparent. One kid even had a Stop the Asian Invasion sticker on his school bag.
I’m not following the pell and catholic misery, as far s I’m concerned, I knew how abhorrent they were years ago. But
Over this week there has been a spellbinding display of the moral vacuum at the heart of two mighty institutions – the Roman Catholic Church and the law.
Cardinal George Pell slithered all over the place as he was questioned about the church’s conduct in the infamous Ellis case. Everyone else was to blame, his lawyers, his private secretary, the unreasonableness of his litigation opponents.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/questionable-ethics-of-cardinal-pells-lawyers-go-under-microscope-20140327-zqnnj.html#ixzz2xCjSxI5X
Oh FFS. You’re starting to sound like Neil……. 🙄
..
It’s true, Reb
The best comedy Rights itself 😆
““I’m not having hundreds of fucking Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their political and religious hatreds against us”
Did Gough Whitlam really say that?? By the way what does he mean by Vietnamese Balts?
Did Gough Whitlam really say that?
Of course he did, it was in Quadrant 😯
He probably said “Children Overboard” too
What about in Kindie, snacty? Had you sniffed out the ALP supporters in those ranks too?
Balts were, in this context, refugees from the Baltic States during the time of Stalin. They tended to support Conservative politics, no doubt as a contrast to what they’d experienced.
I didn’t go to Kindergarten. I’m not sure why you’re taking issue with this, Reb. What’s your point?
“Did Gough Whitlam really say that?? By the way what does he mean by Vietnamese Balts?”
Others say the expression was “fucking yellow balts”. Maybe Cameron sanitised it in his book, from which the quote comes.
Whitlam was concerned that anti-communist refugees would largely vote for conservatives. Labor was seen at the time to be too close to the virulent communists of the era. Under Whitlam Labor had a closet member of the CPA in his cabinet although his membership was not acknowledged at the time.
Keating took a similar view when he over-ruled the departmental recommendation, deciding instead to grant permanent residence to the radical islamist Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, of “uncovered meat” fame. Clearly he was mindful of the muslim vote in Western Sydney where Hilali was a popular hate-preacher.
It wasn’t long after that that Howard supported making race a factor in immigration decisions. (To his credit Ruddock crossed the floor on that one)
It is a nice irony that as the demographics changed in Howard’s electorate his infamous racist act was a material factor in his being booted.
The quote is attributed to Clyde Cameron.
Who said this? “Let no one think that we’re going to stand idly be and allow others, by their autonomous action…determine our immigration policy.”
Clyde Cameron, in his book “China, Communism And Coca-Cola” recounted his conversation with Whitlam.
“……Under Whitlam Labor had a closet member of the CPA in his cabinet although his membership was not acknowledged at the time.”
Let me guess………….Jim Cairns
And if it wasn’t then he sure did a good impression
“Let no one think that we’re going to stand idly be and allow others, by their autonomous action…determine our immigration policy”
That sounds like this
“We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.“
“Jim Cairns”
Close, but no cigar!
Arthur Gietzelt was outed as a dual card carrier by Mark Aarons, scion of Australia’s Royal Family of Communism. I reckon there were many in the ALP who no doubt took the precaution of not formally joining the CPA. And some like Senator John Halfpenny who “resigned” from the CPA although they seemed not to have changed their views much.
But we had better speak in hushed tones. Talking about stuff like this upsets the true believers.
“But we had better speak in hushed tones. Talking about stuff like this upsets the true believers.”
Yes yes……………..shooooosh……..shoooooosh
Watch out………….Commos about…..LOL
“Just provide an example.”
Your “example” has Bolt linking to other writers, one of whom is an indigenous man discussing the politics of racial identity. So Bolt can still link approvingly to others who say the same things he attempted to say. That’s not the same as writing about them himself. The fact that he doesn’t probably means he or his legal team thinke he’s barred from doing so.
Good point, Tony. What we are seeing is the chilling effect of anti-speech laws.
And it looks like the lunatic Left have a new Murdoch to blame their woes upon when Rupert falls off his perch
That’s not the same as writing about them himself. The fact that he doesn’t probably means he or his legal team thinke he’s barred from doing so.
Rubbish Tony
If he is propagating these articles on his blog, and adding comments, he is speaking on them. That simple fact proves that he has not been “silenced”. The determination itself specifically said that.
AGAIN
It is important that nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification including challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people.
He just is not allowed to repeat his previous, false claims. If he was “silenced” he would not be able to comment publicly on those other articles. It hs not prevented him from doing that, and there is nothing to prevent him finding facts that can support his assumption.
He has simply been embarrassed, and, just like pell, is blaming everyone but himself
Breaking Nooze: Williamson sentenced to 7.5 years jail 5 years non parole
So does that mean he will get 7.5 years if he doesn’t cough up the money from his house sale?
Interesting Socialist = Commo= Politically illiterate
I tell you one thing sure as shit, if you called my old man a commo you would soon learn the true definition of oppression and severe pain.
Still rollin out the reds under the bed matra in 2014?
If I uttered a racial slur in my house i’d cop a hiding, my old man, as do I, put racists in the same bucket as pedo’s, faulty human beings.
Gotta love all this one line refudiated denial, I’ll take that as I can’t disprove,, have nothing the factual disembowelling of a proven fake of questionable integrity by someone I have been conditioned to ideologically hate.
I will take that as you still have nothing and return to a personal attack because I have proven your faux
prophetprofiteer as nothing more that an sensationalist, brand proliferating, sensationalist, hack columnist..Annoying isn’t it,,go on I get it now..
Translation: Walrus: Commo = I have nothing, I’m sulking, I hate facts
Gotta be happy with that.. topped off my week 🙂
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-28/williamson-to-be-sentenced/5350788
Gotta be happy with that.. topped off my week 🙂
Sorry wrong link..excited
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/michael-williamson-jailed-for-health-services-union-fraud-20140328-35n3f.html
Free Speech curtailed? Not likely
That’s the point that has been buried here. Nothing in the Racial Discrimination Act as it presently stands precludes bigotry. In fact I’ll go a step further: you’re even allowed to express your bigotry. Happens all the time. Read a newspaper. Bigoted views are published there several times in an average week.
Two things flow from this. First, that critics of the Racial Discrimination Act are simply wrong to suggest that our free speech is so curtailed that we can’t risk saying anything offensive. The courts have long made clear that the Act only contemplates serious cases. The caricature that we’re placed at the mercy of the most delicate people’s sensibilities is nothing less than a gross misrepresentation of the law.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/george-brandis-racial-discrimination-act-changes-create-the-whitest-piece-of-proposed-legislation-ive-encountered-20140327-zqnea.html#ixzz2xDWW3i2G
This is what politics in Australia has come to. A powerful newspaper commentator racially vilifies a group of prominent Aboriginals: members of our community I would like to celebrate for their achievements in arts, letters and politics. His article is scientifically ignorant, racially prejudiced and socially inflammatory. He also gets his facts wrong. When the subjects of his article sue, his defence of good faith collapses in court.
Three years later, the elected government of Australia decides to change the law to make sure that he could, if he chose, write that article again – and escape any legal sanction for racial vilification.
https://newmatilda.com/2014/03/27/how-bolt-sets-governments-agenda
No Comment
After reading all the other ancient commo tripe – I just had to check under my bed — just a bit of fluff …
Actually reading that quote it struck me how the Liberal Party now embraces that concept …
Thank christ or anyone for that matter most of us don’t still live in the 1950’s/70’s as a few seem to do here … just a reminder for the Retro Brigade … we’re heading for 2015 … not 1915 …
Looks like we might be heading into a new War in Eastern Europe by the end of the weekend
So perhaps Balkan Wars are due for a replay ?
Brinkmanship will be an overused word this weekend.
Not while Neville Camberlain is still in the White House.
We are not even at the Phoney War stage.
Europe doesn’t have the means to conduct a war and Obama loves everyone who hates the US.
Maybe things would be different if he hadn’t sold out the Poles and the Czechs in 2009 and instead honoured the deal with them to install missiles on their territory. As the Polish president said a couple of years ago:
With enemies like Putin the last thing you need is friends like Obama.
Bingo
Bolt’s central argument, which is clearly a good argument, in all of this is that we should not institutionalise racial differences in law or policy. You won’t find his critics discussing that issue very much. They are far too focused on whether he was insensitive in the way he put his case (probably) and whether he got some details wrong (probably).
What his case shows is that if you want to take on the current racist orthodoxy of multiculturalism you had better be very very careful not to misspeak and not to upset anyone. If that stupid law is repealed, so much the better.
that used to pervade Australian life.
used to? 😯
I can just see bolt and the ipa sitting around pyne-ning for the days of Neville in every front yard.
You won’t find his critics discussing that issue very much.
How do you think these policies are formulated in the first place? 😯
Some introductory reading on the outcome of critics who have previously discussed that issue much
Generally, Indigenous people receive the same level of public benefits as non-Indigenous people. Individuals do not get extra funding because they are Indigenous. However, specific government programs, not additional income, have been introduced for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples because they are the most economically and socially disadvantaged group in Australia. Special programs are necessary to help overcome disadvantage.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples
Seriously…you are going to give oxygen to this rubbish…?
No it is not..he was saying look at all these people claiming to be Aboriginal and they are white. Be outraged Now….because they are using their Aboriginality at the taxpayers expense to further their careers ..isn’t it shocking look at me..look at me look at me…….nothing more..
Don’t paint it as some righteous crusade to expose a great social injustice…fuck me…
let go, its indefensible… he is wrong get over it,,don’t make shit up. You have his disease, twist the meaning of stuff to suit an ideologue purpose… Keep going, please stop at white supremacist 🙄
I will ask you one question answer it yes or no ..no twist duck weave bullshit
Do you believe in the Stolen Generation? Yes or No
Friday Funny from Twitter:
Q: why do people take an instant dislike to Bronwyn Bishop?
A: It saves time.
She is the most biased occupant of the chair I’ve seen in 33 years of coming to and living in Canberra and she isn’t wounded by arrows sent her way daily.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/party-games-speaker-bronwyn-bishops-clear-bias-is-out-of-order/story-fnihsr9v-1226866906536
Ignorance is bliss
It is quite amusing when the one suffering from an alleged fear of commenting may have derived this assumption due to his oft repeated and wildly incorrect assertion that he is not allowed to say anything (apparently oblivious of the fact that while musing aloud publicly about his right not to discuss “The Topic” he is in fact effectively discussing “The Topic”)
Monty Python just Rights itself these days 😆
Laws and policies should apply to all equally irrespective of race. Welfare and government assistance should be allocated on the basis of need, not race. Abused children should be placed with the best carers without reference to race rather than as is the case now put into higher risk environments precisely because of their race.
‘Abbott couldn’t bring himself to make her a minister so he made her Speaker.’
If true, its was a big mistake. Dennis Jensen would have been a better choice, he needs to be shut down.
“Welfare and government assistance should be allocated on the basis of need, not race. ”
Precisely
Why the fuck do we even have a Human Rights Commision for that matter.
And indigenous people should be helped by Centelink not a Dept of Aboriginal Affairs. The existence of government departments should be based upon need not skin colour
I will take that stammering pile of rhetorical nonsense as a denial of the historical facts shall I ? …is that a No..its a very simple question…. Yes or No? did it happen or not? Truganini is waiting 🙂
Hilarious… the terrorgraph restored this article after pulling it due to pressure from social media…. They didnt want to seem bias would they now? Revelation..Tony is a Liar, bet Bolt is surprised
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/pm-tony-abbott-rules-out-reinstating-knights-and-dames-in-oz/story-fni0cx12-1226788026229
Ok whitebread.. Mr Tough justice, we shall send em round to your digs to take their land back shall we ? Seeing as we are all uppity about all the injustice.
“Welfare and government assistance should be allocated on the basis of need, not race. ”
And how much you earn if you agree with Tony Abbotts ridiculous paid parental thingy
“…..we shall send em round to your digs to take their land back shall we ? Seeing as we are all uppity about all the injustice.”
It’s not their land to take back and If they could they would have already.
But they are welcome to make an offer.
Even I only have a right to use the surface as what’s underneath belongs to the Crown. You should know that being an Eddie Obeid loving Leftie
You must live in Tasmania where the Aboriginals were conveniently exterminated. Ah the British; the only race that holds claim to have successfully carried out Genocide.. Spose Pyne wants all that extinguished from the tory tony version of history 🙄
“I did not see her passing by, so I waited till I was 24 to become and Aussie” just in time for my education handout,
ABSTUDY is discriminatory and racist.
🙄
you forgot commo… remember? code for when you have nothing (but pig ignorant opinion)
Egg – those studying their abs in my gym seem pleasant enough muscly men.
Yeah because they are so empowered and privileged out here lol :rol:
Boom tish… 🙂
Don’t those types drink a schooner full of eggs before they get all sweaty and look at themselves in the mirror?
Ricky – I have no idea but they love mirrors and walk like Tony Abbott.
ABSTUDY is discriminatory and racist.
Now, egg … tell me why?
Ricky – I have no idea but they love mirrors and walk like Tony Abbott.
You go to a gym at the ZOO!
“God forbid James uses some of his Book-learnin’.”
Firstly, ‘god’ has fuck all to do with it. I will be forbade nothing by figments of others’ minds.
Now that that’s out of the way…it seems to me that most of us could revert to type & lay waste to all of those outside of ‘our field’ via expertise on teh blogz. IMO, that’s pointless & stupid…like sneering at kindy kids because they don’t have a driver’s license yet, or somesuch.
The opposite of clever… and indulgent.
Have I done that, Toilet?
Yes.
Prove to us where you haven’t.
No, snacty, you certainly didn’t invoke ‘god’…& I absolutely believe that you deserve credit for your ‘book learnin’ & I accept that you probably understand where I’m coming from too.
But the stench of legalese did pervade. 🙂
I absolutely believe that you deserve credit for your ‘book learnin’
As do I … (strangely, probably to some) … but book larnin’ has to be tempered with application and experience … and in the case of law losing and winning …
And accepting the umpire’s decision … ie Bolt was found guilty as charged …
Questioning the judge is a bit like arguing with the bloke that has you face down in the dirt and just wants you to say … “sorry” … choices? No brainer …
Right, might be right … but might, might be right too …
””””””the stench of legalese did pervade””””””’
l enjoyed the working example that matters can be ignore by `educated` people, even terrible things defended or accepted when the `educated` are indoctrinated
I think I spoke legalese quite reasonably to Kittylitter in answer to what I thought was a reasonable question. I then invoked Torts first lecture stuff to illustrate hypocrisy. I hope I didn’t in the context of debating here although I must say it can be a difficult habit to break when you’re in essay mode which I am right now. Mrs Sancty is quick to tell me to remove my head from my backside when I do it at dinner.
I just realised what a plaintiff (sic) cry that was …
Have I done that, Toilet?
Sorry couldn’t help myself … must be this Bowlers Run …
I then invoked Torts first lecture stuff to illustrate hypocrisy
James, most laypeople wouldn’t have a clue what the law of tort is … surely you know that?
In the words of George Pell a couple of days ago. “No your Honour, with respect, whilst I may have to accept your decision, I don’t have to agree with it.”
Torts Law is about suing people for damages when you have been wrong. Eg suing the Catholic Church because you were molested or suing your employer because you lost your hand.
“…you forgot commo… remember? ”
Of course I remember you being a Commo and your protests of confected outrage .
Like most things such amusement at your “outrage” should be only taken in small doses from dopes like you lest they become too tiresome
Oh wait here comes the dummy spitting pinko
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah…….!
“Firstly, ‘god’ has fuck all to do with it. I will be forbade nothing by figments of others’ minds.”
Ooh, sensitive. Perhaps overdoing the must-denounce-every-mention-of-god-in-order-to-burnish-my-atheist-credentials just a bit?
””””’remove my head from my backside when I do it”””””
mrs-snacky has some good advice for`ya
Oh it’s Earth Hour tomorrow night
Here’s your big chance you big tough keyboard warrior
You should be able to find my place tomorrow night
It’ll be the joint lit up like the fucking spaceship out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind tomorrow night.
A vulgar display Walrus.
Teabag, fuck off. You truly are a mindless dick head with absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
no dunny, oh-snacky didn`t invoke dog,
which in itself is `somewhat` odd, just what would dog say oh-snacky, when the chief moralizers of dog club are committing `immoral` crimes against wee children, and the `immoral` cover-ups of the crime and perpetrators
Now, egg … tell me why?
I’m interested in seeing that answer develop myself. You up to it egg?
I don’t know what a god would say, if anything. You see, I am agnostic (I think). I say that anyone who interferes with a child is beneath contempt as are those who cover such acts up. I believe Pell did neither.
Just the sad rambling of a man who has lost his hero. The domain of those disconnected from and semblance of higher thought beyond the terrograph zombies. “More to be pitied than despised”
Walrus: Commo = I have nothing
Walrus: Leftie = He got me there
Walrus: Pinko = I’m so angry I forgot to put my teeth in before attacking my tapioka
Walrus: big tough keyboard warrior = Oh no I pissed my pants again.
I agree that abstudy is discriminatory. I also don’t think all discrimination is bad. I further believe that to obtain abstudy one should have to demonstrate disadvantage resulting from one’s aboriginality.
“Teabag, fuck off. You truly are a mindless dick head with absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
James is capable of making a good point from time to time.
I think, Ricky, he’s inviting you to make good on certain threats you may have made at some point. Perhaps you should either front up or withdraw the threats.
Robert Dolly Dunn …. Pell is Scum, pure filth
Mmmmmm…….Sancty is it that obvious
ROFLMAO
“James is capable of making a good point from time to time.”
Yep !
So is anyone observing Earth Hour
Egg you must be looking forward to it ?
LOL
“Robert Dolly Dunn …. Pell is Scum, pure filth”
Fuck you are an idiot
Pixels at ten paces
What did Pell have to do with Dunn?
I further believe.. blah twinkle rat tat tat…
You sure do believe in a lot of stuff wont serve you very well in the law…
How about social engineering? Diversity? Disadvantage? What do you have to prove to state the eradication of cultural perspective? the disappearance of dot painting tea towels in gift shops? How many Aboriginals in your Law class? How many Aboriginals on your street?
tell ya what mate I call you out as bullshit… you should make a fine Lawyer
Earth hour? I’ll be completely ignoring the fabricated, completely useless, self-congratulatory “movement”, as I do religiously* every year.
*word alert
“Pixels at ten paces”
That reminds me
Fire up the popcorn machine
None of that microwave stuff around here amongst the constant rain
Hey Ricky, you knob, I study at CDU. There are plenty of Aborigines.
Oh and there’s a family of five Aborigines 3 doors down. Oh and my brother runs a division of Clontarf (which I don’t intend to be a reflection on me but a rebuttal of the inference that I come from some kind of privileged and socially ignorant stock. Privileged I am, ignorant of the difficulties faced by others I am not).
‘Knob’ is amusing, as a handle.
Your the genius book learnin lawyer mate you work it out.
That fuckwit left a path of irreparable destruction in his wake, he knew the lot and fought the people who sued ,blew whistles and rang bells, covered it up and moved the pedo’s to cause no shame th the church, sometimes to other parishes where the repeat offended… Damage control….so you sit in denial all you want. That is fact…
Fuck Pell…if there is a Hell that’s where he is headed.
What did Pell have to do with Dunn? Ricky?
“Earth hour? I’ll be completely ignoring the fabricated, completely useless, self-congratulatory “movement”, as I do religiously* every year.”
Really ??????????
LOL
You are aware, Ricky, that Dunn was in gaol by the time Pell arrived in Sydney?
Firstly Did I say you came from privalge?.. that would be No
Do you quiz you Aborigenal friends on their Aborigenality? What they are entitled too?
One of my bandmates is a half cast and you would have no idea, he is whiter than a loaf of tip top.
I apologise if you feel I mad assumptions about you, I reserve that for Walrus he’s just a fuckwit (see I can say that now i’m testing out the draft) I accept fully that it would be different at CDU If you studied law in Sydney there are bugger all blackfella’s, well anglo’s are in the minority now actually.
“, I reserve that for Walrus he’s just a fuckwit ”
LOL
I will wear that as a true badge of honour
Yep………a self made man in fact
LOL
You are aware, Ricky, that Dunn was in goal by the time Pell arrived in Sydney?
Mate…fuck ..seriously? It wasn’t till 20 years after the fact that my mate admitted what happened… then he got counseling, tried to approach the church… and then it all went pear shaped and he topped himself… Same deal for my girlfriends brother….I will say no more on the subject other than Pell knew the lot because Dunn was an informant and squealed like a pig. Cops knew, communities knew..everybody knew and did fuck all.
You inferred it. Now, Pell had nothing to do with Dunn. Do you accept that? He never shifted a priest who he knew was suspected of abuse. Do you accept that? He never abused anyone sexually. Do you accept that?
Thanks Walrus you just made me laugh 🙂
Friday night is dance class night Ricky
Ask Toilet……..he’s onto me
LOL
Even Michael Williamson claimed it was the Priest that made him do it
What a fuckwit
Careful Sancty, you’re startin’ to sound all legal-like.
So, Pell seems nice.
Dunn was a teacher. Employed by the Marist Brothers. Pell has and never had any authority over the Marist Brothers. Now if it was a Diocesan priest from the Archdiocese of Sydney, Pell could do something. He couldn’t have with Dunn.
Pell knew the lot, the whole sordid deal, it was an avelance of info…and covered it up systematically…. Mate by the time it hits 4 corners it was common knowledge, even the media that wasn’t controlled by the old tykes had it out there…….Was a time in Sydney where if you weren’t a tyke or a Mason, you got nowhere…
Pell can sit there and say selectively what he wants , he covered it up..end of story…its in the public domain now I will ask you nicely to please drop it because I will discuss it no further.
Sorry, Tony. But Ricky is precisely what’s wrong with this Royal Commission. Completely disinterested in getting to the heart of the issue. Much more interested in claiming scalps. Now I’m all for claiming scalps. But get the right ones for the right reasons.
“.Was a time in Sydney where if you weren’t a tyke or a Mason, you got nowhere…”
I wouldn’t go that far but the Horses do run in the direction that Irish horses once did
I call bullshit again. You’re speaking in riddles now. Pell moved to Sydney in 2001. After Dunn was gaoled. How could he have been a part of any cover up? You want me to drop it? Fine. Withdraw the unsubstantiated allegation. Or substantiate it.
I can hardly wait for the Union RC
That one will have more third party evidence than the Child Abuse one.
“Sorry, Tony.”
Don’t be. I enjoy following the thought process behind your (and others’) arguments, even if the words are sometimes a bit formal. If certain others don’t like it, tough titties for them. Keep it up, and don’t be such a stranger.
Ricky seems like a good bloke, and would probably be fun to have a drink with. (As long as he didn’t keep bangin’ on about all that commo-pinko-bolshy garbage.) But Sancty has pwned him on this topic.
“Don’t be. I enjoy following the thought process behind your (and others’) arguments, ”
The thought process being looking at the entire testimony not just 20 second grabs ?
“Ricky seems like a good bloke, and would probably be fun to have a drink with. ”
Yes Yes
I’d be happy to walk into a pub and Ricky go off to the Gents and me tell the barman/woman
“I’ll have a Cascade and he’d like a pint of hemlock “
“not just 20 second grabs?”
Or 140 character talking-points. 😉
Not that Ricky is a twit, I think. That’s more the playground of others here.
Mmmm, hemlock.
Call what you like…Join the dots, what do you think this shit works in a chain of command and due process? Allegations.. substantiate…nah mate thats lawyer speak.? I just know what I know, what i’ve been told and I’ve seen the fallout of Pell dealing with the mess of 50 years or maybe more before him…believe what you want, he’s conveniently vanishing to the vatican because he’s an ace financial wiz and they need him over there to do the books. Far be it from me to impugn the good cardinal, our Prime minister’s moral mentor’s character. After all he is a man of the cloth and a pillar of virtuous morality who would never exude untruth, especially in the face of such injustice.
Me either bring it on… lets waist some of that money they are cuttin from aboriginal legal services, fuck they don’t deserve it, its racist that they have it anyway. We should have a Dupont color chart as a qualifier anyway. .. Maybe sack a few of those commo chalkies to pay a few of Bandidos’s silk mates.
Yes ToSy
But ToM will probably come home from dinner soon and say Hemlock needs to be fucking aged or decanted into a crystal glass like a fucking bottle of Hill of Grace
Otherwise it’s for wimps he’d say
Chances are I’d be playin there and I’d call security when I saw a bloke at the bar in his slippers ordering a pims and lemonade with a bitter twist 🙂
Anyway, in other news, Li’l Miss Sancty pushed her ice cream away and demanded (and I mean demanded!!!) more of my shepherds pie tonight. Poor Mrs Sancty had to concede one.
Nobody has been able to answer TB’s question to egg I note, although some have voiced their agreement with egg, but without explanation.
How unsurprisement.
Back to my dancing I guess
Did someone mention Bowlers Green before? Isnt that the shit they were selling for 2 bucks a bottle at lick her land? Turn your Boscaiola sour as Bronwyn’s cottontails ?
What was TB’s question? I’ll answer it. I’m clever.
I don’t know what a god would say, if anything. You see, I am agnostic (I think). I say that anyone who interferes with a child is beneath contempt as are those who cover such acts up. I believe Pell did neither.
😆 😆
The funnies just keep coming … each phrase is such a clever little blister just waiting to be popped … oh the pain! 🙂
Did someone mention Bowlers Green before?
Chuckle … $2.80 (in six) @ Uncle Dan’s …
Oh, and its Bowlers Run …
Yep it will make ya run alright… I was commenting that it adds a tang to cooking usually reserved for the laundry lumps after a good night on thommo’s amex..
I’d imagine you’d cut a good rug Walrus, you seem to foxtrot around the subject pretty skillfully, lacking a bit of execution though..who’s ya partner tonight on dancing with Faux pas Pauline Hanson? 🙂
I’ve never heard of bowlers run. It sounds dreadful.
I was at a lunch recently and was offered rose, I said -‘apparently it is good for getting the bugs off the windscreen’
And TB tags in. Got any specifics oh wise one?
“….who’s ya partner tonight on dancing with Faux pas Pauline Hanson? ….”
Funny you say that
It was someone from a very elevated position within the England’s PS
Well known there
Not at all here
She’s a head of a certain major foundation as we’ll
I do wish I got penalty rates
It was via a long phone call
That’s why I disappeared for a time
Why did you miss me Ricky ?
LOL
“She’s a head of a certain major foundation as we’ll”
I meant “ex head”
“And TB tags in. Got any specifics oh wise one?”
I think egg challenged him about his recent trip
But no answer
I think TB has forgotten already
You know how it can be Sancty
LOL
No matter what you politics are we are all the same.
Even on a non political subject like football let’s say the AFL and James Hird or NRL and “that tackle” every dick like us will then form a defence or attack and completely drop any ALP or LNP alliance and stand as one
But we do like the Circus to move to Canberra during the week
Lets be honest , both parties are full of fuckwits… except that Aboott has taken political fuckwittery to new stratospheric heights..I think he fancies himself as a monarchist vanilla version of morgarbe. one of my good school mates is a liberal branch prez..we meet once a month for a beer and he detests him with such passion he make me look like an armature, Most little L liberals are not happy.. and rightfully so, hort man did get a good one in though. Abbott was pissed off
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-battered-and-ridiculed-over-knighthoods-and-changes-to-racial-discrimination-act/story-fncynjr2-1226866294708
armature.. yeah i do get wound up about predictive text…lol
ABSTUDY is discriminatory and racist.
Now, egg … tell me why?
Some homework for egg on the weekend perhaps?
Lets be honest , both parties are full of fuckwits
Never a truer word said.
ABSTUDY discriminates on the basis of race, we call it Positive Discrimination.
(Even now, I still find it a little intriguing that Cardinal Pell would appear to choose to revisit ex ex cathedra and a(p)proximately the (in)adequate terms of the so-called ‘Elliss shield’ and its consequents, which his arguably muddling, bumbling quasi-agents arguably so grotesquely managed to establish both with and contrary to his fullsome, if somewhat inattentive awareness, immediately before his latest busy-nesses of last Mass as Archbishop for the Diocese of Sydney and elevation from this antipodean temporal jurisdiction to his/not his new financo-spiritual jurisdiction at the Holy See; and to appear to choose as entirely logical and agreeable that, in like or in other cases, the Church and churches should be able to take out insurance against being likeways or otherways sued in future, if any statutory body were to miraculously occur and to recommend or to effect an unsettling of the status quo in the apportionment of community(ies) liability(ies); and to appear to choose that outcome as being most suit-able in all of the circumstances, given the recent obvious intensity of manifest personal committment(s) to giving and to taking responsibility, and given the extant rather more general committment of the Church to attend fully to such matters, of its own volition, anyway. Yet, it must be said, I am no lawyer and no theologian, and so, therefore, I am happy to leave to others more capable the not inconsiderable task(s) of unravelling socio-legal happenings nearly beyond my understanding; not least, ultimately, for the disgracefully distasteful subject matter(s) underlying diversion(s) of first (re)collection(s).)
we call it Positive Discrimination.
I don’t disagree with that, but when you associate it with racism, as you did, it becomes negative discrimination. Therefore, are you able to explain your remark in the manner in which you presented it?
‘…demanded!!!) more of my shepherds pie tonight.’
Congrats! A signature dish.
of unravelling socio-legal happenings nearly beyond my understanding;
And of course, if they unravel it against you, you can always have a massive, public and fully right-wing supported hissy fit, and try and get the law changed to suit your dummy spit. 😉
‘…but when you associate it with racism, as you did, it becomes negative discrimination.’
Perhaps using the word ‘racist’ was over the top, I was giving voice to a lot of ‘white trash’ who feel badly done by.
Perhaps using the word ‘racist’ was over the top
Perhaps?
In other words, would you agree then that ABSTUDY does discriminate, but in a positive way? And that it is not racist, in any way?
I would also wonder if others who offered supporting comments for your initial one will agree with my last statement also, or do they have another view of it?
‘And that it is not racist, in any way?’
Yeah OK, I retract my racist slur.
I think, Meta, what he was advocating was a single statutory body investigate all claims and determine appropriate compensation. I don’t think he was advocating that the comp be taxpayer funded, or even the cost of that stat body.
Years from now I can see Australia becoming extremely successful because of the Chinese and Indian immigration flood. Maybe then the government will have in place a Dinky-di Study program for the earlier black and white inhabitants.
‘A FORMER member of John Howard’s indigenous advisory council, Wesley Aird, says the current anti-racial vilification regime has done nothing to stop racism within the Aboriginal community.
‘Throwing his support behind the push to scrap section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, Mr Aird said yesterday the amendments proposed by Attorney-General George Brandis were needed to bring the act into alignment with the “expectations of mainstream Australian society”.
Karvelas and Ferguson / Oz
OK, I retract my racist slur.
Big of you egg
Maybe then the government will have in place a Dinky-di Study program for the earlier black and white inhabitants.
I guess that would depend on how much of our possessions they forcibly take in their conquest, and how much their ongoing policies as overlords marginalise and belittle us?
the “expectations of mainstream Australian society”
I guess it is “mainstream” if you are mainlining the ipa blue candy.
‘….ongoing policies as overlords marginalise and belittle us?’
It comes back to economic opportunity, when our middle class next eggs become peanuts, with old money swamped by new.
nest egg *
Missing the point again egg. Or just looking over there?
And TB tags in. Got any specifics oh wise one?
er, James, if anyone here “tags in” its you … I noticed you “tagged in” this month … coincidentally while I was overseas … ?
Anyway for your edification lets pop this little blister as a sampler …
You see, I am agnostic (I think).
Try reading it a couple of times and then tell me what the rest of us should conclude …
=========================================
I think egg challenged him about his recent trip
But no answer
I think TB has forgotten already
You know how it can be Sancty
I KNOW I challenged, egg, over Abstudy – brought, finally to a conclusion above by JJ … thanks to you both … egg, JJ
And I certainly know how it can be with you, yer Wally …
‘Or just looking over there?’
Putting things in perspective by glancing ahead.
In regards to ABSTUDY there were grumblings further west of where I live because half the town folk are of aboriginal descent, but nobody in their right mind could argue against the benefits in lifting the most disadvantaged, no matter what the cost.
The incarceration rate for the young indigenous population is a national disgrace and needs urgent attention. To stem this tide the Abbott government intends offering incentives to parents to make sure their children get to school, imagining that if they are better educated there will be economic opportunity and the gaols eventually emptied.
So, egg, what’s the difference in pay rates for Abstudy and Austudy?
To stem this tide the Abbott government intends offering incentives to parents to make sure their children get to school, imagining that if they are better educated there will be economic opportunity and the gaols eventually emptied.
What a wonderful imagining …
What a wonderful imagining …
i’ve been imagining the same for 25 years.
the cause won’t be helped by attacking on a racial basis, the very few who have made it into academic ranks, no word about performance or their work, purely their colour [or lack of]
‘what’s the difference in pay rates for Abstudy and Austudy?’
A quick google showed a difference of around $90.
Even those who try to satirise racism can come unstuck. The very popular colbert has had a twitterstorm of people ‘not getting it”
Did you hear about the daily terror’s self censorship to protect tony abbott?
They had an article up of abbot ruling out any reintroduction of knights and dames and then pulled it. After a social media storm they reinstated it the next day. A good example of the protection racket being run on abbott’s behalf and news corpse bias.
http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/now-you-see-it/
Samantha Maiden is a standout journalist and it was poor judgement by the Murdocracy.
the original item from dec 22, 2013
http://blog.gerbilnow.com/2014/03/pm-tony-abbott-rules-out-reinstating.html
I guess it’s not really a lie or a backflip with twist, tuck and double somersault, if it comes from abbott. In that case, draw no attention and look the other way.
malcolm farr:
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-battered-and-ridiculed-over-knighthoods-and-changes-to-racial-discrimination-act/story-fncynjr2-1226866294708
Mr Abbott is tough enough to withstand being called a bully, or even cruel. But he doesn’t like being ridiculed.
If anyone doubts this, they just need to refer to Question Time yesterday when the Prime Minister rose to complain that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was humming Rule Britannia at him.
It was a display of excessive sensitivity — to a low-grade taunt — unworthy of a Prime Minister.
Certainly of one who this week argued people shouldn’t think they need to be protected from being offended.
Hands up all the Black fellas? anyone? sorry…
Well I guess if Sir Pository of wisdom can speak for all women because as he stated, you dont need a vagina to make womens decisions, just being one is enough.. then you guys are all good to be experts on blackfella’s then….. after all we have a licence now 🙂
Reverse discrimination.. Egg is a a professional pisstaker…
‘The concept of reverse discrimination has two different views: a broad sense and a narrow sense. In a broad sense, it refers to discrimination against Whites or males in employment, education, and any other areas of life. In a narrow sense, reverse discrimination refers to the negative impact Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two views are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation.’
Wiki
‘Egg is a a professional pisstaker…’
I find that comment quite offensive.
For a start I’m an amateur in that line of work. My problem is the smiling face attached to my words make me look like a professional pisstaker.
Ricky how can I change my persona? Gravatar.
#oh-snacky”””””””””
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/03/26/why-bigotry-is-not-ok-mr-brandis/#comment-50597
I don’t know what a god would say, if anything. You see, I am agnostic (I think).””””””””’
yeah, of course you`re agnostic oh-snacky 🙄 ,
l don`t know how l could have possibly missed that,
.
.
oh-snacky””””””I say that anyone who interferes with a child is beneath contempt as are those who cover such acts up. I believe Pell did neither.””””””””””
that`s very `agnostic` of you 🙄
””””””””””
http://truthinmediaresourcecentre.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/now-you-see-it/
””””””””””’
haha armchair, yes, got this in my mail too, 🙂
yet another example of Limited-News really being `advertising` troll-farm, and not a `true` news organization by a long way, to those who want `real` news anyway,
on the upside, these examples continue to reinforce the absolute `need` of my ABC 🙂
Too bad the teabaggers let the rats outa the trap so I’m good to go, its rats bandis rules now
Egg link your wordpress to Gravitar.com
as opposed to walrus.commo
https://en.gravatar.com/
Thanx, I’ll look at doing it later.
A quick google showed a difference of around $90.
Yeah?? I’d like to see the link(s) … talk about BS …
FYI, egg, we ALL have access to Google … 🙄
What’s happened to the smileys?
WordPress problem.
On the difference been payments, its hard to track down, but here is a simple version.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_austudy_and_abstudy?#slide=1
Can’t say if its reliable.
Can’t say if its reliable.
Ya got that bit right, egg … 90 bucks is a pretty simplistic reply … and not everyone is eligible for Abstudy or Austudy … although the super rich can play silly buggers for their kids if they have a Family Trust … ask our resident CPA*, Wally …
Fuck you guys are useless
Factor in rent assistance and they are about even steven or stephenie (no sexism here)
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/abstudy/payment-rates
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/austudy
I will wait with due anticipation for the teabaggers to rabbit on about the but but but…
You see, I am agnostic (I think).
Try reading it a couple of times and then tell me what the rest of us should conclude …
=========================================
Well what do you conclude from that, oh wise one?
What it means is that I’m not a practising Catholic, or even Christian. I find the whole teaching contradictory. But I’m pretty convinced that there’s some kind of spiritual thing going on but I have no idea what it is.
I’m more a believer than an atheist. I think atheism is about the most stupid -ism going around. So label that.
”””””””””I’m pretty convinced that there’s some kind of spiritual thing going on but I have no idea what it is.””””””””
l`ve noticed the same thing at parties with plenty of choof.
99 % atheist 1% agnostic,, nobody’s ever came back and it would be rather nonacademic of me to not leave a window opehow small (and i’m being very generous) however based on reading t
he new testament twice (fuck what a boring pile of shit)
the old testament ( much better than the remake)
The quran ( fuck that one was a cracker)..
i’m out. I don’t do religion. It aint for me,,,My religion is music, its my salvation, the revelator and the purifier all in one…Fairy tails are for people who are into guilty self flagellation…
Well ya`did better than me Ricky. l tried to read the bible and l found in to be largely `wordy` gibberish so l soon gave up. l think people that have actually read it, and are not previously indoctrinated, have completed quite a task. Did you end up getting anything `useful` or `meaningful` from reading them.?
So did any of you observe Earthour ?
Well yeah I did in fact. I tend to (within reason) try and understand why I think a certain way and why people have a predisposition to think a certain way. I studied a lot of philosophy and psychology before my last two degrees as a process to inform my writing, specifically script and song writing.
You would be very very surprised who rips shit strait outa the bible. The second time I read the bible through was after a songwriting boot camp my publisher got me on. There were a few very famous song smiths there and they all had one thing in common. They were atheists and they stole shit strait outa the bible… Nick Cave is renowned for it, its all the way through his cataloger. I thought damn I gotta re read this sucker with a new thief’en and a pillage’en perspective. So it was self servin. The Qouren is shit for material unless you wanna rite shit about goats 🙂
Plus my cousin studied to be a minister and I owned him in theology debates which was fun.. Being an atheist is not something I arrived at lightly I’m a pretty spiritual and despite my rock and roll ways of the past, have led quite a moral life, well expect for the excessive fucking, drinking of fine liquor and a few mind expanding substances along the way. Actually cant wait to tour this new record, best band I have ever had by a long shot. Now days its all pretty sedate, especially the folk festivals, which are really great to play at with nice crowds. Beats beer pits, which I refuse to do anymore.
What a crock..ahh no..I was recording guitar parts, we had 4 computers on every light in the house on, going, my rig on ear splitting volume…we looked like the starship enterprise.. earth hour…feelgood nonsense.
kum-bar-yah teabags
Ah Ricky your comments about Earthhour remind me of one of TS Eliot’s poetic observations:
‘Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness’.
Ahh Dianne, I love The Rock…
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance,
All our ignorance brings us nearer to death
Yeah, excuse my extreme cynicism but i’m not big on the whole earth hour thing. An earth fucking corporation turns out the lights in an office block as a token gesture then uses 500 times the power turning it back on again when they would use less by using them on in the first place is a little counter intuitive and ironic for mine..
It reminds me of those women in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney waiting for their children double parked in their 4 wheel drives outside schools, talking on their mobiles, with an Ipad on their lap and the aircon going with a greenpeace sticker on the window sipping a soy milk latte. They pick up their kids cause perish the thought the little fuckers might break a fingernail, dirty their uniform, kick a ball in the wrong designated area or be called a name walking home.
Earth hour? there are 24 hours in a long day.
Whoops posted before cntl x editing but you get the drift
……or be grabbed by a pedo…
I am not big on it either. Did not know it was on as I don’t watch the box these days.
The above is for Ricky.
Well what do you conclude from that, oh wise one?
What it means is that I’m not a practising Catholic, or even Christian. I find the whole teaching contradictory. But I’m pretty convinced that there’s some kind of spiritual thing going on but I have no idea what it is.
I’m more a believer than an atheist. I think atheism is about the most stupid -ism going around. So label that.
… then you are a believer …
… atheists are deniers …
Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve … we can see no evidence to support that there is a supreme being or there is not … no heaven no hell … just a beautiful planet with mostly lovely people … occasionally fkd up by people who want to control others …
As an aside my dislike of organised religion is based generally upon their arrogance and hypocrisy of behaviour … nothing to do with my agnosticism …they are two entirely different issues … that tends to confuse some people here …
You don’t have to be “wise” to figure that out … just logical … and thanks for sharing your thoughts (seriously) …
As an aside my dislike of organised religion is based generally upon their arrogance and hypocrisy of behaviour … nothing to do with my agnosticism …they are two entirely different issues … that tends to confuse some people here
You don’t think that’s judging a collective by the actions of a few? You see, I could easily, in fact even more so, apply that logic to atheists. At least the believers acknowledge that their belief depends on faith. Atheists, speaking very generally, seem to adopt quite the air of superior intellect, without good foundation in my view.
‘atheists are deniers’
We reckon there is no universal deity, which liberates the mind to imagine endless other possibilities.
The big bang theory gives the believers sustenance, but within a few short years the science should be able to see the moment it all began. If they discover that it was just a couple of ‘Branes’ coming together, then the religious may give up all hope of ever understanding the meaning of everything.
my dislike of organised religion
Yes, most of them seem to wander a very long way from the original principles and beliefs.
Adding to what I said.
‘Most mainstream religious denominations have long ago accepted the idea of the Big Bang happening almost 14 billion years ago as the moment of creation, even if it might conflict with the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. According to an essay on the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church on both the Big Bang and evolution, both Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II accepted the idea of the Big Bang as the moment of creation.’
Mark Whittington
Organised religion. Organised labour. Organised economies. Organised science.
I’ve got it! Ban organisation!
“Atheists, speaking very generally, seem to adopt quite the air of superior intellect, without good foundation in my view.”
Really? I don’t recall I’ve ever seen an atheist or gaggle of them, ever attempt to tell other people how to live their lives according to some little black book (or their own interpretation of it)…. dog botherers on the other hand….well, we all know what they’re like…
”””””You don’t think that’s judging a collective by the actions of a few?”””””
dog club collectives do that all the time,
(if ya`don`t follow my dog ya`will burn in hell)
””””’I could easily, in fact even more so, apply that logic to atheists.”””””
You do realize that `atheists/agnostics` are NOT an organized dog-club or `group`.?
S8 Abortion Law Reform Act.
””’S8 Abortion Law Reform Act.””’
what`s that mean snacky.? is it a reply to something.?
“Really? I don’t recall I’ve ever seen an atheist or gaggle of them, ever attempt to tell other people how to live their lives according to some little black book”
I believe it was actually a red book for atheists. I have been approached by several atheists/communists trying to convince me of their beliefs.
If you want to live in North Korea i will make a contribution to your airfare.
‘Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion.’
Its only natural, but sometimes it leads to groupthink and disastrous consequences.
Kneel, will you ever contribute a worthwhile comment?
Not all communists are atheists and not all atheists are communists …
I’ve just travelled through three people’s republics (what a silly name) – communist countries – and I got sick of looking at Buddhist temples and being brainwashed about religion both Hindu and Buddhism …
And at no time have I attempted to “convert” anyone to agnosticism …
… but I have vented my anger at the (mostly catliks) who’ve tried to fk up my life to their advantage … mainly because of their twisted take on what’s actually right and what’s wrong … and the salvation provided once a week, by a little man in a black dress and a funny collar telling them that its OK if they tell lies, cheat and deceive to get their own way … and then give them a “punishment” that is really difficult to do … say 17 hail Mary’s and jump up and down 42 times and all will be well … how fkn intellectual …
Does a priest ever tell people to stop telling fkn lies instead? And why must people have to be told these things? How fkn childish …
””””I believe it was actually a red book for atheists.””””””
l have never had a `red-book` dopey. _ #teabags
“You do realize that `atheists/agnostics` are NOT an organized dog-club or `group`.?”
While it is hard to imagine groups coming together on the basis of what they believe does not exist it seems that they do.
You have various rationalist and secular groups like Sydney Atheists and The Atheist Foundation of Australia.
We had Richard Dawkins hot-gospelling at the regular Atheist Convention in Melbourne and at “Reason” Rallies around the world, whipping up a frenzy among the crowd of true unbelievers wherever he goes.
And then you have the regimes based on a materialist ideology who actively and violently suppress religion.
And that is before we get to the Gaia worshipers and the rapidly growing host of secular religions. When people stop believing in god, they don’t believe in nothing. It seems they are prepared to believe in anything.
Bigotry 101:
“mainly because of their twisted take on what’s actually right and what’s wrong … and the salvation provided once a week, by a little man in a black dress and a funny collar telling them that its OK if they tell lies, cheat and deceive to get their own way … and then give them a “punishment” that is really difficult to do … say 17 hail Mary’s and jump up and down 42 times and all will be well … how fkn intellectual …
Does a priest ever tell people to stop telling fkn lies instead? And why must people have to be told these things? How fkn childish …”
I believe in what you have just said SB.
Well said.
It seems they are prepared to believe in anything.
Yea, like science and other crazy ideologies 😯
Dianne???
Jiggy, it is more like calling what you believe in science. In the old days religion was a source of authority – probably why it was fostered by the state. Nowadays those seeking a “shut-up and believe” approach to politics try to cloak their agenda in the garb of science, as the AGW crowd is want to do. When those curious enough examine the garment it turns out not to be woven from the cloth of “science” at all.
In this small chatroom on the banks of the Yarra there is strong opinion, its a microcosm of the larger world. A variety of views, often irrational and chaotic, intended to strengthen individual bias through groupthink.
Splatter has the best brain here for wit, depth and clarity of expression.
it turns out not to be woven from the cloth of “science” at all.
That is your “belief”, unfortunately not supported by reality. Much like religions are.
Comparing modern science with religious authoritarianism of the past is being extremely misleading, as science is always open to new and conflicting positions, if the evidence supports it. This is why AGW has become accepted now, whereas back 40 or 50 years ago, it was a fringe concept. Not because of “belief”, but because of evidence.
Science adapts to evidence. Religions don’t.
“as science is always open to new and conflicting positions, if the evidence supports it”
Which is precisely why AGW is more of a religion.
No Spatter . Strongly disagree this time.
‘as science is always open to new and conflicting positions’
Its adversarial and individuals who have built careers on theories don’t like to see them pulled down by outliers. So they shore up as best they can and pray they got it right.
Which is precisely why AGW is more of a religion.
The worlds scientific organizations disagree with your belief there Splatterbottom, as does the amount of evidence supporting the theory against any evidence that support otherwise.
So they shore up as best they can and pray they got it right.
Sounds a lot like what big oil is doing.
JJ, I would argue that AGW has so much “blind faith” attached to it, together with apocalyptic predictions, tithing, lack of permitted questioning, failure of prophesies to stack up to historical experience, requirement for confession and absolution etc etc that it compares very well with certain religions. Indeed, it is as though the bible has been plagiarised.
The only difference I can see is that the churches, at least to some degree, allocate some of their amassed wealth to things like hospitals, education, and welfare for the world’s poor.
Ah, that’s better Dianne. I was getting disoriented for a moment there.
Feynman on science.
Sale of indulgences as well, James. Funnily enough Al Gore has made a motza selling them.
I would argue that AGW has so much “blind faith” attached to it
So, the volumes of evidence that makes up the IPCC assessment is “blind faith”? Is that what you are arguing?
I don’t disagree that there are many claimed made that are “apocalyptic”. What is generally forgotten with these claims is that they are “worst case” scenarios, yet they are highlighted by a media hungry for sensationalism, and especially highlighted when they do not occur (although “worst case” indicates that the probability of that occurring was low in the first place)
lack of permitted questioning
Are you able to highlight this lack? As the peer review is quite open and extensive, and the science is being not only questioned, but actively challenged daily. Unfortunate, it doesn’t get challenged very often in scientific journals due to lack of scientific evidence from my understanding.
If you want to be rich and famous, locate and present the evidence that disproves all of the amassed evidence that supports the theory. It can’t be that hard?
‘So, the volumes of evidence that makes up the IPCC assessment is “blind faith”?’
The models have replaced the black and red books, but the principle is the same.
‘As the peer review is quite open’
No, its closed to heretics.
‘they are highlighted by a media hungry for sensationalism’
Aunty is top of the pops in that regard, while the Murdocracy is generally sceptical and not inclined towards lurid apocalyptic weather stories.
the principle is the same.
Please explain, with evidence.
No, its closed to heretics.
As my reply further above
Are you able to highlight this
‘Please explain, with evidence.’
You’ll have to step out the back for a more detailed discussion. I’m skating on thin ice on this fred.
Your actually funny (in the head)
I tell ya this blog is the pressy that just keeps giving. We have bush theologists, bush lawyers and bush scientists…
Yes very very very very generally. I’m still shaking my head at that one….Are you attempting to trum Kneel in statements of stupidity or taking the piss? Hope for your sake its the later.
If more people of reasoned intellect actually read the source documents, they would have less tendency to attach the prejudices and agenda of others to every issue. This is the mass hypnosis of this current fluffament, concur nd divide…Oh except you Kneelly wheely bin, we know your limitations (red book atheists, still pissing myself with that one)
The latest IPCC report…
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/
I see Hokey Pokey is out there today using every slogan in the book..heavy lifting, roll up socks, expectation, mandate…deficit bad surplus good… preferring not to mention that the figures he is quoting relate to the forward estimates of the previous government..oh look we are on track for a surplus…pass the donuts 🙄
Egg do not discuss that report here (at least read it) go over in your CO2 corner… 🙂
The contrarian blogosphere will take it apart and I’ll seek out the salient points and stick it up out the back.
PM Tony Abbott says there are some places in Australia that simply aren’t important enough for a PM To visit….
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-28/remarks-reception-following-swearing-26th-governor-general-australia-parliament
So basically if the GG turns up, it’s Tony’s way of telling you that you’re second rate…
And if you get neither, just consider yourself lucky 😉
Have the media not caught onto that story yet reb? Perhaps they all had a big weekend getting told there was no new news about a plane?
“Have the media not caught onto that story yet reb?”
Unlikely JJ…. The media (and the rest of Australia) are more concerned about what Manu thought of the pana cotta dessert on MKR….
and the rest of Australia
That’s a pretty broad statment reb. Some of us are actually more interested in who passed out on The B(ol)lock.
“PM Tony Abbott says there are some places in Australia that simply aren’t important enough for a PM To visit….”
Mainly Green-infested inner city enclaves.
I can’t believe Abbott said that. He really does have a tin ear!
A bad choice of words, he needs a ghost writer.
””””””Richard Dawkins hot-gospelling at the regular Atheist Convention””””””(splatter)
yeah splatter, l wasn`t being absolute about it,
but l still reckon these `groups` are the minority, the `majority` of non-believers don`t belong to `any` of these groups,
Dawkins, and the groups he orbits, will be made-up of pissed-off scientists and teachers that have had dog-club inject itself into science-labs and biology classes, to peddle their dogs anti-evolution clap-trap
”””””””””””””’mainly because of their twisted take on what’s actually right and what’s wrong … and the salvation provided once a week, by a little man in a black dress and a funny collar telling them that its OK if they tell lies, cheat and deceive to get their own way … and then give them a “punishment” that is really difficult to do … say 17 hail Mary’s and jump up and down 42 times and all will be well … how fkn intellectual …
Does a priest ever tell people to stop telling fkn lies instead? And why must people have to be told these things? How fkn childish””””””””’
l agree splatter, well said, it is a disgrace that dog club absolves perpetrators of child-abuse and itself of cover-ups, with a few `hail-mary`s
(over to you oh-snacky)
The forthright display of pig ignorant ideology by the usual experts in sophistry is underwhelming.
yeah, of course decades of studied and measured atmospheric climate change is the same as a faith based religious belief in the existence of invisible supernatural beings.
The deniers can’t produce any evidence of their own so they have to attack the science and scientists. They are the same with atheists, they can’t prove their own assertions so they try to deny darwin and evolution, deny the scientists who have got the data, stats and research based evidence behind them. These same people use and accept scientific research in every aspect of their daily lives, yet can all of a sudden reject one area of scientific endeavour, that’s the ultimate disconnect.
I agree with others who say that climate change denial is a crime against humanity and the people funding and producing this denial-for-profit propaganda should be prosecuted and jailed, their actions being treasonous and duplicitous.
When abbott & co were in opposition, they thundered to all and sundry about how bad it was to leave a debt to future generations, funny how when in government they couldn’t care less about the even greater cost to future generations of cleaning up their toxic shit.
The contrarian blogosphere will take it apart and I’ll seek out the salient points and stick it up out the back.
They will cherry pick and misrepresent the work of climate scientists as they always do. Their claims will be immediately shown up for the lies and deceptions that they always are. What they won’t do is provide any evidence of their own to prove any of their assertions, as always.
Thanks for that, I’ll take it out the back.
Holy Mother of Mercy, I’m committing a crime against humanity. Off to The Hague I go.
FFS.
“I agree with others who say that climate change denial is a crime against humanity and the people funding and producing this denial-for-profit propaganda should be prosecuted and jailed, their actions being treasonous and duplicitous.”
Climate Scientists hold the key to our salvation. The Denialati are agents of the Devil.
nice rant armchair, but don`t get too worked up over `our` teabags and the paid to comment trolls around here,
you only have to know the `whole worlds` shellfish industry`s are suffering from ocean acidification, and their `marine`departments know this,
industry and departments on `same` page, `world-wide`,
(the teabags always flee from this armchair)
Does a priest ever tell people to stop telling fkn lies instead? And why must people have to be told these things? How fkn childish””””””””’
The ‘believers’ are the ones who most need salvation and redemption on a regular weekly basis, for the rest of the week they are lying thieving merciless hypocritical rogues and scoundrels. They donate some money to church & charity to be told they are not to feel guilty about being the worst of the worst, they are not responsible for anything that they do, being so humanly flawed with greed and bigotry. All is forgiven, then they can go out and do it all again. Who wouldn’t want a great system like that?
Holy Mother of Mercy, I’m committing a crime against humanity. Off to The Hague I go.
just keep telling yourself that you know more than all those scientists put together and are onto ‘the game’ they are playing against the world order – something to do with a giant ‘white coat’ conspiracy by the most dutiful, diligent, smart and respected people in the world. They must be communists who are trying to socialise wealth. They could possibly be muslim terrorist sympathisers too. Every white christian soldier to the barricades, it’s a war!
FFS 🙄
that’ll show ’em
You’ll have to step out the back for a more detailed discussion. I’m skating on thin ice on this fred.
Glad you noticed … can you do the fawning out there too …
+++++++++++++++++++++
I can’t believe Abbott said that. He really does have a tin ear!
You still can’t believe it?!
And its not his ear that’s the problem its his whole fkn tin head …
+++++++++++++++++++++
l agree splatter, well said, it
LOL! I suggest you read the comments a little more slowly and closely, Tbag … and remember – age is just a number … 🙂
Um, I think Tony Abbott might have been taking the piss out of himself and the position he holds…. But don’t let that stop the hate…
”””LOL! I suggest you read the comments a little more slowly and closely, Tbag””
it`s ok TB, l agree with you too 🙂
Tony Abbott taking the piss? And out of himself … the guffaws keep comin’ … Tones is a hero in Marvel Comics … dontcha know …
The ‘believers’ are the ones who most need salvation and redemption on a regular weekly basis, for the rest of the week they are lying thieving merciless hypocritical rogues and scoundrels. They donate some money to church & charity to be told they are not to feel guilty about being the worst of the worst, they are not responsible for anything that they do, being so humanly flawed with greed and bigotry. All is forgiven, then they can go out and do it all again. Who wouldn’t want a great system like that?
There’s that “non bigotry” again.
There’s that “non bigotry” again.
There are none so blind …
Them’s facts agnostic (I think) …
When I was an apprentice one of the apprentices I worked with had to go to confession every Friday – so he could go down the coast and play up … hypocrisy … bigotry … nah FACT …
looks like oh-snacky has got me,
l am a bigot against stupidity,
the way around this.? oh-snacky will stop spraying me with his `stupidity` and l will have no reason to spray oh-snacky with my `bigotry` 🙂
“There’s that “non bigotry” again.”
I thought you had recently declared that you were “no longer a Cathlick”
So why should you give a shit?
its his whole fkn tin head …
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
I think Tony Abbott might have been taking the piss
Yea, he’s only messing with the heads of those not worthy 😯
”””I thought you had recently declared that you were “no longer a Cathlick”””’
l really doubt that oh-snacky has reached that level of `enlightenment`, reality, or `other`, tho l do believe he is working hard at it. Recovering from dog-club is not something that will happen over-night from what l`ve seen of others. lt is a long, drawn-out process of gradual immersion into reality.
long, drawn-out process of gradual immersion into reality.
Yes, Tbag, you’re right … its a bit like smoking – the best solution is not to start at all … once you do, it takes some time to go straight (apologies Sreb) …
I started smoking at 11 and went cold turkey at 32 … I felt like a fag (apologies Sreb – not intentional) for nine years …
Same reason I give a shit about anyone else discriminated against. I have a lot of Catholic friends, as I have gay friends, female friends, friends of various ethnic groups. I like my mates.
Also the Catholics saved this country from the Commies once before. I’d like to keep them around in case they’re needed again.
2014 IPCC Report: “Year on year increase in crop yields is declining.”
Then crop yields are still increasing? Nice.
“Also the Catholics saved this country from the Commies once before. “
Whatevs…. Recently pronounced non-Cathlick apologist snacty…
FFS… 🙄
I wouldn’t count on big george, he’s been yanked to the safety and sanctuary of rome alongside the other child abuse enablers. He may not want to come back in case he gets served.
Nuns are nice too.
George Pell can suck my cock….
But I guess I’d better take a number first.
(before he goes overseas for his European cocksucking tour)..
Whatevs…. Recently pronounced non-Cathlick apologist snacty…
I’d rip into, James, at one time … but its really pathetically sad … (the catliks saved us from the commies … and I have female friends … WTF!)
George Pell can suck my cock….
You would not believe the look on my face … (imagine sucking on a lemon …)
That’s heavy shit – even for this blog, Measter! ugh!
“but its really pathetically sad … (the catliks saved us from the commies … and I have female friends)
I agree TB. It is pathetic.
And frankly I can't be bothered debating the stupid c**t anymore …
Hey Pell, when you’ve finished your “European Tour” don’t forget to put your teeth back in! I’m tired of reading about your lost dentures in the lost property bins of gay saunas…
‘can you do the fawning out there too …’
Don’t you mean pander?
Don’t you mean pander?
I’d settle for answer!
Some interesting stats on 457 visas in WA
‘I’d like to keep them around in case they’re needed again.’
Too late to keep the Commies out, they are coming in by the plane load and they already have plans on the books to build mega apartment blocks in our capital cities to cope with mass immigration.
In a couple of decades the whole island will be overrun with atheists.
And the Japanese have been banned from whaling
Well done Tony Abbott 😯
And frankly I can’t be bothered debating the stupid c**t anymore …
You can debate with him?
(My grandson’s HS debating team won last Friday … they are doing really well this year … very proud)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t you mean pander?
No I mean fawning … http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fawning
If I meant pandering … http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pandering … I would have said pandering … put words into my fkn mouth again and suffer the consequences … its a trait of too many people around here … http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pissed-off
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Too late to keep the Commies out, they are coming in by the plane load … In a couple of decades the whole island will be overrun with atheists.
Another closet believer … why do they all vote wankers in to government?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wanker
And the Japanese have been banned from whaling
Prove it JJ
I saw it on 24. You can take my word for it, it’s good 😉
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Japan’s whaling program is not for scientific purposes and has forbidden the granting of further permits.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-31/ijc-japan-whaling-southern-ocean-scientific-research/5357416
Good news JJ …
No appeal is even better!
Locally the whale watching is big business! (‘scuse the pun)
TB
I know it appears like fawning, but toilet said I was pandering and I have a lot of respect for his good opinion. Its also true to say that not being a drunkard puts me at great disadvantage within this larrikin clique.
I can Free range Abbott is as mad as a cut snake
I love the confession absolution thing…cracks me up… What sort of idiot buys that? How does that work..Prick all week then Sunday..bingo clean slate? You would have to be one guilt ridden son of a bitch to cop that caper…
You’d have to prey Abbots ot with a crowbar first
What position is that? see above..He is all piss and no steam
” When people stop believing in god, they don’t believe in nothing. It seems they are prepared to believe in anything.”
Well, I can’t ignore that.
What an utter load of shit.
Believing in ‘nothing’ is a default from infancy.
Religion & its dogmatic ludicrousies must be programmed into an ’empty’ mind.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inculcate?s=t
I couldn’t care less about Dawkins, or any of the atheist smear groups you try to conjure. I knew that it was all a man imagined load of confection long before I’d even heard the word ‘Atheist’. I think you’ll find that the ready availability of information means that my kind is increasing exponentially; doesn’t that tell you something?
That only wilful ignorance keeps the myths alive? maybe.
I don’t get caught up in any of the other scams or clinging to cultish behaviour which you allude to either. I certainly don’t go and celebrate the non-reality of deities in public with likeminded people either. It’s just a given; there’s no need to build a shrine to it.
This, following, from Ricky, sums up my view fairly well…I’d only add that, for me, leaving the 1% is a pure philosophical tool…
”
99 % atheist 1% agnostic,, nobody’s ever came back and it would be rather nonacademic of me to not leave a window opehow small (and i’m being very generous) however based on reading t
he new testament twice (fuck what a boring pile of shit)
the old testament ( much better than the remake)
The quran ( fuck that one was a cracker)..i’m out. I don’t do religion. It aint for me”
I wouldn’t bother reading the quran, only because it seems like a cumbersome read full of defecation which I already recognise from the bible & comicbooks or heavily edited Reality TV.
fawning acquiescence I thought
You inferred it. Now, Pell had nothing to do with Dunn. Do you accept that? He never shifted a priest who he knew was suspected of abuse. Do you accept that? He never abused anyone sexually. Do you accept that?
badgering the witness your honour
Pell certainly covered up sexual abuse and supported known abusers whilst ignoring the victims.
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/160
…This Broken Rites article demonstrates how three Catholic Church leaders in Australia — Archbishop Francis Little, Archbishop George Pell and Archbishop Denis Hart — allowed a Melbourne priest (Father Barry Robinson) to continue ministering after he admitted having sex with a 16-year-old boy…
his own sexual abuse case was not proven, apparently not quite the same as being exonerated
Report of an inquiry into an allegation of sexual abuse against Archbishop George Pell:
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36
…Archbishop Pell returned to office, but he declined to be interviewed on this program. As a result, we were unable to ask how he could claim to have been exonerated, when the leading newspaper in the city where he’s the Archbishop says he has not been. Here’s the conclusion of the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of Wednesday, October 16….
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/pell-stands-discredited-his-failure-is-one-of-understanding-20080710-3d4o.html?skin=text-only
(No reading the Red Book(s)?)
The collective unconscious.
(Dunno; but it’s possibly a fair guess that anomalies lurking around in the extended annals of Pell’s Response, like the abandonment of due care demonstrated in not even following self-originated and adverted protocols for interacting with and responding to particularly vulnerable persons, might make positive reliance on the great legal victory of a unanimous decision of an Appeal Court somewhat akin to a peddling of the tainted fruit of a poisoned tree, with fuller knowledge of the factual matrix; perhaps.)
“Well, I can’t ignore that.”
Excellent. I’d be disappointed of you did!
“Religion & its dogmatic ludicrousies must be programmed into an ‘empty’ mind.”
Therre is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff. The blank slate is well and truly discredited now. Also included seems to be an affinity to religion.
“I knew that it was all a man imagined load of confection long before I’d even heard the word ‘Atheist’.”
Been there, done that. Thought Sunday School was BS and walked away from it early on.
“my kind is increasing exponentially; doesn’t that tell you something?”
Happens all the time especially with religions, not to mention AGW, the Kardashians, One Direction and the Spice Girls. Take your pick.
“That only wilful ignorance keeps the myths alive? maybe.”
Maybe. Or maybe not. I was an unhappy nihilistic atheist. For better or worse I feel I’ve had a happier life as a believer. Worked for me.
and walked away from it early on.
It is the ones not given that opportunity that I feel for. And now we have religious indoctrination is now being pedaled in the name of educational “choice”. What a crock of……
Well said
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/28/race-law-debate-touches-emotional-chord-in-parliament-and-out?CMP=twt_gu
“Stupid cunt?”
Fair enough.
““I think George saying this is about the rights of the bigots really laid bare the philosophy behind these changes.”
I think so to. Free speech, if it means anything at all, means hearing speech you don’t like.
Criminalising speech is not only wrong, it doesn’t work:
“Leave aside the fact it is insulting to Australians today to have any argument implicitly rest on the premise that we are somehow like Weimar Germany, and realise that, for more than a decade before Hitler came to power, the Weimar regime did have hate speech laws and did have prosecutions for anti-Semitic speech. Convictions, too. And that sort of ”suppress, suppress, suppress” mindset worked out how, exactly?”
Criminalising speech is not only wrong
Saying that is also wrong. it is not a criminal offense.
means hearing speech you don’t like.
Tell that to all the people being sued for defamation. We have been over this ground before, free speech is also not the right to say whatever you want without consequence.
“what I find missing, apart from the very offensive things in the debate, is empathy and compassion”
There’s that word again, “compassion”. Our moral and ethical betters on the left have tried (with some success) to own that word, and like to think they have a monopoly on the emotion it describes.
Therre (sic) is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff.
Well there was when I studied pedagogy and human learning … what do you think a human mind is pre-loaded with FFS … and who says so?
I think so to. Free speech, if it means anything at all, means hearing speech you don’t like.
As long as it is factual …
As long as it is factual …
There’s that word again, “factual” 😉
‘…what do you think a human mind is pre-loaded with FFS … and who says so?’
———-
‘In psychology, genetic memory is a memory present at birth that exists in the absence of sensory experience, and is incorporated into the genome over long spans of time.
‘It is based on the idea that common experiences of a species become incorporated into its genetic code, not by a Lamarckian process that encodes specific memories but by a much vaguer tendency to encode a readiness to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli.
‘Genetic memory is invoked to explain the racial memory postulated by Carl Jung. In Jungian psychology, racial memories are posited memories, feelings and ideas inherited from our ancestors as part of a “collective unconscious”.
wiki
“Therre is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff.”
Perhaps I should clarify. None of us are born speaking English, ‘ashamed’ of our nakedness, able to read or with any care for a concept of mythical humancentric overlords.
The particulars of religion, lore, doctrine &
mindlessrituals of worship must be ingrained via reinforced repetition; generally achieved by inculcation of the ‘nearly’ blank child’s mind via their most influential source, their parents. Not always the case, but certainly most common.Prior to this, every human born is, by default, an atheist.
I accept that plenty of humans seem predisposed to assimilating religious claptrap without much scrutiny; but you could get a child to believe almost anything if you worked hard enough at it.
“Happens all the time especially with religions”
I think you left out the key part of my sentence in your response, namely…” I think you’ll find that the ready availability of information means that my kind is increasing exponentially”…
This ‘ready availability of information’ is not a meme, like the Spice Girls, but is symptomatic of the progression of civilisation and even more pronounced with increasing access to the internet.
Religion gets far less traction in places where reason & education, not inculcation, flourish.
Things like Pell’s cynical managerial response to current issues only reinforce that even the highest members of religious institutions are more concerned with selfish human responses than acting in accordance with what you’d expect if they truly lived as they claim the divine expects them to. Another nail in the coffin of credibility.
” I was an unhappy nihilistic atheist. For better or worse I feel I’ve had a happier life as a believer. Worked for me.”
Good for you…and nowhere have I stated that I’d like to eradicate religion. But, I’m happy. I’m not nihilistic and being an atheist really has nothing to do with either of those things. In fact, I’d suggest it probably instills in me more an appreciation for the immediacy of existence.
I resent this…” When people stop believing in god, they don’t believe in nothing. It seems they are prepared to believe in anything”…because it is a verbose slogan, it is a gross generalisation & it is patently false.
Not believing in malleable myths which have changed & distorted to suit throughout the ages, at the expense of similar claims of ‘exclusivity’, is a sensible approach…and it sure doesn’t mean that I’m left with a vacuum in my mind which must be filled with some other nonsense.
“Well there was when I studied pedagogy and human learning “
Well that is the ultimate measure, isn’t it? Something must be wrong because you failed to learn it!
The fact is that there are basic human capabilities and traits that have evolved in humans to enhance the survival of the species. Take the ability to learn a language – it is innate and is a result of the neural structure of the brain. Humans can do it and will do it naturally. Reading and writing on the other hand doesn’t come naturally. Those skills require rote learning. You might try “The Language Instinct” by Stephen Pinker.
“As long as it is factual …”
Bullshit.
Who gets to decide what is factual? Does Einstein get the “shut-up” treatment because most scientists thought he was wrong? Should Pinker be made to shut-up because he advances evidence for male/female brain differences?
“I resent this…” When people stop believing in god, they don’t believe in nothing. It seems they are prepared to believe in anything”…because it is a verbose slogan, it is a gross generalisation “
Like so much else written here, perhaps it was a slight provocation. 😉
“& it is patently false”
Not so sure of that. The decline in religious belief hasn’t stopped people believing in all manner of stupid things.
I’m happy to revise it back to…”because it is a verbose slogan and it is a gross generalisation “.
“The decline in religious belief hasn’t stopped people believing in all manner of stupid things.”
Agreed, but that’s not because of ‘a decline in religious belief’…I think I covered that with this…”I accept that plenty of humans seem predisposed to assimilating religious claptrap without much scrutiny; but you could get a child to believe almost anything if you worked hard enough at it.”
Being ‘easily had’ does seem to be endemic to humanity.
“Being ‘easily had’ does seem to be endemic to humanity.”
Easily? I do try to put up a fight most of the time. As do you.
It is the ones not given that opportunity that I feel for. And now we have religious indoctrination is now being pedaled in the name of educational “choice”. What a crock of……
disgusting child abuse, state sponsored brainwashing of children.
Good for you…and nowhere have I stated that I’d like to eradicate religion
I would, I can’t see where it has done any good. If I had charge of the world for a day, that is what I would do, eradicate all religions. I want a world where people learn logical, rational reasoning, critical thinking, self reliance and also show humanity [empathy and compassion] to other humans. ♩♪♫♬ Oh what a wonderful world that would be ♩♪♫♬. The religions only seem to teach people how to hate, judge and condemn others for not living by their rules.
Religion has never been a friend to women.
Well that is the ultimate measure, isn’t it? Something must be wrong because you failed to learn it!
There’s nothing “wrong” – only in your overstuffed mind – I simply stated that it wasn’t in my studies …
Get off your fkn high horse … when did you “learn it”? And where? You said the human mind is preloaded with “stuff” not me … just because you say it doesn’t make it so … professor …
Also included seems to be an affinity to religion. … prove it …
Who gets to decide what is factual? Does Einstein get the “shut-up” treatment because most scientists thought he was wrong? Should Pinker be made to shut-up because he advances evidence for male/female brain differences?
Scientists discuss theories (like Einstein’s) and peer review (not shut up treatment) either clarifies, justifies or denies the theory … its not enough to “just know” – even if you are right …
And presuming that human beings are pre-loaded with “stuff” is downright dangerous …
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And egg, Carl Jung’s “collective consciousness” theory is just that … an unproven theory …
“I simply stated that it wasn’t in my studies … “
What was the point of that remark, then?
“only in your overstuffed mind … Get off your fkn high horse … just because you say it doesn’t make it so … professor … “
It is your charming open-minded approach that I like.
“… prove it …”
Prove what? I said “Also included seems to be an affinity to religion”. So, by saying that something ‘seems’ to be the case I now have to satisfy your demand for proof? Who is on a high horse now? When you dismount you might look here, here or here or at any number of discussions on this topic. You would might even agree that there is a reasonable basis for my statement, no?
“And presuming that human beings are pre-loaded with “stuff” is downright dangerous … “
Maybe presuming that the human mind is a blank slate is the more dangeorus view – see Pinker’s The Blank Slate for details.
In psychology, genetic memory is a memory present at birth that exists in the absence of sensory experience, and is incorporated into the genome over long spans of time.
Isn’t that the explanation of ‘culture’ in nature [heritability] vs nurture [environment]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
What was the point of that remark, then?
That there may be some new proven evidence my lecturers (and me) may not have had available at the time I studied – (graduated 1992) … I may be retired but I am still interested in my profession.
It is your charming open-minded approach that I like.
And I love your immediately aggressive approach to discussion …
When you dismount you might look here, here or here or at any number of discussions on this topic. You would might even agree that there is a reasonable basis for my statement, no?
In what way do you consider any of these articles proof? I read each one BTW …
… maybe you pick one that provides proof that we are born with a basic knowledge bank* … on anything … and we can discuss it rationally …
(as an aside most adults generally can’t remember anything of their life before the age of three or four …)
You can try that on yourself and anyone around you too … works better when an older generation and/or siblings are there … verification 😉
*… Therre (sic) is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff.
‘And egg, Carl Jung’s “collective consciousness” theory is just that … an unproven theory’
That’s true, but I like the romance of vague encoding.
That’s true, but I like the romance of vague encoding.
BS … you like inside trolling … or, like others here, you just read the headlines! Or make shit up … no substance …
Two things that really piss me off … mainly because people read it and think … that must be right … and it ain’t!
I try to keep things on a fairly straight and even keel with people, as I understand that discussions where people disagree can get heated very easily.
But when someone constantly, deliberately lies, misrepresents and then abuses people (in this case scientists), all with what appears to be for the sole aim of obfuscating, ridiculing and attempting to denigrate those people, then they can just go to hell imo!
And they’d best not complain when they get nothing but abuse back from now on
https://theguttertrash.com/co2-and-you-iv/#comment-51128
Wot you said TB
But when someone constantly, deliberately lies, misrepresents and then abuses people (in this case scientists), all with what appears to be for the sole aim of obfuscating, ridiculing and attempting to denigrate those people, then they can just go to hell imo!
Appears to be habitual and deliberate, has been doing it for years. A magnificent obsession, continually bombing people with lies, distortions and complete made up rubbish. No credibility whatsoever.
And gets nasty when others try to pull him into line.
And gets nasty when others try to pull him into line.
Probably applies to more than one commenter here, KL … there was a period here where left. right and centre respected each others comments and ideas … I get weary of dealing with BS, just lately … we ain’t AIMN …
‘Appears to be habitual and deliberate, has been doing it for years.’
So says a Deltoid trained idiot.
So says a Deltoid trained idiot.
LOL!
And gets nasty when others try to pull him into line.
‘you like inside trolling’
We don’t have trolls here.
Genetic encoding and racial memory are just theories, I don’t take them too seriously and I’m not qualified to give a definitive answer.
Apologies Kitty, that was aimed at JJ.
I rest my case 🙄
apology accepted [not sure about JJ though]
I saw this while reading the link you provided TB
OPINION: I’m not alone out here in left field:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-im-not-alone-out-here-in-left-field/story-fnihsr9v-1226870207653
…Part of the problem is a complete lack of perspective and megaphone polemics that often come so far from the right of the political spectrum the commentator would need a telescope to see the centre, let alone the left.
It’s a culture war where anyone displaying a hint of progressive thinking (regardless of how conservative their other views may be) is charged with being a “leftie’’ as a default position, thus colouring any further debate with an ideological construct that in reality doesn’t exist for most of us.
Scratch most alleged “lefties’’, and rather than a bomb-throwing Bolshevik or addle-headed idealist you’re likely to find a middle-of-the-road moderate who mixes a dose of the fair go with a touch of compassion and a spoonful of pragmatism…
But while we’re at it…
‘… continually bombing people with lies, distortions and complete made up rubbish. No credibility whatsoever.’
The irony burns.
The irony burns.
Dare I ask. Where’s the link to support this ‘irony’
Or aint that ‘newsworthy’ in your esteemed opinion?
Kl, I think that sums it up noicely!
The way I feel anyway … I actually don’t read too much right wing Nazi nutjobs … but a lot of the leftie trollop …
I’m hoping this hasn’t gone unnoticed, it is a bipartisan sell out of our right to privacy, ever increasing surveillance.
Labor’s capitulation to ever more invasive surveillance is shameful:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/01/labors-capitulation-to-ever-more-invasive-surveillance-is-shameful?view=desktop
Labor’s capitulation to ever more invasive surveillance is shameful
Not really capitulation, KL, the Liberal Labor Coalition seems to get stronger each year …
It hasn’t gone unnoticed.
I posted a link to it here in the last few.
https://theguttertrash.com/2014/03/28/rostrum-extreme-wingnut-edition/#comment-50866
Labor stands condemned…and it truly makes me wonder just how fucked we all may be, in the long run, if both of the country’s Uber Clubs are happy to endorse such cynical & potentially fraught privacy invasion. I for one Do Not Trust Any Government To NEVER employ the fruits of such data harvests for their own explicit purposes (outside of the ubiquitous ‘terror’ justification vomited up for our delectation)…the possibilities range from the opportunist to the politically opportunist to the sinister to the straight up authoritarian & dangerous.
Too tempting for a cynical government to exploit, imo.
STRONGLY AGREE!
…”
It’s a culture war where anyone displaying a hint of progressive thinking (regardless of how conservative their other views may be) is charged with being a “leftie’’ as a default position, thus colouring any further debate with an ideological construct that in reality doesn’t exist for most of us.
Scratch most alleged “lefties’’, and rather than a bomb-throwing Bolshevik or addle-headed idealist you’re likely to find a middle-of-the-road moderate who mixes a dose of the fair go with a touch of compassion and a spoonful of pragmatism…”
It’s the permeation of Beckian ridiculousness. Not only does it sell very well, it gains traction. The overgeneralising & hyperbole, I mean.
Mind you, the rightwards probably feel the same way…although, I haven’t noticed a concerted effort to realign them with Hitler in recent times.
* hilarious…my browser ‘corrected’ my word to ‘rightwards’…y’all know what I really typed…hahaha
It hasn’t gone unnoticed…by me. A mere pebble on the beach.
Yeah free speech was broken before Bolt got done, The IPA were oppressed,
Andev was silenced,
The convoy of compliant incontinence were all sent off for reprogramming in kerosene baths,
Menzies house was burnt to the ground,
The buggering pedo priests never got the right of denial in the MSM,
Flint and CorGi’s little tea party was firebombed by hijacked rogue corrupt Airline unionists stealing jumbo’s throwing molotov tins of two fruits…
The commo oppressors raided Ruperts 72% empire of propaganda twiddle fiddle liar liar pants on fire advertising suppository and silenced all decent, lies, bullsit and free speech and it had to retreat behind a paid fire wall….
Thank fuck for George….he’s a hero.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Wake the fuck up…up..Ideology nothing more..free speech this is not, Bandis will burn for this mark my words (politically speaking)
oh look over there its Sir Johnnie monobrow anointed for services to selling assets and baby’s overboard…. nothing to see here…
here comes the budget labor labor labor, hole hole big black hole or is that Gina ass up talking through her ass?
Lucky you elected us because there are still a few cash cows in public hands we can capitalise on so we can sing surplus surplus surplus aren’t we grand… think of the kids no planet left and nothing left but labor debt and hospitals with big roads and broadband as far as the eye can see for living beyond your means…
OK you pinko, lefty thinking educatin arty scientific pooofs….you’re not with us , your agin us…
We punish everyone that reminds us of what unworthy imbecilic ideology steeped ass cheeses we are…
All the surprises that you didn’t vote for, suck it up … mandate overwhelming 5% mandate mandate…….
Cut down those trees, burn that fossil fuel…fuck its getting hot in here,…in the heat of the moment you say things that you may not think full fully…. fuck off your not on the map….. is that a core promise? core porky pie, core blimey… rule britannia..
Deny deny deny..perpetuate the lie..
No surprises unless you despise us….
Rant over
Don’t stop now Ricky, you’re on a roll 😉
liberals like Abbott, Brandis, Pyne, Scott Ryan et al, are genuine in their belief that there should be minimal controls on speech. From the outside, it’s a one-sided idea of freedom — state Liberal parties across the land are destroying free association and organisation willy-nilly — but that’s the whole point. “Free speech” is really “free print/broadcast”, the right of the propertied to issue opinions in a dominated space. New rights bureaucrat Tim Wilson’s notorious call on Twitter, to spray the Occupy protestors with water cannon, captures that perfectly. There is nothing inconsistent about it. For so-called “classical” liberals like Wilson, property is prior to humanity itself, which is why such liberalism, born in 17th century England, and honed in 18th century north America, could so easily accommodate slavery as an institution.
https://newmatilda.com//2014/03/31/coalition-ancient-and-disturbed
Sums it well, Free Speech is for those who can afford it.
Meanwhile, the politicising of our AFP continues
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) turned down a request from Papua New Guinea police for help in the investigation of the death of asylum seeker Reza Barati on Manus Island because it does not have jurisdiction.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/manus-island-afp-refused-to-help-investigation-into-reza-baratis-death
And the “free speech” of Asylum seekers becomes curtailed.
Asylum seekers involved in legal action against the government following the public release of their personal details are being moved to a remote detention centre thousands of kilometres from their legal representatives just a day before their case is due to be heard in court.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/asylum-seekers-taking-legal-action-over-data-breach-to-be-transferred
Labor’s capitulation to ever more invasive surveillance is shameful
Yes, it is, but not entirely unforeseen. They were attacked repeatedly in Government for attempting to do or similar this by the media and the then opposition.
What is shameful is that now they are the opposition, and the Liberals have actually implemented what they attacked Labor for, the media is still attacking Labor and letting the libs off the hook.
Labor didn’t implement this, the libs did, after making so much noise in opposition, and the anti-everything is directed at Labor?
And people wonder why Labor end up with so much baggage, whereas the libs appear Teflon coated?
In relation to the above, after rejecting and ridiculing the then Governments decision to take Japan to court over whaling, and then refusing to send down a ship after election like they had promised, and refusing to even raise the issue with the Japanese, our media is now attempting to try and paint the victory by Labor as something that had “bipartisan support”
“Abbott doubted the wisdom of the litigation, and presumably would not have pursued it had it been his decision to make, but in the end, it had bipartisan support.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-risky-whaling-action-against-japan-has-paid-off-20140401-35ver.html#ixzz2xfJfcQt0
No it didn’t kenny, it was blocked at every step of the way by the Abbott, used as another attack on Labors “incompetent” international politics (didn’t turn out that way for them, did it?) and Labor would have been left with all of the dirt and blame had it not succeeded.
Labor were the only ones strong enough to take the stand, yet the media are trying to share the glory around. Re-writing history as we watch. The worst part is, he even quotes Abbott in his story as saying “This is Kevin Rudd’s policy, not the Coalition’s policy.”, and yet still draws the conclusion that is was “bipartisan”
Sorry, the “partisan” anything I see in the story is the writer barracking for the libs, when they have been conclusively thrashed on this issue.
TB: “In what way do you consider any of these articles proof?”
Are you being deliberately disingenuous or do you just not understand English. I know this is tedious but it is your obtuseness which nessecitates this reply. So let me lay it out for you:
I made a statement, to wit:“Also included seems to be an affinity to religion”
Your response was “Prove it…”
The obvious point is that my statement is an assertion that something “seems” to be the case. A reasonable response might be to ask on what basis I made the statement. I can’t prove to you that something seems to me to be the case. I can, however, show you on what basis something seemed to me to be the case. In fact I did that by linking to three articles which referred to recent studies supporting my statement.
So, I ask you again – do you think, in the light of the three articles I linked to, that I had a reasonable basis for making the above statement?
And let me be quite clear here – in many, if not most, areas I have an open mind. Depending on further reading or new studies I might change my view. All I did was to state what seemed to me to be the case now. Screeching “prove it” is not a rational response.
It gets even worse. When I explain to you that “prove it” is not an appropriate response and then take the trouble to link to a series of studies which provide some evidence for may statement and ask you directly whether that provides a reasonable basis for my statement you respond with “In what way do you consider any of these articles proof?”. All that shows is your irrationality.
And finally, the fact that you did or did not learn something in a course you took 22 years ago is not relevant. A logical argument would be to tell us what theory you did learn in that course and why you think it is still the better view. The fact that you learned whatever it is 22 years ago is completely irrelevant.
“And people wonder why Labor end up with so much baggage, whereas the libs appear Teflon coated?”
And yet, Labor endorsed it. Given that they did, I’m not sure that the predictable behaviour of certain sections of the media is the larger shame. That just sounds like apologetics for another poor decision by the ALP.
Also worth noting is that one of the links was to The Guardian, hardly a Murdoch attack rag.
It is obvious that most of our media coverage is disparate & skewed one way or the other. I fail to see how that can be attributed as the bulk of the morass which Labor finds itself in, trying to ape the Coalition.
It’s to be expected from the conservatives.
In fact, I just checked my original link & that was to The Guardian too!
It’s to be expected from the conservatives.
Like that excuses it?
In fact, I just checked my original link & that was to The Guardian too!
Which kinda was the point. The media as a whole EXPECT better from Labor. They do not treat the parties equally. Add to that the total bias of NewLtd, and what hope do Labor have? I mean, I expect more from Labor, but the media should be calling foul WHEREVER they see it, not letting one lot get away unscathed cos they don’t expect any more from them. Assume your audience isn’t aware, because a lot of them aren’t.
Blaming Labor and only Labor is wrong. Sure, they should be blamed, but the libs get off, and many people only see Labor as those pushing Big Brother agendas. I know of one person at least who voted Lib last election because he thought the Libs were fighting against this (they did make a lot of noise against it, but when the rubber hits the road…)
I warned him that the libs would be worst, but he linked to all the noise the libs were making. Even now, when they are the Government making the decisions, Labor get blamed, and it is not even NewsLtd doing it! The same way as above that the Libs made all the noise AGAINST taking Japan to court, yet now, in Fairfax, are being billed as “bipartisan”. The libs get to sit squarely on both sides of the fence in the eyes of the electorate, and that is entirely due to the media. Their actual actions are quite obvious, deliberate and ideological, but the media present them in a quite different light.
Whereas for Labor, it is all bad. Jesus, even last night(?) on the Project they had Garret on to talk about the Whaling decision, yet they couldn’t keep away from mentioning the insulation crap. Which is just what Abbott wants, more smear. It was pathetic.
All the surprises that you didn’t vote for, suck it up … mandate overwhelming 5% mandate mandate…….
They won govt. Primary votes were labor = 33.4%, liberals 32.0%
That does not make a mandate imo
Besides, every time they have a win they claim a mandate for everything they do, voters wanting change, does not mean a mandate. IIRC, they hardly put any policies to the public prior to the election.
Meanwhile two more companies have notified that they will close [philip morris & BP brisbane] with the loss of around 750 jobs. This is the usual LNP economic management – unemployment increasing and the workers fearful of losing their jobs. Aim for people willing to do whatever is asked of them for whatever the employers feel like paying.
Mark Scott: News Corp papers never more aggressive than now:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/01/mark-scott-news-corp-papers-never-more-aggressive-than-now?CMP=twt_gu
more here re newscorp/liberal alliance
http://www.themonthly.com.au/politicoz
Everyone knows how the budget trickery is going to go. Liberals have rapidly added to the budget blackhole but Labor will be blamed for it all.
Fiscal fools: give us a break on the budget BS, Joe
http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/01/fiscal-fools-give-us-a-break-on-the-budget-bs-joe/
…Joe Hockey’s pre-budget spinning has veered into outright falsehoods as he attempts to claim Labor has boobytrapped the budget…
The media as a whole EXPECT better from Labor. They do not treat the parties equally.
This is the argument that tomM has always made, the liberals will always be dirty scumbag arseholes, but people expect better of labor [paraphrasing here, tomM doesn’t use rude language 😉 ]
To my mind, that expectation limits labor from fighting on equal ground, they always have to be the better, more principled people/party.
perhaps they should show more mongrel, they will get hammered by newscorpse in their role of liberal party minder and attack dog, but will it matter? They get hammered by them anyway.
Ok, so now I’m supposed to believe that the WHOLE media apparatus is on the side of the Coalition. Well, I don’t.
“Blaming Labor and only Labor is wrong”
I never do that, but when Labor is wrong I’m not gonna be intellectually fraudulent & go about making excuses for them or saying “they’re worse over there”.
I’m confident that The Guardian would hardly give the Coalition a free pass on the same issue had they made similar public statements. Y’know, the same Guardian up to its neck in The Snowden Files? Perhaps they do actually mean what they say with regard to privacy invasion by our governments?
It would be remiss of them not to comment on Plibersek’s vulgar support of data harvesting.
Too many people see media bias & nothing else.
I concur that the media is slanted, but it slants both ways, depending upon the outlet & the issue in question.
You don’t have to look very hard on blogs, for instance, to see rightwingers calling for the demolition of the ‘leftist’ ABC…and on the same thread lefties condemning the ABC for assimilating NewsCorps bilge. Confirmation bias writ large.
Perhaps Labor shouldn’t ape the Coalition on issues?
Once again…The Guardian is not aligned with the Coalition. To suggest that it is is simply laughable.
Labor controls its own destiny.
As for Hockey doing a bit of groundwork for his budget, well all of the usual suspects are disseminating the smokescreen for him too this week (Bolt et al). Trying to make people hungry for the shit sandwich they’re about to be served without sauce, and attempting to convince them that they actually like the taste of it before they’ve taken a bite & swallowed.
I’d suggest it’s an obvious PR campaign and the only people likely to be sucked in by it believe everything any person in authority tells them anyway (plus the rusted ons, of course).
“Like that excuses it?”
Of course I don’t excuse the conservatives.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I’m about as far away from a conservative standard bearer as you can get.
They are the party of pantswetting de jour, regarding terrorism & sacrificing our privacy to nuzzle US arse. Labor aren’t far behind them. Neither are genuine advocates for staying the fuck out of the small affairs of citizens.
Look at what I just found on News.com!
I don’t think it’s supposed to cast Abbott in a positive light…hmmmm
http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbotts-secret-hit-squad-the-coalition-advisory-service/story-fncynjr2-1226872278629
‘Perhaps you haven’t noticed,’
I felt and inkling, but bit my tongue.
I never do that, but when Labor is wrong I’m not gonna be intellectually fraudulent & go about making excuses for them or saying “they’re worse over there”.
I didn’t say you did, I said the media did. It is the media expecting more from Labor, and them lambasting them when they don’t measure up (fair enough), but they give the libs a free ride, just because the media expect it from them. That is not presenting a fair comparison to the readers. They are assuming they have the same expectations, when in fact, all should be treated evenly.
I’m confident that The Guardian would hardly give the Coalition a free pass on the same issue had they made similar public statements.
It was the coalition who introduced the bill? Labor simply (well, abhorrently) supported it. BOTH should be lambasted.
The Guardian is not aligned with the Coalition.
I have never even implied that they are. I simply said that they assume different from each party. I, as a supporter of Labor, do expect more from them, but journalists, should expect the same of all, and treat all the same. They don’t. Labor are supposed to be the White Knights, who are attacked repeatedly from both angles, Left and Right. The libs are only ever attacked from the Left, and now without the same vehemence as with which they attack Labor.
and the only people likely to be sucked in by it believe everything any person in authority tells them anyway
My point entirely. There is a large swathe of them who accept what the papers say. So, when even supposedly middle ground papers represent the two parties on such unequal terms, it reflects in the wider electorate, as my case above about the person voting Liberal because they assumed, through newspapers, that the Libs would protect their rights.
Neither party will, but it is not reported in that manner. The failure is laid at labor’s feet, but both have failed. People who are engaged can see the difference. It is much harder for the disengaged. It is why so many are so disappointed with the Government we now have. Many of us who were engaged prior to the last election look on now and are seeing exactly what we expected. It is no wonder others are shocked.
Of course I don’t excuse the conservatives.
My comment was not about you toiletcantankerousnightsoil, it was about the media. Please try and keep that in mind.
I felt and inkling
Keep your hand off off it grima, you don’t have a clue, again.
‘Many of us who were engaged prior to the last election look on now and are seeing exactly what we expected.’
That was predictable, given your bias.
…It’s head is Simon Berger, the former Woolworths executive who left the company after organising the auction of a “chaff-bag jacket” at a September 2012 Young Liberal fundraising dinner addressed by Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones…
He ‘left’ because he was told to leave after embarrassing woolies.
So this is where a publicly disgraced individual turns up – in charge of the liberal party war machine.
I am very much against any taxpayer funded organisation being exempt from scrutiny and accountability, it just should not be allowed to happen. Same with political staffers, they wield enormous power over public servants and govt. departments yet have no accountability to the public, it is just wrong and another mechanism for the thwarting of democracy.
The only changes that an election brings is the turnabout at the trough.
It’s all so wearily predictable, no wonder we turn away.
Ludlum didn’t really let the Libs off the hook. His goal seemed to be to shame the ALP, presumably on the basis that they might have some misgivings about going along with the Libs. Maybe Tim Wilson should try shaming the Libs from a libertarian view. He’s been fairly quiet on this.
Here is one for you, KL. Looks like cooking the numbers to come up with a headline to me. I can’t see any real money changing hands.
“Look at what I just found on News.com!
I don’t think it’s supposed to cast Abbott in a positive light…hmmmm
“
I agree that more transparency is needed. It could be perfectly innocent, just like its ALP predecessors.
OTOH If “Yes Minister” is any guide, ministers need staffers to avoid being railroaded by the public service agenda rather than implementing their own.
OTOH If “Yes Minister” is any guide, ministers need staffers to avoid being railroaded by the public service agenda rather than implementing their own.
The public service agenda!!
The public servants should be apolitical and allowed to serve the best interests of the public, not a political agenda. Bring back “frank & fearless” i say.
I’m just off to work now sb, will have to look at your link when I get home.
Just had a quick look sb
Absolutely no surprises there. I guess these are the same bankers that should be in jail, instead they have got even richer at the expense of taxpayers.
We need financial reform and a super profits tax imposed on the financial sector.
Acquiescence by both majors on data harvesting is far more concerning than perceived media bias, imo…and much closer to a genuine conspiracy against plebs.
Many of us who were engaged prior to the last election look on now and are seeing exactly what we expected””
Yep
And thank Dog for that
The public servants should be apolitical and allowed to serve the best interests of the public, not a political agenda.””
Perhaps you should post comments like that over at the Café where the resident ex PS f**kwit who cant get his facts right resides.
And thank Dog for that
As do Phillip Morris workers
Alcoa workers
Holden Workers
Toyota workers
BP Bulwer Island refinery workers
……….
You get the drift 😉
and much closer to a genuine conspiracy against plebs.
I agree with that. But, in my defense, I didn’t say the negative reporting Labor receives from all the major media outlets is a conspiracy. It is simply the result of journalists being quite bad at their job, except for NewsLtd, who are just barracking for the libs.
“You get the drift ”
And i see NIB is now outsourcing dental work. I guess it means that it saves NIB money. I never thought you could send dental work overseas.
And i am sure JJ will find some way to blame Abbott.
For the one millionth time. This has been going on since the 1970’s. Most of it under Labor govts.
“As do Phillip Morris workers
Alcoa workers
Holden Workers
Toyota workers
BP Bulwer Island refinery workers”
I guess you would say Abbott should subsidise these industries. Trouble is hundreds of our manufacturing companies have left since the 1970’s.
I am old enough to remember when we used to make shoes and textiles in Australia. It is all gone.
So, I ask you again – do you think, in the light of the three articles I linked to, that I had a reasonable basis for making the above statement?
No …
1. Was a theory 2. Was a possible model 3. Was a treatise without proof …
But why do I have to prove it? You made the assertion …
sb, this was the quote in context …
Therre is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff. The blank slate is well and truly discredited now. Also included seems to be an affinity to religion.
Each sentence above … 1. Wrong 2. Wrong – and 3. Wrong – making 4. Wrong
There seems to be a case for mining green cheese on the moon according to some people but its not yet proven … Gina R wanted to use nuclear bombs to blow up iron ore … feasible but not a proven idea …
Screeching “prove it” is not a rational response.
This is probably one of the reasons I react to you so kindly, sb
I had no idea you could see and hear me type the phrase … “prove it” … (that is a rational response BTW)…
I can assure you it was typed in the manner in which some of my uni lecturers used to reply to some of the statements I made in assignments … coolly, calmly and — with the hope I may learn something new … certainly not to cause affront … I do apologise …
I’ll try harder to please in future … perhaps, “can you prove it” … rather than the more screechy, “prove it” … 🙂
And i see NIB is now outsourcing dental work. I guess it means that it saves NIB money. I never thought you could send dental work overseas.
Message to Wally (and Kneel)
You’ll be pleased to know that as NIB shareholders we have no problems with that … we left NIB just after they went public – kept the shares we got tho’ … I prefer a health insurance with focus on the members … not shareholders dividends …
This has been going on since the 1970′s
Yes, but that was apparently before we were “open for business”
Timely reminder after the massive hikes yesterday in private health investment, er insurance
the government needs to be reminded of Australian and international evidence showing that the more private health insurance is used to fund health care, the more expensive the health system becomes, without any improvement in the quality of care.
https://theconversation.com/private-insurance-reliance-means-countries-pay-more-for-health-care-24486
now that we are ”””open for business””” Jaggey,
Mr-Rabbit will be putting as many `community-owned` things of the auction block as possible, and pressuring the States to `Fire-Sale` too.
Like all pollies, Mr-Rabbit wants the cash sugar-hit for his term, afterwards.? WGAF.? not-him
Gina R wanted to use nuclear bombs to blow up iron ore
Thanks for that TB, I needed the laugh.
You were joking, weren’t you?
Tbag/JJ
I recall being told that most government asset sales (both state and Federal) were made by Labor … and when I checked it was so … that was some time ago but as you know Tbag I’m to old and lazy to check … over to you – ferret … 😉
JJ … would I BS without evidence … read and weep …
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/08/gina-rinehart-australian-mining-magnate
There are other sources – this was just the first one I found …
We really are surrounded by Fuckwits™ … who want to control us!!!!
Just which Robber Baron(ess) is running my fkn country!
‘Yes, but that was apparently before we were “open for business”
Neil is correct, it has been going on since the 1970s, with tariff walls gradually coming down.
Abbott is talking about new business opportunities, but not in manufacturing, more financial services and agribusiness.
Abbott is talking about new business opportunities, but not in manufacturing, more financial services and agribusiness.
Ha, good stuff, egg, where can we find details … very interested …
””””as you know Tbag I’m to old and lazy to check”””’
l never claimed (with `any` seriousness) you were `lazy` TB 🙂
How`s robo-vac going.?
_____
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/08/gina-rinehart-australian-mining-magnate
l don`t think we will find too many `dirt-deliverers` not in the denier camp me`self
where can we find details … very interested …
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Oh, were you being serious again TB 😉
… read and weep …
I read, now I weep. 😦
I recall being told that most government asset sales (both state and Federal) were made by Labor … and when I checked it was so
I don’t doubt it at all TB. I recall Hawke/Keating doing their fair share.
How`s robo-vac going.?
Neato Signature Pro, Tbag (detail, detail, detail)
… he’s cleaned the house twice now (we both call it he for some humanistic reason) … The Minister (as am I) is fascinated with how he programs the routes, returns to base for a recharge and finds the same spot again to continue …
The dust and fluff he’s picked up is really amazing … we vac and mop at least once a week (me mop – of course) so we reckoned it was reasonably clean …
… we were only aiming for him to vac the new porcelain tiles in the dining and lounge areas … but we just let him off his leash … really magic stuff … in fact we have been discussing selling the TV’s … and just watching Neato at work … thanks for asking …
BTW Neato is about $700 here .. we bought from Amazon under $600 …
recommended product …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JJ
My Dog – you’ve got it … I think you’ve got it!
Call me a fool but please don’t treat me like one! 😉
TB we could start with NSW.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_au/au/news-research/luckycountry/prosperity-next-wave/d15cec72178d4410VgnVCM2000003356f70aRCRD.htm
AO – “tomM doesn’t use rude language
By golly, I do so.
egg,
Abbott is talking about new business opportunities, but not in manufacturing, more financial services and agribusiness.
That’s a Deloitte “report” …
Absolutely nothing to do with your comment re Abbott … to be a little more clear, egg, you say Abbot is “talking” about it – but … where? When? To whom? … are there CBAs (so popular with Mr Abbott), policies, plans, development opportunities, funding … ROI’s for investors …
The Australian version is much the same.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_au/au/f0adc57f963e4410VgnVCM3000003456f70aRCRD.htm
So is my reply …
BTW egg, is just a bunch of CPA’s & CA’s ( 😉 @ Wally) playing at being business consultants … in fact I don’t think they actually advise the government on a permnt nor regular basis … (happy to be contradicted)
And of course we all enjoy Chris Richardson’s forays into economic prediction on the telly … 🙂
Remember Chris?
Fuck you, Teebee!
Oops, I think I mighta already said that.
CORRECTION
Deloitte is just a bunch of CPA’s & CA’s
And by checked you mean what exactly?
The magic “costello” number is
96,000,000,000
http://www.finance.gov.au/property/asset-sales/past-sales.html
We’ll have to wait for the budget, but I imagine they will be seeking private investment, particularly from China, to build infrastructure and open up the regions. To absorb the masses flowing in from the celestial kingdom.
Fuck you, Teebee!
Oops, I think I mighta already said that.
Why thanks, ToSY, and right back at ya! 🙂
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
but I imagine they will be seeking
Yer as bad as James with his “I Believes” … I imagine the magnetic poles will flip N to S and S to N pretty soon too …
“The magic “costello” number is
96,000,000,000”
It should be mentioned that Costello ran $100B of surplus budgets ie he spent $100B less than he received AND had $80B of asset sales.
So Costello saved $100B + $80B = $180B over 11 years.
It is not well known but asset sales were not included in the budget as revenue. They were solely used to pay off debt.
This allowed Costello to pay off all Federal govt debt ($96B) and start several Funds such as the Future Fund ($70B) , Heef ($6B) and also had some money in the bank.
And by checked you mean what exactly?
I actually found a detailed chart of the sales made by both Labor and Coalition and the states (and totals) … a few years ago … (3-4) … but you may recall that Sir Noddy Newman was elected primarily because of a backlash over the Anna bLie government’s sell offs … in fact I did my research during the brouhaha in Qld …
I’m trying to guess their budget strategy, with manufacturing going off shore they will need a Plan B or risk being wiped out at the next election.
There are four workman staying at my place for a few months, agribusiness up from Melbourne to build a state of the art plant for processing pet food. The Americans are spending $100 million on this factory and are supremely confident of getting there money back in spades.
* their money *
So Costello saved $100B + $80B = $180B over 11 years.
Some might say he and the government sat on thier hands … as the country’s infrastructure deteriorated to the stage that we now have a serious problem …
Governments are not human beings that need to accumulate for retirement … they need to develop the nation … had more infrastructure been underway before the GFC there would have been no need to quickly come up with ideas to give people $900, or insulate homes, or build school halls to maintain the multiplier effect … only the latter could really be considered useful and lasting infrastructure …
I’m trying to guess their budget strategy,
Mmmm … I had that figured. egg …
“Some might say he and the government sat on thier hands … as the country’s infrastructure deteriorated to the stage that we now have a serious problem ”
Perhaps but Costello cannot win.
In case you have forgotten we lost our AAA credit rating in the late 1980’s under Hawke/Keating. In fact we were downgraded twice. How to get it back??
It took a Parliament House riot followed by 6 surplus budgets before we got our AAA rating back. A triple A credit rating means governments can borrow at the lowest interest rate. No way to get a AAA back other than to run surplus budgets. Newman is trying to do the same thing in Queensland.
“had more infrastructure been underway before the GFC”
Another one of the ALP talking points. From what I have seen the Howard govt spent more money on infrastructure than previous Federal govts
>
Well for a start you are 16 billion short and what’s 16 thousand million between friends aye?
It should be mentioned; but is acutely denied like a happy snap at Peter Slippers or Gold Diggin Sophie’s Wedding by devout worshippers of the monobrowed fiscal fucktard, hands down Australia worst treasurer Kneely Wheelie.. the $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government from the Labor Party in 1996 comprised around $39.9 billion of debt accumulated by the Fraser Government under the Treasury-ship of your hero Honest john (lol) and left to the Hawke Government in 1983!
Are you seriously asserting that that lazy fire salesman Costello was a good treasurer? Show me all his legislative reform? Back up your claim kneely wheely
“Well for a start you are 16 billion short and what’s 16 thousand million between friends aye?”
I think i got it right. Costello ran $100B in surplus budgets. It should be mentioned that none of those budgets contained revenue from asset sales.
And Costello had about $80B in asset sales.
So he saved $100B + $80B = $180B over 11 years.
That’s the trouble you obviously don’t think…. If you did you would substantiate your feeble claims from recycled cut and paste parroted opinion. I quote from the department of finance assert register and you quote what you
dreamthink happened with no reference… 80 b = 80% bullshit; (i’m being generous) The infrastructure quote still has me chucking…“the $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government from the Labor Party in 1996 comprised around $39.9 billion of debt accumulated by the Fraser ”
http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-05.htm
Table 3 shows net Federal govt debt.
It was at $9B in 1982-83 and was at $16B in 1983-84. It did not reach $39B until 1992 and reached $96B in 1995-96. Where do you get your figures from??
Table 7 shows budget deficits and surpluses. There was approx $100B worth of surplus budgets and this does not include revenue from asset sales.
Ahh. Free Speech, the liberal version
Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/coalition-review-of-consumer-laws-may-ban-environmental-boycotts
“…………..or build school halls to maintain the multiplier effect … only the latter could really be considered useful and lasting infrastructure …”
ROFLMAO
Education infrastructure is so unimportant as is that pesky NBN 🙄 next
… as the country’s infrastructure deteriorated to the stage that we now have a serious problem … “”
Really school halls were such a problem………………..bigger than roads……………………hospitals……………………….classrooms.
Unless we are vying for the next Eurovision Song Contest and its billions in prize money I don’t see what the urgency was in building school halls was.
If you are going to be all Keynesian then spend it on stuff that directly impacts upon economic growth in the short to long term.
………………….classrooms.
You understand that “school halls” included classrooms, don’t you?
Only if they needed urgent replacing due to unsustainable repairs. Not just for the sake of building one.
Building school halls for annual songfests is a joke.
How about some rail transport as well………………………?
But no lets kill people with pink batts
From the Oz
How funny is this on the eve of the election in WA
“”LABOR’S No 1 Senate candidate in WA, trade union leader Joe Bullock, has a criminal record for assault that he has not disclosed to voters. ……………….
Only if they needed urgent replacing due to unsustainable repairs.
I do not think that was the case.
How funny is this on the eve of the election in WA
Unsurprisement really. Smear in the dying days
But why do I have to prove it?
You don’t. I did not ask you to “prove” anything, did I?
What I did ask was whether the links I provided amounted to a reasonable basis for my statement “Also included seems to be an affinity to religion.”
Tell me this, do you understand that a statement that “something seems to be the case” is different to a statement that “something is the case”?
Apparently not. So let me explain it to you again. The second type of statement, that something is the case, is an assertion of fact so it might be appropriate to demand proof (actually it would be appropriate to demand evidence but that is another matter entirely*).
The first type of statement, that something seems to be the case, is qualified by “seems” indicating that I am venturing an opinion about something that seems to me to be the case, not stating that it is the case. It is not appropriate to demand proof of this type of statement but rather to ask on what basis I formed that view.
Your answer was that I did not have a reasonable basis for the assertion “Also included seems to be an affinity to religion.”. So let’s look at the links I provided for your edification:
The following statement is from a 2011 paper published in a reputable scientific journal, Proceedings B of the Royal Society:
The statement was supported with multiple footnotes referencing scientific studies and books supporting that statement.
In addition I provided a link to a New Scientist report of a study dealing with the same issue which stated:
“Unsurprisement really. Smear in the dying days””
”
In Lefties World………………………….Facts = Smear
LOL
Ahh. Free Speech, the liberal version
That’s not censorship of free speech JJ, that’s oppression of the population. Consumers should be quite entitled to take whatever collective action they feel is necessary, it is the only power they have against powerful companies who buy politicians. If companies do the wrong thing they take the risk of a backlash.
We teach logical consequences of bad behaviour to little kids, part of growing up is accepting responsibility for your own behaviour, not parents [govt] changing the rules to allow it to continue.
Unsurprisement really. Another Unionland thug queueing up for a Senate sinecure.The major parties seem to think they can get away with putting up shonky candidates.
Ricky you said this
“the $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government from the Labor Party in 1996 comprised around $39.9 billion of debt accumulated by the Fraser Government under the Treasury-ship of your hero Honest john (lol) and left to the Hawke Government in 1983!”
So according to you the Federal debt was $39.9B when Fraser lost office back in the early 1980’s
Table 3 from the budget papers show net debt
http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-05.htm
Nebt debt was $9B in 1982-83. It did not reach $40B until 1992 and reached $96B in 1995-96.
Where do you get this $39.9B debt left by Fraser/Howard???
Nice work, Splatter, and I look forward to your Popper draft.
The other day I was criticised for raising the theories of racial memory and collective unconscious, but if half our religiosity comes from genes, then Jung might have been onto something.
Bill Short-Term must be absolutely shitting himself with the Royal Commission starting next week and it giving the AWU only 7 days to produce tonnes of documents for the RC .
Not enough time to go over everything and destroy everything incriminating over the last 25 years.
No wonder Howes left when he did
””””””””””””We teach logical consequences of bad behaviour to little kids, part of growing up is accepting responsibility for your own behaviour, not parents [govt] changing the rules to allow it to continue.”””””””””’
(agree) funny you say that armchair,
if l had behaved like politicians and management do
(lying,cheating,stealing,manouvering) as a kid, l would have got a sound thrashing off my parents for it,
unfortunately it is rewarded excessively
Clearly I am not asserting it as a proven fact.
Good …
So could you please explain this assertion …
Therre is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff.
And to answer this for you …
I don’t understand why you are so adamant about this on the basis of what you did or did not learn in a course 22 years ago.
I am not “adamant”, I just provided
ammunition obviouslysome information that I had studied the psychology of learning in children (pedagogy) and adults (androgogy) at uni … the fact that I graduated 22 years ago (FMD!) doesn’t mean that my learning and application of knowledge suddenly stopped, as you seem to assume. (when did you or your accountant or doctor graduate?) C’mon you know better than that …I also said that I was unaware of any research (in fact quite the opposite) that provided the human brain with a flash disk of info at birth … and would be interested in proven research … as I previously said most people can’t remember anything before 3-4 years old … can you?
Genetics do predispose people to some behavioural characteristics … its a mixture of genes and environment that affect personality … and not always in the same way … two brothers can grow up in the same environment and one ends up a cop the a crim … a brother and sister grow up in a similar environment … one ends up a Catholic devotee the other an agnostic …
… the variables are massive …
Agree to disagree?
This from above had me pondering.
‘Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.’
Its feasible, but for what purpose?
Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behaviour
Doesn’t mean it is so … just has the “hallmarks” …
Poetic license.
Still can’t figure out why the gene pool needed to make humanity religious, its brought nothing but disaster.
“Doesn’t mean it is so”
Correct. And yet billions of people “follow” some kind of organised religion.
Why is it so?
Still can’t figure out why the gene pool needed to make humanity religious, its brought nothing but disaster.
You’re still assuming, egg … no-one has proved it … its just a theory … FFS … my head will start to bleed soon …
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why is it so?
Truly baffling … perhaps forcing children to indoctrination sessions at church and school from birth may “help” … 🙂
Inculcation…
“Good … “
Thank you. Too bad it took so long to drag this out of you.
“So could you please explain this assertion …
“Therre is no such thing as an empty mind. It comes pre-loaded with all sorts of stuff. “
Sure. In fact I can explain it in your own words:
“Genetics do predispose people to some behavioural characteristics … “
This discussion started with your reference to the “empty mind”. Clearly the mind is not empty at birth. It has a structure which is influenced by genes and which is subject to variation and natural selection. Otherwise we would not have a brain at all. The way we get from single cells to humans is by natural selection, which requires variation to operate.
In fact given the established heritibility of characteristics of other parts of the body it would be strange indeed if that did not apply to brain structure. This article describes how heritiability is determined. Especially persuasive are the studies involving dizygotic twins. Some inherited traits are more specific than others such as fear of spiders which occurs even in places which have no spiders.
Just to be clear “stuff” refers to stuff as simple as the sucking reflex in infants (sometimes useful in adult relations too), the strong desire to become attracted to another person and want to have sex with them (which is really just a form of obsessive compulsive disorder we charmingly call “love”) and the ability to learn a language. “Stuff” doesn’t refer to specific information which is gathered by experience of the environment or, say, the specific doctrines of a particular religion.
“Still can’t figure out why the gene pool needed to make humanity religious, its brought nothing but disaster.”
The assertion that “it has brought nothing but diaster” is in fact the issue at hand – why, given the costs of religion – the diversion of resources to religious monuments, ceremonies and sacrifices – did it persist as a near universal phenomenon?
There is some discussion of the issue hereand a series of papers on the topic here. One argument is summarised as follows:
If religion is overall benefical the question then raised is why we have atheists. One answer is that a few throwbacks won’t undermine the group and may infact provide a useful rational counterbalance to the tendency to ascribe supernatural causes to natural phenomena. If one major function of religion is social cohesion and the ability to act as a group and there are other means of achieving this outcome that don’t involve religion then it may be that a decline in religious belief will not be detrimental.
For example a society may get on board with an immunisation program based on science rather than, say, a religious conviction that a little needleprick of suffering will be rewarded by the deity with the elimination of polio. Unsurprisingly, some with strong religious beliefs oppose immunisation programs and, in the case of islamic extremists, murder health workers.
Also, I think the follwoing statement from one paper has some merit:
We see examples of this all the time, not least with the Gaia cult.
I don’t harbor even a skerrick of ‘supernatural thinking’.
I think it’s easy to see why, if I did, I’d be being intellectually dishonest.
Religion goes in the same basket as Ouija boards, ghosts, astrology, palm reading, spirit mediums, witchdoctors, giant devil dingoes, vampires, unicorns, leprechauns & the myriad other fantasy shitpiles I can’t recall off the top of my head.
This discussion started with your reference to the “empty mind”. Clearly the mind is not empty at birth.
FMD! You win … sb …
Thank you, TB.
Splatterbottom’s touchdown dance …
Thank you, TB.
Why did I know you’d totally miss the point …
Did you actually go to uni? If you did what did you study?
Why are you so obsessed with uni, TB? What has that got to do with anything anyway? I am really not interested in what you studied all those years ago, only the quality of your arguments now.
TB likes “quals”.
I like Chinese.
‘I don’t harbor even a skerrick of ‘supernatural thinking’.
Reading through your list there’s the usual archaic beliefs and superstitious nonsense, but if it gives people comfort I’m happy for them.
Beyond that grouping, supernatural is ‘being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.’
UFOs fit comfortably and there maybe other examples. Just sayin’.
I don’t think extraterrestrials fit in the supernatural basket, personally.
This is abnormal, believe it or not.
http://americanlivewire.com/2014-04-02-elongated-skulls-uncovered-antarctica/
How about tiny humans? Surely they are unexplainable by natural law.
http://aceflashman.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/600-million-year-old-fossils-of-tiny-humanoids-found-in-antarctica-anthropologists-baffled/
guffaw and good night
Back To Bigotry
“The visa processing system for Chinese tourists has improved recently, but there is more work to do in this area and each day we waste costs Australia a great amount of tourism dollars,’’ he said.
“Visa applications are done in English, not Mandarin, that’s stupid. And they are not done online, that’s stupid.
“I think over 70 countries can apply for an Australian tourist visa online but China isn’t one of them.”
James Packer / Daily Terror
I am really not interested in what you studied all those years ago, only the quality of your arguments now.
I somehow doubt that …
Because the level of your argument is dogmatic … my comment “you win” should really have been “I fkn give up” …
Why are you so obsessed with uni, TB? What has that got to do with anything anyway?
I was interested in knowing if your own knowledge was based on any understanding of learning psychology … I simply have no interest in discussing such a complex subject at such a base level …
The abstract concept of religion is of the higher order of thinking … not animal instinct suckling behaviour … all mammals instinctively know how to suckle … whether cows believe in god would be another argument for you I suppose …
Your use of personal aggressive descriptions of my me/comments ie “obsessive” also demonstrates a mindset and behaviour indicates someone who is not used to being challenged, I notice only thee and me get into these conflicts … the others leave you alone …
Religion is taught … its not a trait (also a misconceived concept) …and animal instinct does not fall into the category of higher order abstract thinking …
Believe it or not … discuss by all means … argument it ain’t …
Its just that my head is sore from the brick wall …
Time to move on …
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/are-fairies-real-man-claims-to-have-captured-mythical-creatures-with-his-camera/story-fnjwkt0b-1226875058310
Obviously other people believe that baby’s can reason too …
The supreme leader said go forth and speculate, which is precisely what they are doing in the UK and Australia.
The property boom here and there is distorting the market, but it should eventually settle down when the lower classes leave the cities.
‘A huge property grab by Chinese investors is pricing UK homebuyers out of the market.
‘Developers are increasingly selling direct to buyers in China at inflated prices, cutting out domestic purchasers altogether.
‘Last night, critics said such tactics threatened to further destabilise the overheating property market and deepen the housing shortage.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597354/Chinese-fuel-UK-housing-shortage-Far-East-speculators-price-Britons-market-country.html#ixzz2xz9ebPXW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Meanwhile, back in the celestial kingdom, the property bubble is in danger of collapse.
http://qz.com/195574/heres-why-a-china-housing-crash-would-crush-the-middle-class-and-why-that-matters/
”Because the level of your argument is dogmatic …
On the contrary, I have provided evidence for my assertion whereas you have relied on a mixture of hyperbole and dogmatic assertion.
My assertion was: “Also included seems to be an affinity to religion.”
My argument was not dogmatic. Rather I quoted several sources indicating scientific support for this view. In particular I quoted from a paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which is one of the more prestigious academic publications in the biological sciences. That quote was:
That quote certainly provides a reasonable basis for my assertion. It is supported by half a dozen footnotes to other research to back it up. The fact that it has passed peer review for publication in a Proceedings B also lends it credibility.
Your accusation that “the level of your argument is dogmatic” seems more like projection to me. I have made a qualified statement “seems to be” rather than a dogmatic assertion. Further, I have provided evidence that there is a reasonable basis for my statement.
On the other hand the level of your argument is dogmatic. You dismissed my statement with one word – “Wrong”. You then added:
The only other backing you provided was that you had done a course 22 years ago and had, apparently, “kept up”. I am sure that you are a very learned scholar, but merely saying so is not really a logical argument so much as a dogmatic assertion. Truly learned scholars back their propositions with evidence.
”my comment “you win” should really have been “I fkn give up” …”
Indeed.
If you can’t bring yourself to admit I had a reasonable basis for my (qualified) assertion and if you can’t be bothered to provide any evidence to explain why there is no reasonable basis for my assertion then you should give up!
”Your use of personal aggressive descriptions of my me/comments ie “obsessive” also demonstrates a mindset and behaviour indicates someone who is not used to being challenged”
That sounds like more hypocritical projection coming from you. Maybe I’m just following your example: “only in your overstuffed mind … Get off your fkn high horse … just because you say it doesn’t make it so … professor …”