The latest from the Twittersphere: -


Quote:

Realtime results for andrew bolt resign   1.                  Ebswearspink‎: RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown has called for Andrew Bolt to resign.      Twitter - 4 minutes ago   2.                  Asher_Wolf‎: RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown: 'Andrew Bolt's call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for JG's resignation (but Labor opposed Iraq) l ...      Twitter - 6 minutes ago   3.                  willispb‎: RT @timhollo: Let's shout it from the rooftops! #AndrewBoltMustResign! RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown has called for Andrew Bolt to resign.      Twitter - 6 minutes ago

LOL...

#AndrewBoltMustResign

site:twitter.com

Bolt is a fascist prick, we need fascist pricks like Bolt to show the rightards up as the self obsessed xenophobic scum they are.
Bolts writing should be compulsory reading to all Australians, if it were the Libs would never get to form government.
In fact I really think this site should have a twitter account so the world could see what sort of scum support the Liberals.

You may choose more than one option.

Quote:

‎       Apparadude‎: RT @bondles9: Not fit to be paid with my taxes RT @maxphillips The ABC must sack Andrew Bolt from #Insiders #AndrewBoltMustResign (@abcm ... Twitter - 20 minutes ago

The racist Labour Party Greens alliance - blood on their hands... >:(

Prevailing wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 4:23pm:

The racist Labour Party Greens alliance - blood on their hands... >:(

Yes but should Bolt resign, sock?

I dont see him resigning.

I dont see him being fired since his editor approved it.

He might be guilty of bad taste, but the man is entitled to his opinion.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Prevailing wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 4:23pm: The racist Labour Party Greens alliance - blood on their hands... >:( Yes but should Bolt resign, sock?

Bolt told the truth, he has warned that the Government was risking human lives with their culpable negligence on border security and Gillard and the labour party have been warned.  Resign now Gillard.

So true, its good to have people like Bolt around to remind us all just how rediculous the extremist right and political lapdogs are.
The best advertising the Greens and progressive politics has are hysterical lapdogs like Bolt.
Dont sack him..give him more airtime to share his crazy views   :)

I don't expect him to resign.  Nor do I expect him to be sacked from his main job.  This doesn't alter the fact that I don't think he's fit to publish.

That said, I believe that his role on the ABC's Insiders program should be reviewed.  I say this on the basis that I doubt that Kerry O'Brien or any other ABC Staffer would get a way with making such a despicable call...

Either way, it is fitting that he should squirm in his own shyte for a long while!

I dont think his article makes him unfit to publish.

Unsensitive maybe.

From the Bolt: -

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/gillard_must_resign/


Quote:

Gillard must resign Comments 470 Comments | Permalink Andrew Bolt Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 06:32am THE Gillard Government has blood on its hands. Prime Minister Julia Gillard should resign. These tragic drownings at Christmas Island are a direct result of her reckless boat people policies. Again and again she was warned those policies - fatally relaxed in 2008 - would result in exactly this loss of life. Indeed, she was warned people were already dying at sea, as people smugglers resumed the trade the Howard government had all but stopped in 2002. Even before yesterday, up to 170 people had been lured to their deaths by the Government’s dismantling of John Howard’s “Pacific Solution”, scrapping temporary protection visas and softening mandatory detention rules. In January last year, for instance, at least nine boat people drowned off Indonesia as they tried to sail here. That April another nine died, in the South China Sea. Also that month, five Afghans died when they blew up their boat at Ashmore Reef. A month later, 19 more died off Halang Island. I could go on. Many times I warned the Government its “compassionate” laws had deadly consequences. Gillard’s response? When I said 14 months ago at least 25 people had already died and “more will die, too” unless the laws were toughened, she pretended ignorance to the Opposition: “There is no evidence to support this figure.” Even as she spoke, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service realised another boat with 100 asylum seekers had left Indonesia for Australia, and vanished, presumably sunk. Others also told the Government its laws were killing people. Six months ago, the ABC interviewed Mohammed Taqi, an Afghan in Indonesia who said three more people died when his boat sank off Kupang. He added: “I know lots of my friends have died in the sea.” I wrote of that, too, but the Government again pretended deafness and refused to change its policies. So who drew up its deadly laws? “I was the substantive author of a policy paper which became Labor’s policy,” Gillard has boasted. Who ignored the warnings it was costing lives? “There is no evidence,” said Gillard. Who, since her election, not only failed to stop luring people to their deaths, but even increased the incentive, promising to rush more people out of detention? Gillard again. Judge a policy by its effects, not intent. The bodies in the sea are the verdict on Gillard’s. Morally, she must go.

The Drum has just started on ABC News 24 - I wonder whether they will deal with the issue of Bolt's antics...

freedom of speech it only applies if you say what the lefty hypocrites say you can say.. WOW..

all you two faced hypocrites.. screaming for justice for Julian Assange,,, what a laugh you are..

just cant take it can you?

Andrew Bolt isnt paid by the ABC.. he is paid by the taxpayer many of whom agree with him

you dont like what he says switch him off.  simple.. I do it all the time with Tony Jones and his cohorts..never bother with them.

ha.hahahahahahahahahahahahaha just seen its Bobby Brown.. oh dear  Bolt has got to be scared to death....havent seen booby for months and he pops up with this.. good one booby

Verge wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:

I dont think his article makes him unfit to publish. Unsensitive maybe.

There is no such a word as unsensitive?   I think you mean Insensitive. ;)

Nefertiti wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:02pm: I dont think his article makes him unfit to publish. Unsensitive maybe. There is no such a word as unsensitive?   I think you mean Insensitive. ;)

Thats the one.

All Bolt did was get in first.

Verge wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:21pm:

Nefertiti wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:20pm: Verge wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:02pm: I dont think his article makes him unfit to publish. Unsensitive maybe. There is no such a word as unsensitive?   I think you mean Insensitive. ;) Thats the one. All Bolt did was get in first.

hahahahahahaha..much to the chagrin of the lefties

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

freedom of speech it only applies if you say what the lefty hypocrites say you can say.. WOW.. all you two faced hypocrites.. screaming for justice for Julian Assange,,, what a laugh you are.. just cant take it can you? Andrew Bolt isnt paid by the ABC.. he is paid by the taxpayer many of whom agree with him you dont like what he says switch him off.  simple.. I do it all the time with Tony Jones and his cohorts..never bother with them.

Crikey Cods - this is a question of Bolt's integrity - about whether his employer/s (media outlets) should allow him to represent them...

How can you compare it with the systematic demonisation, vilification, scapegoating and incarceration of a whistleblower!?

Speaking of hypocrisy - why didn't Bolt call for the PM's resignation over her patently inappropriate comments in relation to this matter: -

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_its_tribal_this_defence_of_assange


Quote:

Column - It’s tribal, this defence of Assange Icon - Comments 335 Comments | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog Icon Arrow Andrew Bolt Friday, December 10, 2010 at 07:02am THE jailing of Julian Assange has inspired a tribal support that tells us plenty about our partisan times. I’d have thought any adult would have some worries about the dumping of 250,000 stolen US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, the website created by the Australian-born Assange. Some might argue - as I do - that most of these cables tell us nothing we don’t already know, from Italy’s Prime Minister being a lecher to Kevin Rudd being a bungling control freak. Some might also argue - as I do - that most newspapers would have published these leaks themselves. And even conservatives would like what these latest 250,000 cables expose - that the US truly is doing its pretty honest best to counter security threats from a world far more dangerous than most Leftists would like to admit. But anyone with a skerrick of responsibility should also tremble at what this leaking will achieve. The real danger is that while Assange claims he’s done all this damage to get more open government and offer “new ways to report the truth”, he’ll achieve the very opposite. The US Government, from sheer self-preservation, will close up. Information will be more tightly controlled. Fewer officials will dare to put the frank truth in writing, and fewer friends of the US will dare share a blunt confidence, for fear of exposure. We will get not more truth, but less. So no condemnation of Assange can be unqualified. Equally, no defence can be unqualified. Yet what do we see? Already Assange’s arrest in London has inspired that calling card of the tribal Left - the joint open letter. This one is penned by the former International Socialist Jeff Sparrow, now an academic (of course) and lawyer Lizzie O’Shea, and the usual suspects of our celebrity Left have signed. There’s Bob Brown, of course, and Mungo MacCallum, Peter Singer, Adam Bandt, Julian Burnside, Jeff Lawrence, Larissa Behrendt, Wendy Bacon, Greg Barns and Max Gillies. Naturally, celebrity “human rights” lawyer Geoffrey Robertson is taking the case, and celebrity conspiracy theorist John Pilger is offering bail. Here’s the curious thing. This open letter demands Prime Minister Julia Gillard “do everything in your power” to help the arrested Assange and defend “political communication”. But Assange has not been arrested for spilling secrets. Instead, he’s facing extradition to Sweden to face charges of rape (which he denies). True, the charges seem odd, lodged by feminists who accuse Assange of coercing them into sex, and in one case of not using a condom. Pilger, among many other Assange defenders, pooh-poohs these charges, but if they are so absurd, why doesn’t this letter demand Gillard help fight a witch-hunt by feminists on an ideologically inspired crusade built on nothing more than post-sex regret? Here’s why I say this reaction is tribal. If the person wanted in Sweden for rape was not Assange but, say, me, do you think the Left would be attacking the women who cried “rape”? As if. You can hear already the sermons denouncing my depravity. And if it had been me, not Assange, who had leaked government documents, do you think the Left would demand Gillard protect my right to “political expression”? God, no. In fact, when I published extracts from a leaked report written by Leftist hero Andrew Wilkie when he was an intelligence officer, proving he was alarmist on the risks of invading Iraq, not one Leftist supported me, even when I was questioned by police. Wilkie, now an independent member of Parliament who’s told Gillard of his “disgust” at her condemnation of Assange, demanded then to know what the Government would do about me. A Sydney Morning Herald columnist rang the federal police to make sure they were investigating me. And why has not one of the celebrities defending Assange’s free speech defended my own, now threatened in a legal case I am not safe to even discuss? No, it looks like it’s the side you’re on that counts, not the principle involved, and Assange demonstrates perfectly the hypocrisy of these partisan times.

Good luck getting ANY Op-Ed Journo to resign for having an opinion....

THAT is what he's employed for....

Here's what others are saying...

Also, be aware that Bolts blog is Australia's most frequented.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


Bolts right, they cant have it both ways. 8-)

And why has not one of the celebrities defending Assange’s free speech defended my own, now threatened in a legal case I am not safe to even discuss?

No, it looks like it’s the side you’re on that counts, not the principle involved, and Assange demonstrates perfectly the hypocrisy of these partisan times.

xxxxxx


sorry nem but he does have a point... you cant have priciples that you only support if its done by the side you believe in...

a principle is a principle...like the law it doesnt take sides. you cant rearrange it to suit the occasion

well thats what I say anyway.. you have the ones you choose..

but this is two faced sorry if you cant see that..

Put simply, Julia Gillard was warned something like this could happen, and that it was only a matter of time before it did, so rather than place human life before poll-driven opportunism, she went along her merry-leftard way hoping all would be well.

Well, as can be demonstrated, her border policies are an absolute shipwreck.

Much like her leadership.

We told you Labor was a sinking ship, now here's proof.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/12/15/w-australia-rescue-cp-99025.jpg

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:08pm:

freedom of speech it only applies if you say what the lefty hypocrites say you can say.. WOW.. all you two faced hypocrites.. screaming for justice for Julian Assange,,, what a laugh you are.. just cant take it can you? Andrew Bolt isnt paid by the ABC.. he is paid by the taxpayer many of whom agree with him you dont like what he says switch him off.  simple.. I do it all the time with Tony Jones and his cohorts..never bother with them.

Nice try Cods, Wikileaks and Assange are completly different.
Wikileaks publishes unaltered documents and you can read it and make up your own mind about the evidence presented before you.
Andrew Bolt publishes his OPINION,mostly a rehashed(or often copied word for word)opinion expressed by a overseas right leaning journalist, with no substantive proof to back these views or credit to the original writer, many times he has been caught out re-publishing lies that have already been outed as falsehoods.
Let him publish his looks desparate and amature compared to others.

mellie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

Put simply, Julia Gillard was warned something like this could happen, and that it was only a matter of time before it did, so rather than place human life before poll-driven opportunism, she went along her merry-leftard way hoping all would be well. Well, as can be demonstrated, her border policies are an absolute shipwreck. Much like her leadership. We told you Labor was a sinking ship, now here's proof. http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/12/15/w-australia-rescue-cp-99025.jpg

So true.
Not sure who is denser, the lefties on this board or Julia Gillard.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:50pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:47pm: Put simply, Julia Gillard was warned something like this could happen, and that it was only a matter of time before it did, so rather than place human life before poll-driven opportunism, she went along her merry-leftard way hoping all would be well. Well, as can be demonstrated, her border policies are an absolute shipwreck. Much like her leadership. We told you Labor was a sinking ship, now here's proof. http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/12/15/w-australia-rescue-cp-99025.jpg So true. Not sure who is denser, the lefties on this board or Julia Gillard.

If only the real world was as black and white as yours ;)

Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Bolt on everything, (particularly his rather off-putting stance re- Wikileaks)...I think he's entitled to an opinion, as should be anyone in this country.

I am pro-Wikileaks, and also pro-Andrew Bolt.

8-) Politics doesn't have to be black or white.

Equitist wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 3:53pm:

The latest from the Twittersphere: - Quote: Realtime results for andrew bolt resign   1.                  Ebswearspink‎: RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown has called for Andrew Bolt to resign.      Twitter - 4 minutes ago   2.                  Asher_Wolf‎: RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown: 'Andrew Bolt's call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for JG's resignation (but Labor opposed Iraq) l ...      Twitter - 6 minutes ago   3.                  willispb‎: RT @timhollo: Let's shout it from the rooftops! #AndrewBoltMustResign! RT @latikambourke: Bob Brown has called for Andrew Bolt to resign.      Twitter - 6 minutes ago

When the boat people stopped coming under John Howard, Bob Brown was vocal about the treatment of asylum seekers.

Wonder why Bob Brown is so silent about the treatment of asylum seekers now, now that there's been over 200 deaths under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.
What has Bob Brown got to say now? Oh that Andrew Bolt shouldn't be picking on Julia Gillard for her "come one, come all" open door policy.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:53pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:50pm: mellie wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:47pm: Put simply, Julia Gillard was warned something like this could happen, and that it was only a matter of time before it did, so rather than place human life before poll-driven opportunism, she went along her merry-leftard way hoping all would be well. Well, as can be demonstrated, her border policies are an absolute shipwreck. Much like her leadership. We told you Labor was a sinking ship, now here's proof. http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2010/12/15/w-australia-rescue-cp-99025.jpg So true. Not sure who is denser, the lefties on this board or Julia Gillard. If only the real world was as black and white as yours ;)

It is.
Just take out your brown and green eyes and have a look.

mellie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 5:53pm:

Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Bolt on everything, (particularly his rather off-putting stance re- Wikileaks)...I think he's entitled to an opinion, as should be anyone in this country. I am pro-Wikileaks, and also pro-Andrew Bolt. 8-) Politics doesn't have to be black or white.

He's (Bolt) is employed to have an 'opinion' that's the whole point....

It doesn't matter if he's pro-Liberal, or pro-Labor.....the whole point is, it's HIS opinion.....

I'd like a dollar for every time some leftard control-freak has called for Bolts resignation.

Bolt wont resign,  and why should he?

I distinctly recall a Greens senator/spokesperson requesting a water ministers resignation not all that long ago...something about their not believing in global warming?

http://www.alisonxamon.org.au/node/305

The Greens call for many resignations so it seems, but could it be said they would do best accepting a few of their own?

I thought Bob Brown had plans on retiring soon.

Apparently not.

8-)

Its time to shun racist progressive politics and take our lives. our Government and our country back.  I am sick of the vandalism and sheer wastage of lives caused by these idiots. ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:53pm: Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Bolt on everything, (particularly his rather off-putting stance re- Wikileaks)...I think he's entitled to an opinion, as should be anyone in this country. I am pro-Wikileaks, and also pro-Andrew Bolt. 8-) Politics doesn't have to be black or white. He's (Bolt) is employed to have an 'opinion' that's the whole point.... It doesn't matter if he's pro-Liberal, or pro-Labor.....the whole point is, it's HIS opinion.....

Exactly.

Basically, Bob Brown is requesting Bolts resignation due to him publishing his own point of view.

I think it's time old Bob went to a home. 8-)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 5:53pm: Whilst I don't agree with Andrew Bolt on everything, (particularly his rather off-putting stance re- Wikileaks)...I think he's entitled to an opinion, as should be anyone in this country. I am pro-Wikileaks, and also pro-Andrew Bolt. 8-) Politics doesn't have to be black or white. He's (Bolt) is employed to have an 'opinion' that's the whole point.... It doesn't matter if he's pro-Liberal, or pro-Labor.....the whole point is, it's HIS opinion.....

Julia Gillard doesn't like people having an opinion that is different from hers, and she has  upset the GALP since.
But Bob Brown has made a big fool of himself (again) by denying freedom of speech.

Must be like pushing sht uphill there Bob, but who better than Bob Brown to get stuck into that as afterall thats his forte!

The poll question is... Is Bolt fit for publishing?

Well, I like him, so I think yes.

:)...

Just my opinion of course...

mellie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:04pm:

I'd like a dollar for every time some leftard control-freak has called for Bolts resignation. Bolt wont resign,  and why should he? I distinctly recall a Greens senator/spokesperson requesting a water ministers resignation not all that long ago...something about their not believing in global warming? http://www.alisonxamon.org.au/node/305 The Greens call for many resignations so it seems, but could it be said they would do best accepting a few of their own? I thought Bob Brown had plans on retiring soon. Apparently not. 8-)

The lefties don't like it when they lose the argument.
As evidenced by the antics on this board from the lefties.

mellie wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:08pm:

The poll question is... Is Bolt fit for publishing? Well, I like him, so I think yes. :)... Just my opinion of course...

It is all a distraction by the GALP.
The real issue is that Julia Gillard MUST resign.
Julia Gillard has blood on her hands.

I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers?

Bolt, Ackerman and Jones could have their own show on channel 10 called : MASTER RACE.
They could get Neo Nationalist gangs of 20 or more to compete for the title while putting forward their own far right doctorine to the Australian population.

Events could be : kicking to death the aged Aborigonal man in a dark ally.

Gang raping and mudering the lone Vietnamese Grandmother.

Knifing a lone Iraqi taxi driver at night, stealing his cash and then drive his taxi into the Yarra with him locked in the boot.

Humiliating a young Chinese couple in a public park and posting it on the internet.

Shouting down meetings discussing the intergration of Asylum seekers and handing out hate pamphlets to school kids.

There could be points awarded for cowardice, the biggest group on the smallest and most vunerable target, blame shifting, the most amount of cash stolen, the most humliated victim, the most sensless act of violence and the biggest drain on the welfare system.

This would be an ideal vehicle for Bolt Ackerman and Jones to showcase their views and talents  :)

The hypocrisy of the ALP.


"Will Labor be as tough on its own policies in the wake of this disaster as it was on the Howard Government’s in 2001, after the sinking of the SIEV X in Indonesian waters?

   TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, ...In the face of this tragedy, was it a mistake for Kim Beazley to link the deaths of these boat people to the Government’s failure to get a deal from Indonesia to stop them leaving?

   CON SCIACCA, SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION: Tony, I don’t think that that is the case. What Kim Beazley clearly said was that this was a human tragedy of enormous proportions.

   He then went on to say that, if there had not been a failure in Government policy in stopping this insidious people smuggling trade, the fact is that this may not have happened.

   He wasn’t blaming anybody. He didn’t blame anybody at all.

   TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, that is tantamount to blame, isn’t it? Suggesting that a failure of Government policy had something to do with the deaths of people in a tragedy like this?

   CON SCIACCA: No, what he was actually saying was, is that, if we were able to stop them coming from Indonesia in the first place, that these sorts of things wouldn’t happen.

Will Labor suggest what Senator John Faulkner insinuated against Howard - that its security services had deliberately murdered these boat people:

   In 2002 then Labor frontbencher and later defence minister John Faulkner demanded the “authorities” answer questions about steps taken to disrupt people-smugglers, asking whether the SIEV X had been sabotaged and said the protocols for ASIS and the AFP operating in Indonesia “were not meant as a direct or indirect licence to kill”."
(Andrew Bolt – Thursday, December 16, 10 (12:11 pm))

wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:11pm:

I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers?

You should read his article and then you'd not have to ask.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:13pm:

The hypocrisy of the ALP. "Will Labor be as tough on its own policies in the wake of this disaster as it was on the Howard Government’s in 2001, after the sinking of the SIEV X in Indonesian waters?    TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, ...In the face of this tragedy, was it a mistake for Kim Beazley to link the deaths of these boat people to the Government’s failure to get a deal from Indonesia to stop them leaving?    CON SCIACCA, SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION: Tony, I don’t think that that is the case. What Kim Beazley clearly said was that this was a human tragedy of enormous proportions.    He then went on to say that, if there had not been a failure in Government policy in stopping this insidious people smuggling trade, the fact is that this may not have happened.    He wasn’t blaming anybody. He didn’t blame anybody at all.    TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, that is tantamount to blame, isn’t it? Suggesting that a failure of Government policy had something to do with the deaths of people in a tragedy like this?    CON SCIACCA: No, what he was actually saying was, is that, if we were able to stop them coming from Indonesia in the first place, that these sorts of things wouldn’t happen. Will Labor suggest what Senator John Faulkner insinuated against Howard - that its security services had deliberately murdered these boat people:    In 2002 then Labor frontbencher and later defence minister John Faulkner demanded the “authorities” answer questions about steps taken to disrupt people-smugglers, asking whether the SIEV X had been sabotaged and said the protocols for ASIS and the AFP operating in Indonesia “were not meant as a direct or indirect licence to kill”." (Andrew Bolt – Thursday, December 16, 10 (12:11 pm))

Yes and now the Libs are showing their hypocrisy by doing exactly the same thing.
Which is why I fully endorse Prevailing's call for REVOLUTION! :D

So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect.
I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction.

So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:19pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:13pm: The hypocrisy of the ALP. "Will Labor be as tough on its own policies in the wake of this disaster as it was on the Howard Government’s in 2001, after the sinking of the SIEV X in Indonesian waters?    TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, ...In the face of this tragedy, was it a mistake for Kim Beazley to link the deaths of these boat people to the Government’s failure to get a deal from Indonesia to stop them leaving?    CON SCIACCA, SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION: Tony, I don’t think that that is the case. What Kim Beazley clearly said was that this was a human tragedy of enormous proportions.    He then went on to say that, if there had not been a failure in Government policy in stopping this insidious people smuggling trade, the fact is that this may not have happened.    He wasn’t blaming anybody. He didn’t blame anybody at all.    TONY JONES: Con Sciacca, that is tantamount to blame, isn’t it? Suggesting that a failure of Government policy had something to do with the deaths of people in a tragedy like this?    CON SCIACCA: No, what he was actually saying was, is that, if we were able to stop them coming from Indonesia in the first place, that these sorts of things wouldn’t happen. Will Labor suggest what Senator John Faulkner insinuated against Howard - that its security services had deliberately murdered these boat people:    In 2002 then Labor frontbencher and later defence minister John Faulkner demanded the “authorities” answer questions about steps taken to disrupt people-smugglers, asking whether the SIEV X had been sabotaged and said the protocols for ASIS and the AFP operating in Indonesia “were not meant as a direct or indirect licence to kill”." (Andrew Bolt – Thursday, December 16, 10 (12:11 pm)) Yes and now the Libs are showing their hypocrisy by doing exactly the same thing. Which is why I fully endorse Prevailing's call for REVOLUTION! :D

You've missed the point.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:47pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq?

So Julia Gillard put people on a boat?

I do not believe he should either resign or be sacked over this.

I also do not understand how old Tokyo Rosebolt's style of propaganda distribution would be employable by any media organisation in the first place.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction.

havent got a clue what any of that meant... but I have jst watched jooooooolia on ABC,, where she has talked and talked and said nothing..

what a boring woman this is... and these people are drowning and she says NOTHING...just rhetorics...

she shouldnt be allowed to resign.. she should be sacked.. this whole company.[laughingly called a govt] is a disgrace.

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. havent got a clue what any of that meant... .

Logic is obviously not your forte.

On the subject of publishing leaks, what was Bolt's position on Laurie Oakes' actions during the last election campaign - did he applaud or lament the associated Walkley Award!?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat?

So Julia Gillard isn't in government then in your eyes.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:59pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? So Julia Gillard isn't in government then in your eyes.

She is in government, yes.

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. havent got a clue what any of that meant...

Yes agree codswal. It just did not make sense.
Maybe he was going for that OJ Simpson Chewbacca defence, where it simply did not make sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8&feature=related

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:01pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:59pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? So Julia Gillard isn't in government then in your eyes. She is in government, yes.

Is Andrew Bolt in government?

codswal wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

havent got a clue what any of that meant... but I have jst watched jooooooolia on ABC,, where she has talked and talked and said nothing.. what a boring woman this is... and these people are drowning and she says NOTHING...just rhetorics... she shouldnt be allowed to resign.. she should be sacked.. this whole company.[laughingly called a govt] is a disgrace.

Yes the Australian voters deserve the right to vote Julia Gillard out of office.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. havent got a clue what any of that meant... Yes agree codswal. It just did not make sense. Maybe he was going for that OJ Simpson Chewbacca defence, where it simply did not make sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8&feature=related

It made sense to you when you first replied, but not now?
Pinned in an intellectual corner, you now look around to garner 'moral support' to save face.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:06pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 7:01pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:59pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? So Julia Gillard isn't in government then in your eyes. She is in government, yes. Is Andrew Bolt in government?

No.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 7:05pm: codswal wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. havent got a clue what any of that meant... Yes agree codswal. It just did not make sense. Maybe he was going for that OJ Simpson Chewbacca defence, where it simply did not make sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8&feature=related It made sense to you when you first replied, but not now? Pinned in an intellectual corner, you now look around to garner 'moral support' to save face.

Once again your comments simply do not make sense chewie

Meanwhile, over at the Punch...

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-day-both-extremes-almost-met-in-the-middle/


Quote:

The day both extremes almost met in the middle by Tory Maguire 16 Dec 04:00pm 54 comments Julia Gillard is not just between a rock and a hard place in the aftermath of the Christmas Island tragedy - she’s wedged between an angry Left and a rabid Right. It was hardly unexpected that Andrew Bolt and his gang quickly trotted out the “blood on her hands” mantra after dozens of asylum-seekers met their awful deaths yesterday, but they’ve been joined by a loud chorus of refugee advocates claiming the atrocity could have been prevented with a softer government policy. The only people not attacking the Prime Minister today are the Opposition, who’ve remained for the past 24 hours particularly civil towards Gillard and her Immigration Minister Chris Bowen. And Gillard’s announcement this afternoon of a standing group including the Opposition and representatives from the Greens to examine the fact of the boat’s sinking could well prolong that cease-fire beyond the usual limits. Gillard broke her summer holiday this afternoon to give a press conference in Sydney - where she was unable to shed much light on the how the vessel went undetected by Australian border authorities until 5.48am Christmas Island time yesterday, when it was already “hard up” against the cliffs and “clearly in distress”. The facts, the Prime Minister said, needed to be established before judgements could be made about what, if any, culpability her government’s policy held. “These conversations will be had, as they should be had,” she said. But not today. Instead, by including shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison and and shadow attorney-general Michael Keenan in a “bi-partisan reporting mechanism”, Gillard has made it very difficult for them to start bleating about who’s responsible. (Update 7pm: The Opposition has declined Gillard’s offer to take part.) Gillard said she neither sought, nor received, any undertaking from Tony Abbott that in exchange for inclusion on the standing committee the Opposition would lay off the finger pointing. It’s a tenuous truce, considering the very loud, very acrimonious debate going on outside the mainstream political parties today. Bolt’s not the only one saying the tragedy was an inevitable result of the Rudd/Gillard softening of the Howard-era border protection stance. It’s undeniable the rate of boat arrivals has increased exponentially since 1998, from the trickle it was towards the end of the Coalition government. Something’s made the Indonesian people smugglers and their desperate clients think it’s worth the risk to make the mad dash to Australian waters. But international coverage of the disaster has taken a different tack. Numerous overseas media outlets, such as the UK Independent, are reporting Gillard is under pressure to soften the government’s border protection policy, not toughen it up. They’re basing this analysis on comments from refugee advocates such as Pino Migliorino, chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, who called the incident a “wake-up call” for the government, and Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Coalition, who said “unless the government changes its policies and adopts a welcome refugee policy, there will be more tragedies.” Gillard has managed to upset both sides of the ledger equally. They both say they want the same thing - to avoid more loss of life. In fact, headlines such as “Refugee policy blamed for wreck” could equally be applied to stories about the response from either camp. They just have very different ways of getting there. Regardless, Gillard can only continue to put off the conversation that “should be had” for a short period. Her adherence to the weak “push factor” argument when asked this afternoon to explain the huge increase in boat arrivals just doesn’t cut it. Sadly for the lefties calling for her to open the gates, Gillard will be unable to ignore stories such as this report showing a massive majority of respondents to an online poll today have no sympathy for asylum-seekers, even in light of the terrible scenes of Christmas Island. The Right and Left might have met in the middle today, but it won’t last long.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:10pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 7:08pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 7:05pm: codswal wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:50pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. havent got a clue what any of that meant... Yes agree codswal. It just did not make sense. Maybe he was going for that OJ Simpson Chewbacca defence, where it simply did not make sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8&feature=related It made sense to you when you first replied, but not now? Pinned in an intellectual corner, you now look around to garner 'moral support' to save face. Once again your comments simply do not make sense chewie

Ad hominem does not equate to valid argumentation.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:14pm:

wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:11pm: I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers? You should read his article and then you'd not have to ask. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 
The  link Shows  Bolt  making  the politics of asylum seekers more important than the disaster itself.

so I HAVE answered my own  query

'I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers?'

wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:14pm: wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:11pm: I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers? You should read his article and then you'd not have to ask. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/   The  link Shows  Bolt  making  the politics of asylum seekers more important than the disaster itself. so I HAVE answered my own  query 'I wonder what Andrew Bolts intent is. Is it to bring down the government OR he actually cares about assylum seekers?'

Do you need to be spoon fed?
Otherwise I'd suggest you try again as you've not understood it.

adelcrow wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

Bolt, Ackerman and Jones could have their own show on channel 10 called : MASTER RACE. They could get Neo Nationalist gangs of 20 or more to compete for the title while putting forward their own far right doctorine to the Australian population. Events could be : kicking to death the aged Aborigonal man in a dark ally. Gang raping and mudering the lone Vietnamese Grandmother. Knifing a lone Iraqi taxi driver at night, stealing his cash and then drive his taxi into the Yarra with him locked in the boot. Humiliating a young Chinese couple in a public park and posting it on the internet. Shouting down meetings discussing the intergration of Asylum seekers and handing out hate pamphlets to school kids. There could be points awarded for cowardice, the biggest group on the smallest and most vunerable target, blame shifting, the most amount of cash stolen, the most humliated victim, the most sensless act of violence and the biggest drain on the welfare system. This would be an ideal vehicle for Bolt Ackerman and Jones to showcase their views and talents  :)

Adel, there are just as many anit-Liberal, pro-Labor journos around too..

Paul Sheehan and Kerry O'brien, to name just two...

The days of 'impartial, non-partisan' reporting are long gone.......

Everyone has, and is entitled to, an opinion....and that includes members of the media...

In a world of free speech, Bolt is entitled to his opinion.

While people are bashing the "right" on this, notice how the politicans have remained tight lipped.

Is it any different for those on the left here to immediatley say this shouldnt be political while those on the right say it is.

Both are entitled to their opinion.

Bolt is a Hack, and most rational thinking people know it.

However, calling for his resignation merely because he is a hack is probably playing into his hands.

He wants to be seen as the guy who "tells it like it is". In reality he is just another far right nutter with a following of angry bogans. Calls for his resignation, or any sanctions against him, will just make him into some kind of martyr.

Further, as much as I find his views simplistic and repugnant, I also feel that silencing him would be more repugnant. You can't limit free speech to speech that you like or agree with.  

Who'd be concerned about Bolt anymore?
His big call was climate change.

If he was right, it could be none other than a right-winged scare tactic.
If he has been wrong, he's retarded the cause and helped to put the future in grave jeopardy.
The odds are that climate change due to human input is a definite realism.

Either way, his big call has been wrong.
Back to the bleachers "Bolt the dolt".

Without reading through this thread (full of brilliant information as it possibly might be...) what does the case of Wikileaks, or Julian Assange, have to do with Andrew Bolt?

I get the whole 'free speech' thing - and I don't for one second believe Bolt should be censored - but him and Assange are miles apart, they're not even slightly comparable.

Quote:

Without reading through this thread (full of brilliant information as it possibly might be...) what does the case of Wikileaks, or Julian Assange, have to do with Andrew Bolt?

If you read through the entire thread, then you may or may not be privvy to submitting some intelligent input.

On the other hand, if you consider yourself to be above us all, then you may not be required to read a single word, because your comprehension is so far above any of us.

Live in the world you live. I'm happy for you.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:12pm: Bolt, Ackerman and Jones could have their own show on channel 10 called : MASTER RACE. They could get Neo Nationalist gangs of 20 or more to compete for the title while putting forward their own far right doctorine to the Australian population. Events could be : kicking to death the aged Aborigonal man in a dark ally. Gang raping and mudering the lone Vietnamese Grandmother. Knifing a lone Iraqi taxi driver at night, stealing his cash and then drive his taxi into the Yarra with him locked in the boot. Humiliating a young Chinese couple in a public park and posting it on the internet. Shouting down meetings discussing the intergration of Asylum seekers and handing out hate pamphlets to school kids. There could be points awarded for cowardice, the biggest group on the smallest and most vunerable target, blame shifting, the most amount of cash stolen, the most humliated victim, the most sensless act of violence and the biggest drain on the welfare system. This would be an ideal vehicle for Bolt Ackerman and Jones to showcase their views and talents  :) Adel, there are just as many anit-Liberal, pro-Labor journos around too.. Paul Sheehan and Kerry O'brien, to name just two... The days of 'impartial, non-partisan' reporting are long gone....... Everyone has, and is entitled to, an opinion....and that includes members of the media...

-----------------


I dont think the left idiots that support these boards realize that gizmo.. they firmly believe its only the 3 right leaning journos..that have a bias..lol..

personally I am more concerned about someone like Bobby Brown calling for Bolts demise than anyone on here..

the fact this guy has a say [ and a big one thanks to gillard & Co]..in the running of this country gives me hives.. and he makes a statement like this.. sack Bolt?.. why??? for having the honesty to speak his mind.. not like the parliamentary journos that spend more time crawling up backsides of those in power.. its blood curdling.

to watch gillard.. wooden as ever, show no emotion whatsoever. make sure she brings up "Children Overboard"... talk about another never ending REPORT..sends chills...the woman will do nothing not a thing. she is frozen into impotence.. her deputy didnt have a clue either did he??

at least Bolt said something.and a few ears shot up and listend!

what did gillard say???????... anyone??????????????????????

codswal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:10am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 8:39pm: adelcrow wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:12pm: Bolt, Ackerman and Jones could have their own show on channel 10 called : MASTER RACE. They could get Neo Nationalist gangs of 20 or more to compete for the title while putting forward their own far right doctorine to the Australian population. Events could be : kicking to death the aged Aborigonal man in a dark ally. Gang raping and mudering the lone Vietnamese Grandmother. Knifing a lone Iraqi taxi driver at night, stealing his cash and then drive his taxi into the Yarra with him locked in the boot. Humiliating a young Chinese couple in a public park and posting it on the internet. Shouting down meetings discussing the intergration of Asylum seekers and handing out hate pamphlets to school kids. There could be points awarded for cowardice, the biggest group on the smallest and most vunerable target, blame shifting, the most amount of cash stolen, the most humliated victim, the most sensless act of violence and the biggest drain on the welfare system. This would be an ideal vehicle for Bolt Ackerman and Jones to showcase their views and talents  :) Adel, there are just as many anit-Liberal, pro-Labor journos around too.. Paul Sheehan and Kerry O'brien, to name just two... The days of 'impartial, non-partisan' reporting are long gone....... Everyone has, and is entitled to, an opinion....and that includes members of the media... ----------------- I dont think the left idiots that support these boards realize that gizmo.. they firmly believe its only the 3 right leaning journos..that have a bias..lol.. personally I am more concerned about someone like Bobby Brown calling for Bolts demise than anyone on here.. the fact this guy has a say [ and a big one thanks to gillard & Co]..in the running of this country gives me hives.. and he makes a statement like this.. sack Bolt?.. why??? for having the honesty to speak his mind.. not like the parliamentary journos that spend more time crawling up backsides of those in power.. its blood curdling. to watch gillard.. wooden as ever, show no emotion whatsoever. make sure she brings up "Children Overboard"... talk about another never ending REPORT..sends chills...the woman will do nothing not a thing. she is frozen into impotence.. her deputy didnt have a clue either did he?? at least Bolt said something.and a few ears shot up and listend! what did gillard say???????... anyone??????????????????????

Julia Gillard's response was it's too early to make any comment.
No it isn't!
Blood is on Julia Gillard's hands, she knows it, Andrew Bolt knows it, and the public knows it.
This is why she gave the Green light to Bob Brown to try and divert attention away from her and onto Andrew Bolt.

On the new show MASTER RACE the hosts Bolt, Ackerman and Jones would award bonus points if contestants can shift the blame for the  gangs of thugs crimes against victims to the Gillard govt and extra bonus points if Bob Brown and the Greens can somehow be blamed as well.
Bolt, Ackerman and Jones all have first class experience at blame shifting so Im sure they are well qualified to give advice and pick out a deserving winner   :)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat?

She may as well have by her continued insistence on having laws that are weak which provide no deterrent to smugglers.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

Prevailing wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 4:23pm: The racist Labour Party Greens alliance - blood on their hands... >:( Yes but should Bolt resign, sock?

Why should he resign?
For telling the truth?
I don't think so.
He did warn the government of the ramifications of their reckless policy softening on this issue so years ago.
And what he stated would happen has come to pass, and that is not his fault.
It's Gillard and her band of bungling incompetents.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:50am:

skippy. wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 4:27pm: Prevailing wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 4:23pm: The racist Labour Party Greens alliance - blood on their hands... >:( Yes but should Bolt resign, sock? Why should he resign? For telling the truth? I don't think so. He did warn the government of the ramifications of their reckless policy softening on this issue so years ago. And what he stated would happen has come to pass, and that is not his fault. It's Gillard and her band of bungling incompetents.

True, all true there chickenlipsforme.
And prevailing is right as well.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:45am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? She may as well have by her continued insistence on having laws that are weak which provide no deterrent to smugglers.

Julia Gillards go soft policies lured the boat people, it was her policies that directly caused the boat people to be there in the first place.

Another day, another cynical attempt by right whingers to gain political mileage out of the desperate and stateless...


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/secret-wikileaks-us-cables-criticise-kevin-rudd-on-boats/story-fn3dxity-1225971843665


Quote:

A cable obtained by WikiLeaks and provided to Fairfax says an unnamed "key Liberal Party strategist" told US diplomats in November last year that the issue of asylum seekers was "fantastic" for the coalition and "the more boats that come the better".

Babies in the sea are the direct result of Julia Gillard's soft policies.

Luke Fowler wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:39pm:

Bolt is a Hack, and most rational thinking people know it. However, calling for his resignation merely because he is a hack is probably playing into his hands. He wants to be seen as the guy who "tells it like it is". In reality he is just another far right nutter with a following of angry bogans. Calls for his resignation, or any sanctions against him, will just make him into some kind of martyr. Further, as much as I find his views simplistic and repugnant, I also feel that silencing him would be more repugnant. You can't limit free speech to speech that you like or agree with.

HEAR HEAR  [smiley=thumbup.gif]


to miss annie dryst-
put that in your pipe and smoke it. This is the same reason I dont read Andrew Dolt.
I hear enough of what 'his'  intent is and I am not interested in his Opinion. yet I did access that link you supplied - which indeed proved my point.
But dont let rational thinking stop YOU from quoting bolts opinions... ;D

adelcrow wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:43am:

On the new show MASTER RACE the hosts Bolt, Ackerman and Jones would award bonus points if contestants can shift the blame for the  gangs of thugs crimes against victims to the Gillard govt and extra bonus points if Bob Brown and the Greens can somehow be blamed as well. Bolt, Ackerman and Jones all have first class experience at blame shifting so Im sure they are well qualified to give advice and pick out a deserving winner   :)

I think you're on a winner there, that show would rate through the roof with the rightarded xenophobes with huge stiffies every episode.
Call John Singleton, he'd sponsor it for you, lets face it he pays the wages for Ray Hadley and Gloria Jones.

There is no need for Bolt to do anything.

His call for Gillard to resign is valid.

You look at this terrible tragedy which fills us all with sadness and you see how preventable it was.

Poor and weak policy have caused more and more boats of desperate people to come to Christmas Island.
They must be stopped before there is such another tragedy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

There is no need for Bolt to do anything. His call for Gillard to resign is valid. You look at this terrible tragedy which fills us all with sadness and you see how preventable it was. Poor and weak policy have caused more and more boats of desperate people to come to Christmas Island. They must be stopped before there is such another tragedy.

I totally agree. Judging by the stupidity of the proponents for increased people smugling, and the stupidity of those who can`t grasp that weak policy directly encourages the growth of same, it`s obvious that more sensible heads must prevail.  

This sad tragedy happened in an easily viewed location, one wonders how many other poor souls have lost their lives in similar circumstances, although there will always be those so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity.  

"so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. "

Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, tears flowing freely.

"POLL"

Yes
No, he should resign immediately
No, he should be sacked from all media forthwithI don't really care


What an absolutely, useless, childishly prejudiced "poll". Pathetic.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:47am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:30am: There is no need for Bolt to do anything. His call for Gillard to resign is valid. You look at this terrible tragedy which fills us all with sadness and you see how preventable it was. Poor and weak policy have caused more and more boats of desperate people to come to Christmas Island. They must be stopped before there is such another tragedy. I totally agree. Judging by the stupidity of the proponents for increased people smugling, and the stupidity of those who can`t grasp that weak policy directly encourages the growth of same, it`s obvious that more sensible heads must prevail.   This sad tragedy happened in an easily viewed location, one wonders how many other poor souls have lost their lives in similar circumstances, although there will always be those so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity.

Agree.
Well said.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:45am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? She may as well have by her continued insistence on having laws that are weak which provide no deterrent to smugglers.

1. You're devolving the smugglers of any responsibility for their own actions.
2. You're claiming that people 100 times removed from an event can be blamed for that event. If this is the case then Bolt also "has blood on his hands" for his support of the Iraq war. This is Bolt's reasoning turned back on himself.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:03am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 6:45am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:48pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:47pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 6:28pm: So Bolt calls for Gillard to resign after this huh. If Gillard has blood on her hands for this, Bolt does also for the Iraq war. But asking Bolt to acknowledge his hypocrisy is pointless. He hurls insults and abuse then gets uppity when it gets thrown back. Maybe Bolt should move into politics. Nar, he wouldn't do that, then he'd have to be responsible for what he says, he'd have to get out from behind his safety cell and put his violent rhetoric into effect. I, for one, will not be so tolerant if he ever throws unjustified abuse in my direction. So Andrew Bolt sent troops into Iraq? So Julia Gillard put people on a boat? She may as well have by her continued insistence on having laws that are weak which provide no deterrent to smugglers. Julia Gillards go soft policies lured the boat people, it was her policies that directly caused the boat people to be there in the first place.

"Directly caused", pfft. Only if you sever the link of cause and effect to the hundredth degree.

1. Where is the personal responsibility of the smugglers and the people on the boat?
2. If the chain of cause and effect can be twisted to the hundredth degree then Bolt "has blood on his hands" for his support of the Iraq war.
This is Bolt's reasoning turned back on himself.

"so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. "

Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, CROCODILE tears flowing freely.

(edited by Ernie because I left out an important word)

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 7:19am:

Babies in the sea are the direct result of Julia Gillard's soft policies.

Dead babies in Iraq are the direct result of Bolt's support.

How ironic, that the usual amoral political opportunists should jump at the chance to selectively harp on about moral and political responsibility...

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

"so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. " Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, CROCODILE tears flowing freely. (edited by Ernie because I left out an important word)

Its a sad indication of his lack of any true morals.

Akerman did similar today on his blog stating "LABOR and its mongrel coalition of supporters are a failure and should be sacked over the Christmas Island tragedy".

That's as far as I bothered to read. HE and Bolt are an example of the Liberal support base - full of ugliness, slander and slogans.

Both of them have lost the ability to write anything factual and let their biased and superficial emotions stand in the way of any common sense. They've learnt that being simple minded and crude is the only way to impress the rabble.

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

"so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. " Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, CROCODILE tears flowing freely. (edited by Ernie because I left out an important word)

Your accusation would be insulting if it came from a decent human being.  As it is, you slither, lie, cheat and decieve so much in your own life that you are now unable to take others at face value.  Yours is a world of low life gutter scrabbling and scum licking.

ENJOY.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:09am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:05am: "so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. " Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, CROCODILE tears flowing freely. (edited by Ernie because I left out an important word) Its a sad indication of his lack of any true morals.

No such thing, just another confirmation of your willingness to lie, and accept lies.
ENJOY your low life.

mantra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Akerman did similar today on his blog stating "LABOR and its mongrel coalition of supporters are a failure and should be sacked over the Christmas Island tragedy". That's as far as I bothered to read. HE and Bolt are an example of the Liberal support base - full of ugliness, slander and slogans. Both of them have lost the ability to write anything factual and let their biased and superficial emotions stand in the way of any common sense. They've learnt that being simple minded and crude is the only way to impress the rabble.

Yea I've just read Akermans blog, full of the same old vile as usual.
I love his cheer squad,"I love you piers even though you've been accused of sexual assault five times" " I love you piers even though you snort coke for breakfast" fat lump of sh it.
You know he threatened me on his blog about posting his indiscretions, I told him if they were untrue he could see me in court, I'm still waiting, I suppose when he's been to court  5 times over  something its pretty hard to deny it, hey? particularly when he reached a financial settlement with Mz Stot Despoia over one of the incidents.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:21am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:05am: "so low as to try to cheapen our sadness and pity. " Cue flag and patriotic music, as AF2R stands, head bowed, hand on heart, CROCODILE tears flowing freely. (edited by Ernie because I left out an important word) Your accusation would be insulting if it came from a decent human being.  As it is, you slither, lie, cheat and decieve so much in your own life that you are now unable to take others at face value.  Yours is a world of low life gutter scrabbling and scum licking. ENJOY.

He's getting all his nick's personalities all muddled up aussie.

Poor AF2R, struggling with the difficulty of portraying himself as a sympathiser, while all the while his heart is singing with joy.

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:42am:

Poor AF2R, struggling with the difficulty of portraying himself as a sympathiser, while all the while his heart is singing with joy.

Its funny to watch hey?  the rightards know its polite to act with sympathy but some just go so far you can see its all bullsh it.

skippy. wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 4:08pm:

Bolt is a fascist prick, we need fascist pricks like Bolt to show the rightards up as the self obsessed xenophobic scum they are. Bolts writing should be compulsory reading to all Australians, if it were the Libs would never get to form government. In fact I really think this site should have a twitter account so the world could see what sort of scum support the Liberals.

mantra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

an example of the Liberal Labor  support base - full of ugliness, slander and slogans.

Spitting vitriol by the emotionally incontionent Left obviously fine with you.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:47am:

Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:42am: Poor AF2R, struggling with the difficulty of portraying himself as a sympathiser, while all the while his heart is singing with joy. Its funny to watch hey?  the rightards know its polite to act with sympathy but some just go so far you can see its all bullsh it.

I keep waiting for them to blame The Dunbar on Labor.

Quote:

Spitting vitriol by the emotionally incontionent Left obviously fine with you.

Sometimes the only way to deal with an excess of vitriol is to go one better. Generally there is little venom from the left and if there is occasionally - it's because it's the only language some of the Libs understand.

Im not sure what catergory people are going to put me in here.....

I view this a lot like the young guy who hoons around in his car.  You talk to him, tell him to knock it off before he hurts someone, you talk to his parents, yet he still speeds past your place everyday.  One day you pick up the paper and see his car wrapped around a tree and he is dead.

You feel for the grieving parents, and you feel bad it happened, but at the same time you think to yourself "it was only a matter of time before something bad happened."

I said something similar earlier, verge.

They were foolish, and unlucky, and determined to avoid detection.

skippy
Quote:

Its funny to watch hey?  the rightards know its polite to act with sympathy but some just go so far you can see its all bullsh it.

the rightys know any amount of oprah tears won't change the world.

the spastic leftards think we should all be coffee coloured people and want to give away what is mine to anyone else.

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 10:20am:

I said something similar earlier, verge. They were foolish, and unlucky, and determined to avoid detection.

what I dont understand about all this finger pointing... is those that call others names.. dont seem to have any answers to this problem..

as we seem to agree that this was an accident waiting to happen.. therefore you must also agree that the policies are wrong..

as anyone can see this will happen over and over again.

30 dead so far 4 babies included. and most it seems were related to those already on the Island..I find that a bit strange.

I also see where they are blaming the Navy for it happening..ho hum,

wasnt it their fault that boat caught fire????

The ABC's "Insiders" have both Bolt and Ackerman on a regular guest appearence - as a bit of COMIC RELIEF

Why should the readership of the Telegraph and Herald-Sun not have this little moment of "laughter therapy" as well ?

NEITHER do any favours to the moderate Liberal cause

I say "LET 'EM STAY"

"you must also agree that the policies are wrong.."

I call that spin.

Luke Fowler wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 10:39pm:

Bolt is a Hack, and most rational thinking people know it. However, calling for his resignation merely because he is a hack is probably playing into his hands. He wants to be seen as the guy who "tells it like it is". In reality he is just another far right nutter with a following of angry bogans. Calls for his resignation, or any sanctions against him, will just make him into some kind of martyr. Further, as much as I find his views simplistic and repugnant, I also feel that silencing him would be more repugnant. You can't limit free speech to speech that you like or agree with.

'simplistic and repugnant' can be excuses for being accurate and brave. At least you support his right to speak. There are not that many on the left that seem to support this ideal.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

mantra wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 9:15am: Akerman did similar today on his blog stating "LABOR and its mongrel coalition of supporters are a failure and should be sacked over the Christmas Island tragedy". That's as far as I bothered to read. HE and Bolt are an example of the Liberal support base - full of ugliness, slander and slogans. Both of them have lost the ability to write anything factual and let their biased and superficial emotions stand in the way of any common sense. They've learnt that being simple minded and crude is the only way to impress the rabble. Yea I've just read Akermans blog, full of the same old vile as usual. I love his cheer squad,"I love you piers even though you've been accused of sexual assault five times" " I love you piers even though you snort coke for breakfast" fat lump of sh it. You know he threatened me on his blog about posting his indiscretions, I told him if they were untrue he could see me in court, I'm still waiting, I suppose when he's been to court  5 times over  something its pretty hard to deny it, hey? particularly when he reached a financial settlement with Mz Stot Despoia over one of the incidents.

at least he chooses ADULTS. cant say that about the long long line of convicted child rapists in the ALP!

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 11:37am:

The ABC's "Insiders" have both Bolt and Ackerman on a regular guest appearence - as a bit of COMIC RELIEF Why should the readership of the Telegraph and Herald-Sun not have this little moment of "laughter therapy" as well ? NEITHER do any favours to the moderate Liberal cause I say "LET 'EM STAY"

Stil enjoying the massive Green 'win' in Vic are you? The coalition won BOTH HOUSES and the greens were an embarrassment.

Quote:

at least he chooses ADULTS. cant say that about the long long line of convicted child rapists in the ALP!

I'm not surprised you condone the sexual abuse of women.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:04pm:

Quote: at least he chooses ADULTS. cant say that about the long long line of convicted child rapists in the ALP! I'm not surprised you condone the sexual abuse of women.

Im also not surprised you lack the intellectual capacity and integrity to understand the post. The Australian Sex Offenders Party aka ALP needs your uncritical support!

at least he chooses ADULTS.

Your own words say it all.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 11:58am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 11:37am: The ABC's "Insiders" have both Bolt and Ackerman on a regular guest appearence - as a bit of COMIC RELIEF Why should the readership of the Telegraph and Herald-Sun not have this little moment of "laughter therapy" as well ? NEITHER do any favours to the moderate Liberal cause I say "LET 'EM STAY" Stil enjoying the massive Green 'win' in Vic are you? The coalition won BOTH HOUSES and the greens were an embarrassment.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

Coalition reaffirms Ballarat election pledges BENJAMIN PREISS 17 Dec, 2010 12:51 AM THE COALITION government has reaffirmed its commitment to its pre-election pledges in Ballarat even though Labor has retained the local seats. In the lead-up to last month's state election the Coalition and its candidates made a raft of commitments to voters in the Ballarat East, Ballarat West and Ripon electorates. The promises ranged from $38 million for the Western Link Road to more modest pledges such as $300,000 for the Creswick Bowling Club. The Coalition's pre-election pitch also included $18 million for Sebastopol College, $2 million for a helipad at the Ballarat Health Services Base Hospital and a new fire station at Mt Helen. Days before the election the Coalition also announced it would build two new police station in Ballarat North and Sebastopol. Yesterday a government spokeswoman said the Coalition would deliver on all the promises it made before the November 27 poll. "The Coalition is committed to implementing all its policies for the Grampians region and we look forward to working with the community and local organisations to achieve this," she said. "A Baillieu Government is always prepared to listen to local communities and organisations and would welcome their approach if they believe they have a valid case for funding." Former Ballarat East Liberal candidate Ben Taylor said the promises he'd made throughout the campaign would be carried out even though he had not been elected to parliament. "It's bitter-sweet for me in a sense because I'm not actually elected and all the things that were promised is what will be delivered," he said. "We came up with a lot of them as a priority for the area." La Trobe University politics lecturer Ian Tulloch said now that Premier Ted Baillieu's government controls both houses of parliament there should be no excuses for failing to deliver on pre-election commitments. Mr Tulloch said keeping election promises would be crucial to the Coalition's re-election prospects in 2014. "If he (Ted Baillieu) wants to win any seats in Bendigo and Ballarat he has to fulfill those promises," he said. http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/coalition-reaffirms-ballarat-election-pledges/2028218.aspx NOTHING beats living in a rural marginal, under a Liberal Government determined to reclaim their birth right at the next state election Four years of "PORK-BARRELLING" for Ballarat East !

Just for the record, and that "primary vote" you worship, the Greens INCREASED their vote in Victoria on the previous state election

And will increase it AGAIN at the next one






Greens preferences ensured the return of Labor members in Ballarat Eastand West

As well as Labor member Catherine King for Ballarat at the FEDERAL Election

I am pleased to report MY voting booth - Daylesford Primary School - has recorded the HIGHRST Greens primary vote in the country (26%)

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 11:58am:

Stil enjoying the massive Green 'win' in Vic are you? The coalition won BOTH HOUSES and the greens were an embarrassment.

The greens are a spent force.
Roll on 26th March 2011, to drive another nail into the greens coffin.

ANd for the record Victorians voted twice this year and the greens primary vote for the greens declined.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:18pm:

ANd for the record Victorians voted twice this year and the greens primary vote for the greens declined.

Longweekend and his new "virtual squeeze" seriously believe thisiThey're BOTH a laugh a minute !

The facts are the facts, the greens just can't face the facts.
The Victorian primary vote for the greens dropped over the two elections that the Victorians voted in this year.


Roll on 26th March 2011 for another drop from the greens.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:23pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:18pm: ANd for the record Victorians voted twice this year and the greens primary vote for the greens declined. Longweekend and his new "virtual squeeze" seriously believe this

Yea its great to see the GREENS actual vote increase in the Vic election.

This sums up the greens attitude to it's declining primary vote from two elections held in Victoria this year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
Winston Churchill

It must really annoy the greens supporters trying to change the voting booth outcomes.
The greens primary vote declines but hey let's try and spin our way out of this and convince some that we actually increased our primary vote.
Hey the facts don't lie.
The greens primary vote dropped.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

This sums up the greens attitude to it's declining primary vote from two elections held in Victoria this year. "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill

Yea I love quotes, this is a favourite of mine.

Never trust a slapper dressed only in sox.

Skipucious.

Don't give up your day job pinky

---

If politicians spent as much time executing meaningful policy as they do those exercising their right to free speech and public opinion, we'd have it made.

Perhaps this is why our country is in the state it's in, because rather than run the country, some politicians are too busy bogged-down  trying to control public opinion.

Since when did Bob Brown become Gillards PR consultant?

What has Andrew Bolt said or thought that most Australians haven't already said and thought already?

I think Bob Brown has a hold of himself, this and should resign with some shred of dignity himself, and so do many others re-his blatant hypocrisy over this and the preference deals he made with Labor he vehemently condemned before and during the election.

Or does it only count if a hypocrite like Bob Brown calls for someone's resignation?

Andrew Bolt is well within his rights to express his own views , opinions on his own blog.

8-)i

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:44pm:

If politicians spent as much time on executing meaningful policy as they do those exercising their right to free speech and public opinion, we'd have it made. Perhaps this is why our country is in the state it's in, because rather than run the country, some politicians are too busy bogged-down  trying to control public opinion. Since when did Bob Brown become Gillards PR consultant? What has Andrew Bolt said or thought that most Australians haven't already said and thought already? I think Bob Brown has a hold of himself, this and should resign with some shred of dignity himself, and so do many others re-his blatant hypocrisy over this and the preference deals he made with Labor he vehemently condemned before and during the election. Or does it only count if a hypocrite like Bob Brown calls for someone's resignation? Andrew Bolt is well within his rights to express his own views , opinions on his own blog. 8-)

So you lied when you chucked your little tanty and said you would not post here again? I know you never stopped posting here, but you at least stopped the mellie nick,for a week.Bring back maqqa ,mel.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:31pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:29pm: This sums up the greens attitude to it's declining primary vote from two elections held in Victoria this year. "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill Yea I love quotes, this is a favourite of mine. Never trust a slapper dressed only in sox. Skipucious.

I prefer ....


"A leopard never changes its spots - and a slapper never changes her knickers"

- Sandra Gangel
"Beautiful Thing"

The answer to the Poll question, "Is Andrew Bolt fit to Publish", is of course, Yes!

Yes, if we also agree that 99% of our Politicians are fit to continue in parliament, because they fullfill their major job description, which is "to support the long term, best interests of all Australians?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

There is no need for Bolt to do anything. His call for Gillard to resign is valid. You look at this terrible tragedy which fills us all with sadness and you see how preventable it was. Poor and weak policy have caused more and more boats of desperate people to come to Christmas Island. They must be stopped before there is such another tragedy.

Come now Andrei. You don't have to disguise your contempt for these people now that they happened to have been involved in a tragedy.

I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:30pm:

It must really annoy the greens supporters trying to change the voting booth outcomes. The greens primary vote declines but hey let's try and spin our way out of this and convince some that we actually increased our primary vote. Hey the facts don't lie. The greens primary vote dropped.

Partly because they failed to live up to their own party's core-ethics post the 2010 federal election.

Bob Brown bats for Wikileaks Julian Assange, (as I do too), though opposes public opinion in other areas, ie, Andrew Bolt?

Plus, most impoverished students don't approve of compulsory student union fees ...a little under-handed deal Greens senator Sarah Hansen-Young and Labors Simon Crean made under the bench just before the election to help secure preference votes.

I doubt Greens student base vote would have been overly impressed with this.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half.

It's public opinion, and he's entitled to it.

If you don't like it, then don't read Bolts blog.

Last I checked, reading his blog wasn't compulsory.

::) It's all very infantile, and irrelevant in the whole scheme of things....Bob Browns brown-nosing this is.

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

Bob Brown bats for Wikileaks Julian Assange, (as I do too), though opposes public opinion in other areas, ie, Andrew Bolt?

Stupid comparison. Julian Assange doesn't write opinions (at least not in the context within which we're talking). He publishes fact.

Though I do agree with one thing, calling for Andrew Bolt to be censored or to resign is counterproductive and has no real positive outcome.

He preaches to the converted, and does it well. He doesn't serve to inform people, but reinforce already held views. Power to him (I guess).

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:30pm: It must really annoy the greens supporters trying to change the voting booth outcomes. The greens primary vote declines but hey let's try and spin our way out of this and convince some that we actually increased our primary vote. Hey the facts don't lie. The greens primary vote dropped. Partly because they failed to live up to their own party's core-ethics post the 2010 federal election. Bob Brown bats for Wikileaks Julian Assange, (as I do too), though opposes public opinion in other areas, ie, Andrew Bolt? Plus, most impoverished students don't approve of compulsory student union fees ...a little under-handed deal Greens senator Sarah Hansen-Young and Labors Simon Crean made under the bench just before the election to help secure preference votes. I doubt Greens student base vote would have been overly impressed with this.

I love it when she changes costume and answer herself. ;D

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 8:30am: There is no need for Bolt to do anything. His call for Gillard to resign is valid. You look at this terrible tragedy which fills us all with sadness and you see how preventable it was. Poor and weak policy have caused more and more boats of desperate people to come to Christmas Island. They must be stopped before there is such another tragedy. Come now Andrei. You don't have to disguise your contempt for these people now that they happened to have been involved in a tragedy.

Yes ...

PATHETIC, isn't it ?

Andrew Bolt is entitled to an opinion based on what he knows to be, believes to be fact.

It is afterall an opinion blog...No?

Bob Brown has called for the censorship and resignation of Andrew Bolt due to his views.

This coming from a poofter-loon who was tossed out of parliament for his own free-speech?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631545098.html


::)

Jaykaye_09 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:01pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:58pm: Bob Brown bats for Wikileaks Julian Assange, (as I do too), though opposes public opinion in other areas, ie, Andrew Bolt? Stupid comparison. Julian Assange doesn't write opinions (at least not in the context within which we're talking). He publishes fact. Though I do agree with one thing, calling for Andrew Bolt to be censored or to resign is counterproductive and has no real positive outcome. He preaches to the converted, and does it well. He doesn't serve to inform people, but reinforce already held views. Power to him (I guess).

You're right, and I'd hate to see him banned, he along with Akerman and  Devine ensure more and more people dont vote rightard.

This whole Bolt thing is a bit of a messenger shoot?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half.

That would take honesty and intellectual integrity, neither of which Bolt possesses.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:10pm:

This whole Bolt thing is a bit of a messenger shoot?

Lol more of a decoy to take the heat off refugee-neglectful Gillard I think.

They had to have someone from the right to bag...I guess the best they could do was hound Andrew Bolt....The next best thing?

Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess.

I think they have gone well and truly overboard with this one... all 57 of them.

Bob Brown is an A-class hypocrite.

8-) Even his own party can see this hence they are sweating on him retiring well before the next election.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half.

good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... when are you going to get that through your heads.. tsk.tsk...

4 people died  in roof cavities...5 people died due to refugees setting their boat on fire..we wont talk about the trauma to the Navy personel will we... and now 30 odd people have died on a reef.

policies that included DEATH at the end of the road..


we are I believe talking about DEATH here after all..

I mean it isnt as if they havent had many many warnings.. is it?...



war is war is war.. its lousy and one day who knows the world may learn to live with itself in the mean time. we and that includes the Labor Govt are still training men and women to fight for our safety or priciples..

they are trained, its a fact of life. to kill our enemies.which in turn means they can be killed.and they know this long before they go into action.

we buy war machines. and ammunition left right and centre.WHY??????..

mostly in the hope we never have to use them.but if we do see the need to use them.should we turn our back and say oh thats none of our business our armies are for show and parades only.we dont do war.

mellie wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:10pm: This whole Bolt thing is a bit of a messenger shoot? Lol more of a decoy to take the heat off refugee-neglectful Gillard I think. They had to have someone from the right to bag...I guess the best they could is hound Andrew Bolt. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. I think they have gone well and truly overboard with this one... all 57 of them. Bob Brown is a A-class hypocrite. 8-)

booby brown of all people.he hasnt been to Afghanistan and he hasnt been to refugee camps or Indonesia for that matter..yet he pops his ugly little head up at times like this, he would be funny if he wasnt costing us so much to keep him.

codswal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:15pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:10pm: This whole Bolt thing is a bit of a messenger shoot? Lol more of a decoy to take the heat off refugee-neglectful Gillard I think. They had to have someone from the right to bag...I guess the best they could is hound Andrew Bolt. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. I think they have gone well and truly overboard with this one... all 57 of them. Bob Brown is a A-class hypocrite. 8-) booby brown of all people.he hasnt been to Afghanistan and he hasnt been to refugee camps or Indonesia for that matter..yet he pops his ugly little head up at times like this, he would be funny if he wasnt costing us so much to keep him.

The mans a joke!

I still cant get past his blatant hypocrisy over the preference deal he made with Labor, then on national television, advised how despite his views, (claimed he was against the preference system)... he as head of the party had no real say in the matter re- Greens allocating their preferences the way they did.

They are all liars, it's just he makes a rather comical one as he sets about falling over himself playing both sides of politics off against the other opportunistically securing Greens votes.

The mans a clown!

::)

codswal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .

No,
Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children
due to "friendly fire"


And the one ADF personel suicide


And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than
the combined 9/11 fatalities

(and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement)i

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .   No, Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children due to "friendly fire" And the one ADF personel suicide And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than the combined 9/11 fatalities (and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement)

Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south.
It fired missiles on an innocent third country.
It gassed its own people.
It starved the Shias.
It murdered thousands of Kurds.
It threatened our developed world energy supply.
It gave harbour to terrorists.

All of the above make the invasion and corresponding unfortunate civilian casualty toll the right thing to do.

I supported the invasion of Iraq then - and I support it to this day.

Quote:

Just for the record, and that "primary vote" you worship, the Greens INCREASED their vote in Victoria on the previous state election And will increase it AGAIN at the next one Greens preferences ensured the return of Labor members in Ballarat Eastand West As well as Labor member Catherine King for Ballarat at the FEDERAL Election I am pleased to report MY voting booth - Daylesford Primary School - has recorded the HIGHRST Greens primary vote in the country (26%)

Its a pity you dont treat the primary vote with as much respect but of course you CANT - because you are a Green. Democracy and fairness are those aspects that tend to get in the way of your AGENDA.

Quote:

All of the above make the invasion and corresponding unfortunate civilian casualty toll the right thing to do.

So why bundle it with 9/11 and Afghanistan ?

I do find it amusing that Bolt calling for a resignation of our highest office has outraged so many of the left here.

He is a written version of "the shock jock".  He has no influence and makes his money because he has extreme views.  Who is going to pay a journalist who is centre based.  Why do you think they employ the ultimate feminist in Robyn Riely.

Its laughable he has managed to stir so many people up.  Heck, I dont care much for his opinion (except his one peice he wrote about Gillards claims about Abbott and his daughters, he did expose her lies there) and still havent bothered to read his article.  He bores me.

He only has a job while he sells papers and gets hits on his site.  If you ignore him he goes away.

The man has no power, no influence on political proceedings and the fact he has got so many fired up is amazing.

If the call for her to quit came from someone like Hawke or Keating, then I would pay some real attention.  Howard doesnt seem to comment on things and anyone before those two are just attention seekers.

Quote:

I do find it amusing that Bolt calling for a resignation of our highest office has outraged so many of the left here.

I just found it FUNNY
I'm too "laid-back" to get "outraged" - these days

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:45pm:

Quote: I do find it amusing that Bolt calling for a resignation of our highest office has outraged so many of the left here. I just found it FUNNY I'm too "laid-back" to get "outraged" - these days

Probably partly due to the fact you don't contribute hardly anything to help run Australia.

I guess I too would feel the same, if I could ride off the back of everyone else's hard work.

"Probably partly due to the fact you don't contribute hardly anything to help run Australia."

Says the man who doesn't choose to work here, and chooses to pay taxes in an offshore tax haven even when he did, briefly, live here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:27pm: codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .   No, Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children due to "friendly fire" And the one ADF personel suicide And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than the combined 9/11 fatalities (and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement) Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. All of the above make the invasion and corresponding unfortunate civilian casualty toll the right thing to do. I supported the invasion of Iraq then - and I support it to this day.

Replace "It" with "Hussein and his cronies". You can't blame the entirety of the people of Iraq for such things, especially considering it's a totalitarian regime where the people have to obey.

If Gillard can be blamed for the people who died in the boast tragedy, then Bolt can be blamed for the deaths of innocents in Iraq.
Bolt's reasoning of casting blame onto Gillard who was 100 times removed from the incident can equally be applied to Bolt's support for the war in Iraq.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half.

Did he, or was he lied to???

Yes there weren't any 'WMDs' in Iraq, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.....but outside of washington, how many actually KNEW that for a fact when the 'Coalition of the Willing' land in Iraq????

I don't mean the suspicions of people...I mean absolute hard facts....

Even conspiracy theorist didn't doubt the Iraq invasion until 6-12 months AFTER....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:27pm: codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .   No, Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children due to "friendly fire" And the one ADF personel suicide And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than the combined 9/11 fatalities (and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement) Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. All of the above make the invasion and corresponding unfortunate civilian casualty toll the right thing to do. I supported the invasion of Iraq then - and I support it to this day.

Everything right there Andrei EXCEPT point 6.
Iraq gave no succour to terrorists as we perceive them.
Yes they helped the Palistinians but whether they are terrorists is open to much debate.
But as for religious extremists Saddam was better at killing them than all western countries put together.
Powerful Mullahs = reduced power for Saddam
something he would not stand.
Point 6 is a Bush/Cheney lie (proven) to get public support to invade Iraq.

Quote:

Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists.

Not one of these were given as a reason for the illegal invasion, neither the USA, UK or Australian governments were willing to take action about that stuff some of which is untrue.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. That would take honesty and intellectual integrity, neither of which Bolt possesses.

and the backstabbing gillard does.. ha.ha. pardon my mirth..

but keep raving about a journo if it helps you forget about the assassin in black.

you know the one.. she who never says anything worthwhile, and never does anything worthwhile. talk about a fake.having made so many slips in the past. she cant turn a light globe on without permission  from the factions.,"Lost in Space"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:27pm: codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .   No, Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children due to "friendly fire" And the one ADF personel suicide And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than the combined 9/11 fatalities (and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement) Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. All of the above make the invasion and corresponding unfortunate civilian casualty toll the right thing to do. I supported the invasion of Iraq then - and I support it to this day.

I'll have to disagree Andrei...
I support the invasion of Afghanistan...but not Iraq, Iraq was NOT involved in any way with the WTC attack...

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

Quote: Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. Not one of these were given as a reason for the illegal invasion, neither the USA, UK or Australian governments were willing to take action about that stuff some of which is untrue.

Absolutely!

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

[q link=1292478829/135#139 date=1292555811] Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .

No,
Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children
due to "friendly fire"


And the one ADF personel suicide


And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than
the combined 9/11 fatalities

(and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement)i
[/quote]
SO NOWHOWARD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRIENDLY FIRE...

YOU WANT TO BLAME HIM FOR EVERYTHING EVEN A YOUNG MANS SUICIDE/ACCIDENTAL DEATH. MY GOD!!!!!

more people have died in Iraq due to insurgents but dont let that get in the way of Howard bashing..America everyone! would have been out of there years ago if it wasnt for them.

YET YOU WONT BLAME RUDD/GILLARD FOR ALL THE DEATHS ON THEIR WATCH WILL YOU?????..


in fact you have bent over backwards to get them off the hook over

THE 4 YOUNG MEN DYING IN ROOF CAVITIES.

the govt had not a thing to do with it according to you even though they were they only ones with the power to stop the program.

and what about this boat happening 30 people dead and counting...

do you honestly expect anyone on here to believe you wouldnt hold the Libs responsible if this was their idea/policy!!!



like I said to dnare this is about DEATH people dying.. in this case 30 so far on a missguided mission...

but like your messiah who managed to get the PEOPLE OVERBOARD in her first half adozen words on this topic..

the desperate always have to bring up the past as if that makes everything OK>>...

so if the Libs bring in a program/policy and peoiple die... thats alright isnt it now?????

what a way to think.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:15pm:

Quote: Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. Not one of these were given as a reason for the illegal invasion, neither the USA, UK or Australian governments were willing to take action about that stuff some of which is untrue.

what happened to Kuwait.????

but its good to see you admit it was a terrible regime, most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr.

he did a lot of genocide, but I am not so sure one country can attack another over that.the man was mad so its good to see you admit that.

"most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr."

What garbage.

Left wingers traditionally are anti-war.

Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement.

I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass.

When are YOU joining up, hicks?

Or are you going to start talking about your grandfather shooting some darkies again?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass.

I am willing to consider kicking butt if required.

But I do not like to be lied to in order to give that support.

We went in because of WMD's, there were none end of story.

Our PM told us that he had personally seen definitive proof which he could not share with us - that proof never existed.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. Did he, or was he lied to??? Yes there weren't any 'WMDs' in Iraq, and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.....but outside of washington, how many actually KNEW that for a fact when the 'Coalition of the Willing' land in Iraq???? I don't mean the suspicions of people...I mean absolute hard facts.... Even conspiracy theorist didn't doubt the Iraq invasion until 6-12 months AFTER....

Its a good point. HINDSIGHT is wonderful, but given Husseins behaviour to his own people, was it in fact a wrong thing to do? People and countries often do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Doesnt chaneg that was 'right'.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 3:04pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I am willing to consider kicking butt if required. But I do not like to be lied to in order to give that support. We went in because of WMD's, there were none end of story. Our PM told us that he had personally seen definitive proof which he could not share with us - that proof never existed.

American pacifists in WW2 refused to accept that Hitler was mistreating jews. that was their main reason for not wanting to get involved in the war. There was no definite proof at the time. remember how that worked out?

"American pacifists in WW2 refused to accept that Hitler was mistreating jews. that was their main reason for not wanting to get involved in the war. There was no definite proof at the time. remember how that worked out? "

can anyone name this style of fallacious argument for me? It's not ad hominem, and not strawman ....

Lets look at the facts

The USA supported and funded the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and the child raping warlords who ran the northern alliance.
Why? Because they wanted to teach Russia a lesson.
The problems in Afghanistan that led to the 11th of september attack were created by the USA and when they had Bin Laden by the jatz crackers they eased off and invaded Iraq!

Next.
The USA sold the technology for the WMD's to their boy in the middle east (Saddam Hussien) so he could rain hell on Iran.
One reason for the GW Bush invasion was a personal vandetta because he was making the USA look like dimwits..like that was hard to do  ;D
The USA govt didnt give a rats tossbag that Saddam had a few roos loose in the top paddock and was murdering and torturing his own people until he decided to sell oil to China and France in Euros and put the USA oil industry and the US dollar at risk.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan while they were chasing Bin Laden and then Bush diverted resources to Iraq to save US oil interests and blew the whole reason for invading.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 3:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 3:04pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I am willing to consider kicking butt if required. But I do not like to be lied to in order to give that support. We went in because of WMD's, there were none end of story. Our PM told us that he had personally seen definitive proof which he could not share with us - that proof never existed. American pacifists in WW2 refused to accept that Hitler was mistreating jews. that was their main reason for not wanting to get involved in the war. There was no definite proof at the time. remember how that worked out?

Its amazing how the rightwing loonies will put any spin on its lies to try and condone them.

codswal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:15pm: Quote: Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. Not one of these were given as a reason for the illegal invasion, neither the USA, UK or Australian governments were willing to take action about that stuff some of which is untrue. what happened to Kuwait.???? but its good to see you admit it was a terrible regime, most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr. he did a lot of genocide, but I am not so sure one country can attack another over that.the man was mad so its good to see you admit that.

THAT was the previous war..Desert Storm...After which, Saddam pretty much left Kuwait and the Kurds alone..
He 'tried' to act out, got his butt kick and decided to play nice...Which WAS the point to 'Desert Storm"...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 3:29pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:15pm: Quote: Iraq had attacked its neighbours (unprovoked) to both the east and the south. It fired missiles on an innocent third country. It gassed its own people. It starved the Shias. It murdered thousands of Kurds. It threatened our developed world energy supply. It gave harbour to terrorists. Not one of these were given as a reason for the illegal invasion, neither the USA, UK or Australian governments were willing to take action about that stuff some of which is untrue. what happened to Kuwait.???? but its good to see you admit it was a terrible regime, most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr. he did a lot of genocide, but I am not so sure one country can attack another over that.the man was mad so its good to see you admit that. THAT was the previous war..Desert Storm...After which, Saddam pretty much left Kuwait and the Kurds alone.. He 'tried' to act out, got his butt kick and decided to play nice...Which WAS the point to 'Desert Storm"...

I was referring to dnare who listed a long list of reasons for attacking saddam...he forgot to mention the one where they did attack him thats all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Left wingers traditionally are anti-war.

I'D be astounded at anyone admitting to being PRO-war

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. I'D be astounded at anyone admitting to being PRO-war

what are you? A CHILD????

WHo started WW2?  oh thats right... CHURCHILL. because he declared war and Hitler didnt.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:27pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:57pm: I do not recall Bolt calling on the previous Lib'n PM to resign when he had ordered the illegal invasion of a couintry by mistake, he got half the reasons wrong and lied to support the other half. good try dnare... NO AUSTRALIAN LOST HIS/HER LIFE IN IRAQ... DUE TO ENEMY FIRE.... .   No, Just 100,000 plus civilian men, women and children due to "friendly fire" And the one ADF personel suicide And the 5,000 plus US defence personel - a figure higher than the combined 9/11 fatalities (and it eventuated that IRAQ had no involvement)

I dont remember 9/11 being a reason for our involvement in Iraq.

It was the BS weapons of mass distruction and then freeing the Iraqi people.

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:

"American pacifists in WW2 refused to accept that Hitler was mistreating jews. that was their main reason for not wanting to get involved in the war. There was no definite proof at the time. remember how that worked out? " can anyone name this style of fallacious argument for me? It's not ad hominem, and not strawman ....

Its called an EXAMPLE, you narrow-minded twit.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass.

I'm anti-war
I'd much rather see a pollies head explode than 1 to 2 million ordinary people suffer for a few's ego & meglomania.
But of course that sort of thing is illegal.

Quote:

Are your hands clean of blood, Andrew? December 17, 2010 - 2:04PM Comments 113 I once called Andrew Bolt a worthless bloodclot, for which I must apologise. To bloodclots everywhere. For Bolt however, there is only scorn, slight regard and contempt. Here is a man possessed of such an ardent need to inject the poison of his enmities into the body politic that even as bodies are being dragged from the sea off Christmas Island he spits a rhetorical gob of the purest partisan venom in our eyes. This is Bolt, a man so inflamed by John Howard’s assurances that the heavy hand of war must be laid upon Iraq that he harboured not the slightest doubt about the righteousness of raining down fire and death and sorrow, not just on Saddam but on those millions of captives with whom he had surrounded himself. A whole people as a shield, if you will. Confronted on Lateline, by David Marr, about Howard’s history of playing fast and loose with the truth during the 'Children Overboard' scandal, and whether it weakened his case for war, Bolt retorted, "What is possibly the advice that you think he has that you don't have access to that could change your mind on this? Because, really, I see no claim that he makes that cannot be utterly substantiated by material that's right on the public record, that you can see for yourself if you bother to check." And thus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were utterly substantiated to death, their country laid to waste and condemned to a perdition of blood and savagery. Not to worry though. I am sure their deaths were liberating and any ruin and destruction was a merciful release from the tyrant Saddam’s bane. Of course, should any of them lack a taste for slaughter – perhaps because they stood so much closer to it than courageous Bolt – should they attempt to flee the carnage with their children in small, overcrowded boats, for instance… then damn their eyes! They are jumping the queue. They are assailing our precious sovereignty. They might very well be terrorists! Send the navy and turn them back. Turn them back. Turn them back and if they founder and are lost then who’s fault was that? Certainly not ours. This is Bolt who yesterday and today laid every torn and dripping corpse from that awful wreck at the feet of Julia Gillard. Bolt who roused himself in righteousness to defend the poor, poor pitiable seekers of asylum, for whom he has always had nought but the very purest compassion and the most generous and charitable heart. This is Bolt, just so you know, in case you fail to recognise him from his sudden change of raiment, from stern, uncompromising defender of our borders, to Bolt who all but weeps and rends his vestments with grief and rage that Canberra’s failure should have come to this. To death and sadness and horror. Not the death and sadness and horror visited upon the Iraqi people in the course of a war for which no just cause existed. No. Not that. Because to trace that thin golden thread of causation to a war for which he bellowed his support might raise the prospect that perhaps his most beloved champion, the sainted former PM Howard, might somehow have had something to do creating the conditions that put at least some of those who died this week onto that boat in the first place. As did Bolt himself, I would argue, being one of the crudest advocates of that war and the aftermath from which so many have fled, or tried to flee, until they ran into the Ring of Iron with which he would protect us from the bloody anarchy his heroes loosed upon the world. If Julia Gillard has blood on her hands, Mister Bolt, might we look forward to the spectre of John Howard scraping at his palms one day and muttering, “Out, out damn’d spot”. Will you attend him then with the same loyalty and steadfastness that kept you at his side through the bloodswarm he helped unleash upon Iraq, from whence at least some of the dead hailed this week? Might you ponder you own hands then?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/are-your-hands-clean-of-blood-andrew/20101217-190ez.html

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

Quote: Are your hands clean of blood, Andrew? December 17, 2010 - 2:04PM Comments 113 I once called Andrew Bolt a worthless bloodclot, for which I must apologise. To bloodclots everywhere. For Bolt however, there is only scorn, slight regard and contempt. Here is a man possessed of such an ardent need to inject the poison of his enmities into the body politic that even as bodies are being dragged from the sea off Christmas Island he spits a rhetorical gob of the purest partisan venom in our eyes. This is Bolt, a man so inflamed by John Howard’s assurances that the heavy hand of war must be laid upon Iraq that he harboured not the slightest doubt about the righteousness of raining down fire and death and sorrow, not just on Saddam but on those millions of captives with whom he had surrounded himself. A whole people as a shield, if you will. Confronted on Lateline, by David Marr, about Howard’s history of playing fast and loose with the truth during the 'Children Overboard' scandal, and whether it weakened his case for war, Bolt retorted, "What is possibly the advice that you think he has that you don't have access to that could change your mind on this? Because, really, I see no claim that he makes that cannot be utterly substantiated by material that's right on the public record, that you can see for yourself if you bother to check." And thus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were utterly substantiated to death, their country laid to waste and condemned to a perdition of blood and savagery. Not to worry though. I am sure their deaths were liberating and any ruin and destruction was a merciful release from the tyrant Saddam’s bane. Of course, should any of them lack a taste for slaughter – perhaps because they stood so much closer to it than courageous Bolt – should they attempt to flee the carnage with their children in small, overcrowded boats, for instance… then damn their eyes! They are jumping the queue. They are assailing our precious sovereignty. They might very well be terrorists! Send the navy and turn them back. Turn them back. Turn them back and if they founder and are lost then who’s fault was that? Certainly not ours. This is Bolt who yesterday and today laid every torn and dripping corpse from that awful wreck at the feet of Julia Gillard. Bolt who roused himself in righteousness to defend the poor, poor pitiable seekers of asylum, for whom he has always had nought but the very purest compassion and the most generous and charitable heart. This is Bolt, just so you know, in case you fail to recognise him from his sudden change of raiment, from stern, uncompromising defender of our borders, to Bolt who all but weeps and rends his vestments with grief and rage that Canberra’s failure should have come to this. To death and sadness and horror. Not the death and sadness and horror visited upon the Iraqi people in the course of a war for which no just cause existed. No. Not that. Because to trace that thin golden thread of causation to a war for which he bellowed his support might raise the prospect that perhaps his most beloved champion, the sainted former PM Howard, might somehow have had something to do creating the conditions that put at least some of those who died this week onto that boat in the first place. As did Bolt himself, I would argue, being one of the crudest advocates of that war and the aftermath from which so many have fled, or tried to flee, until they ran into the Ring of Iron with which he would protect us from the bloody anarchy his heroes loosed upon the world. If Julia Gillard has blood on her hands, Mister Bolt, might we look forward to the spectre of John Howard scraping at his palms one day and muttering, “Out, out damn’d spot”. Will you attend him then with the same loyalty and steadfastness that kept you at his side through the bloodswarm he helped unleash upon Iraq, from whence at least some of the dead hailed this week? Might you ponder you own hands then? http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/are-your-hands-clean-of-blood-andrew/20101217-190ez.html

A fair retort, but I dont see how Bolt can have blood on his hands.

He is not a decision maker, the stroke of his pen didnt condemn anyone to death.  Supporting a party in good faith does not equal having blood on your hands as a civillian.

Does Howard for what happened in Iraq, most certaintly, as does every other pollie in Federal parliment who backed it on the floor who knew the truth yet backed the lie.

At the time I backed it on good faith.  After learning the truth is was easy to vote Labor in 07.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I'm anti-war I'd much rather see a pollies head explode than 1 to 2 million ordinary people suffer for a few's ego & meglomania. But of course that sort of thing is illegal.

Thats a shockingly naive attitude. what do u do when u see a woman being attacked by a man? say 'im anti violence'? and when someone comes at you with an axe do you stand there because you dont believe in fighting?

You arent anti-war... why dont you try and redefine it correctly.

Quote:

what do u do when u see a woman being attacked by a man?

I'm sure smithy would do a lot more than you.
Lets face it when confronted with the sexual assault of five women you are on record as saying, and I quote "at least they were adults".

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I'm anti-war I'd much rather see a pollies head explode than 1 to 2 million ordinary people suffer for a few's ego & meglomania. But of course that sort of thing is illegal. Thats a shockingly naive attitude. what do u do when u see a woman being attacked by a man? say 'im anti violence'? and when someone comes at you with an axe do you stand there because you dont believe in fighting? You arent anti-war... why dont you try and redefine it correctly.

I think most here(yes even you longy) can understand the point I was getting across without having to be lead by the nose.
Except of course those who read & believe Bolt, & I don't give a rats whether they can understand or not

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:10pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I'm anti-war I'd much rather see a pollies head explode than 1 to 2 million ordinary people suffer for a few's ego & meglomania. But of course that sort of thing is illegal. Thats a shockingly naive attitude. what do u do when u see a woman being attacked by a man? say 'im anti violence'? and when someone comes at you with an axe do you stand there because you dont believe in fighting? You arent anti-war... why dont you try and redefine it correctly. I think most here(yes even you longy) can understand the point I was getting across without having to be lead by the nose. Except of course those who read & believe Bolt, & I don't give a rats whether they can understand or not

no thats not true. saying you are 'anti-war' is like saying you are anti-disease. it has no point and adds no value to a debate. almost NO BODY chooses war as an option ro all but the most serious of situations. but to just say you are 'anti-war' in this context means precisely NOTHING. it adds nothing to the debate, says nothing about you and your ACTUAL opinion.

I'm also anti-war. as is John Howard. Im also anti-violence, but it didnt stope me attacking two sudanese assaulting a girl.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:10pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:54pm: Left wingers traditionally are anti-war. Right back to 1939 there were Left wingers campaigning for appeasement. I wish, sometimes, they had some backbone and were in favour of going and kicking ass. I'm anti-war I'd much rather see a pollies head explode than 1 to 2 million ordinary people suffer for a few's ego & meglomania. But of course that sort of thing is illegal. Thats a shockingly naive attitude. what do u do when u see a woman being attacked by a man? say 'im anti violence'? and when someone comes at you with an axe do you stand there because you dont believe in fighting? You arent anti-war... why dont you try and redefine it correctly. I think most here(yes even you longy) can understand the point I was getting across without having to be lead by the nose. Except of course those who read & believe Bolt, & I don't give a rats whether they can understand or not no thats not true. saying you are 'anti-war' is like saying you are anti-disease. it has no point and adds no value to a debate. almost NO BODY chooses war as an option ro all but the most serious of situations. but to just say you are 'anti-war' in this context means precisely NOTHING. it adds nothing to the debate, says nothing about you and your ACTUAL opinion. I'm also anti-war. as is John Howard. Im also anti-violence, but it didnt stope me attacking two sudanese assaulting a girl.

Was their nationality relevant?


Surely "two men attacking a girl" would have sufficed to illustrate your point.

Quote:

me attacking two sudanese assaulting a girl.

did you break your handbag strap, old man?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:25pm:

I'm also anti-war. as is John Howard. Im also anti-violence, but it didnt stope me attacking two sudanese assaulting a girl.

How do you tell that they were sudanese?

Would it have been ok if the were greek?

or Australian?

Please delete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 2:51pm:

"most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr." What garbage.

you obviously werent on yahoo where the majority of lefties were dead set against the attack on Hussain..like it or not.. as some on here are still proving to be...even though kevin was privy to the war council and gave his blessing as the said shadow Foreign Minister,

at the least provocation they would drag up the War in Iraq.. this was of course when kevin was the great messiah.and all was well in the Labor camp..lol

they would rather have seen him back on his throne..than see him dead.. ask any ex yahoo member.

Howard was/is the villian/ Hussain the martyr..thats the way I read it.

not one said it was a good thing to see the back of him.I guess history will sort it all out in the end.

codswal wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 4:52pm:

Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:51pm: "most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr." What garbage. you obviously werent on yahoo where the majority of lefties were dead set against the attack on Hussain..like it or not.. as some on here are still proving to be...even though kevin was privy to the war council and gave his blessing as the said shadow Foreign Minister, at the least provocation they would drag up the War in Iraq.. this was of course when kevin was the great messiah.and all was well in the Labor camp..lol they would rather have seen him back on his throne..than see him dead.. ask any ex yahoo member. Howard was/is the villian/ Hussain the martyr..thats the way I read it. not one said it was a good thing to see the back of him.I guess history will sort it all out in the end.

Well if we are going by YOUR reading skills I think we lefties can hold our heads up.

It's not like you comprehension skills are top of the range.

darkhall67 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 5:07pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:52pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:51pm: "most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr." What garbage. you obviously werent on yahoo where the majority of lefties were dead set against the attack on Hussain..like it or not.. as some on here are still proving to be...even though kevin was privy to the war council and gave his blessing as the said shadow Foreign Minister, at the least provocation they would drag up the War in Iraq.. this was of course when kevin was the great messiah.and all was well in the Labor camp..lol they would rather have seen him back on his throne..than see him dead.. ask any ex yahoo member. Howard was/is the villian/ Hussain the martyr..thats the way I read it. not one said it was a good thing to see the back of him.I guess history will sort it all out in the end. Well if we are going by YOUR reading skills I think we lefties can hold our heads up. It's not like you comprehension skills are top of the range.

Cods if you care to look Saddam was a despot for many years not just when he invaded kuwaite.
If you look you'll find that the gas used against the Kurds was supplied by the US CIA as was most of his weapons,I wouldn't be surprised to find out he ran most of his plans pre Kuwaite past them.
The key key phrase is "he's a bastard but he our bastard"
It is this sort of doublestandard that doesn't sit easy with people such as myself who you would class as lefty.
I'd be interested to know how you reconcile it?

darkhall67 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 5:07pm:

codswal wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 4:52pm: Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:51pm: "most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr." What garbage. you obviously werent on yahoo where the majority of lefties were dead set against the attack on Hussain..like it or not.. as some on here are still proving to be...even though kevin was privy to the war council and gave his blessing as the said shadow Foreign Minister, at the least provocation they would drag up the War in Iraq.. this was of course when kevin was the great messiah.and all was well in the Labor camp..lol they would rather have seen him back on his throne..than see him dead.. ask any ex yahoo member. Howard was/is the villian/ Hussain the martyr..thats the way I read it. not one said it was a good thing to see the back of him.I guess history will sort it all out in the end. Well if we are going by YOUR reading skills I think we lefties can hold our heads up. It's not like you comprehension skills are top of the range.

really well have to admit when it comes o the junk you print.. no my comprehension isnt good..so maybe you had better go back for a second opinion.

skippy. wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

mellie wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:58pm: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 12:30pm: It must really annoy the greens supporters trying to change the voting booth outcomes. The greens primary vote declines but hey let's try and spin our way out of this and convince some that we actually increased our primary vote. Hey the facts don't lie. The greens primary vote dropped. Partly because they failed to live up to their own party's core-ethics post the 2010 federal election. Bob Brown bats for Wikileaks Julian Assange, (as I do too), though opposes public opinion in other areas, ie, Andrew Bolt? Plus, most impoverished students don't approve of compulsory student union fees ...a little under-handed deal Greens senator Sarah Hansen-Young and Labors Simon Crean made under the bench just before the election to help secure preference votes. I doubt Greens student base vote would have been overly impressed with this. I love it when she changes costume and answer herself. ;D

If only you'd change hands pinky.

How many callouses you got nowadays anyway?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 5:22pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 5:07pm: link=1292478829/180#184 date=1292568730] Please delete wrote on Dec 17th, 2010 at 2:51pm: "most lefties paint Saddam insane as a martyr." What garbage. you obviously werent on yahoo where the majority of lefties were dead set against the attack on Hussain..like it or not.. as some on here are still proving to be...even though kevin was privy to the war council and gave his blessing as the said shadow Foreign Minister, at the least provocation they would drag up the War in Iraq.. this was of course when kevin was the great messiah.and all was well in the Labor camp..lol they would rather have seen him back on his throne..than see him dead.. ask any ex yahoo member. Howard was/is the villian/ Hussain the martyr..thats the way I read it. not one said it was a good thing to see the back of him.I guess history will sort it all out in the end. Well if we are going by YOUR reading skills I think we lefties can hold our heads up. It's not like you comprehension skills are top of the range.

Cods if you care to look Saddam was a despot for many years not just when he invaded kuwaite.
If you look you'll find that the gas used against the Kurds was supplied by the US CIA as was most of his weapons,I wouldn't be surprised to find out he ran most of his plans pre Kuwaite past them.
The key key phrase is "he's a bastard but he our bastard"
It is this sort of doublestandard that doesn't sit easy with people such as myself who you would class as lefty.
I'd be interested to know how you reconcile it?
[/quote]



well you may well be right smithy... you will have to prove it though as thats the first I have ever read on this subject..the yanks orchestrated it all is news to me!!!!.. however if you care to read me again.. that isnt what i was referring too and you being an oldie from yahoo well know that.......

most from the left gave us righties hell when rudd and Co first got in... in fact I dont think there would have been many topics they didnt bring up the WAR IN IRAQ.. even calling Howard a murderer.. and few other nasty things... that at least I havent seen thrown at gillard over this catastrophy, thankfully I do hope we never stoop to that level.

a mlot of people from yahoo were very much for Hussain.. maybe not yourself in particular..but many of them were and they resented Howard for us going there.which means they would rather have Hussain alive than dead.

dont worry a few people back in England in the dark days of WW11 wished Churchill dead and Hitler to win..it happens. it doesnt mean we are the same. just some are stranger than others.

how have you been smithy anyway??..good I hope.

"even calling Howard a murderer"

Whether that was said or not, no-one treated Sadam Hussein as a martyr.

Your spinning is getting too convoluted.

I think GALP (Labor & Greens) are desperately grabbing at bitter straws, when attempting to re-direct media attention and stifle public opinion concerning the bigger issues they're conveniently side-stepping.

Who's responsible for our nation, Andrew Bolt or Julia Gillard?

Bolts blog only reflects a widely held public consensus, which is this government are absolutely atrocious and should be held accountable for their actions, or inactions in some cases.

They sacked Rudd for a lot less! ::)


In fact some might argue that by not stating the obvious, and or insisting Gillard should be sacked/resign herself suggests this country and it's people accept the wayward deeds of it's flawed government therefore we as individuals and as a nation of democratic people have almost a duty to let the world know we are not at all at ease with our current governments UNDEMOCRATIC process, and that what our government stands for or represents is not at all consistent with the views held by the Australian people at large.

In other words, please excuse our PM, she's a bit loopy, and please don't judge us in accordance with this lunatics failings, as we don't agree with her either.

Fair enough?

:)


Gillard embarrassed herself and made wild accusations concerning Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, when claiming he had committed crimes, 'in her opinion'...so why cant others argue that she should resign 'in their opinion' ?

Then, not to be outdone by Bolt, halfwit Bob Brown pipes up in Gillards defence (shock horror shock) and argues that Bolt should resign himself for sharing 'his opinion' also.

This country and it's government are an absolute joke, and you wonder why nothing is getting done?

I'm sorry, but if Bolt should resign, then shouldn't Bob Brown and Gillard for their having shared their 'own opinions' also?...or are politicians allowed to go around making wild and false accusations about anyone they please, including Australians in strife overseas they should be supporting not slandering in order to suit their own political agenda?

Eye for an eye.

8-)

What's the outrage? A journalist is calling for a politician to resign. Sooo??

If it was Kerry O'Brien, I guess some people would understand.

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:30pm:

What's the outrage? A journalist is calling for a politician to resign. Sooo??

Because the lefties know that Andrew Bolt is correct.

Lefties can become so agitated and discombobulated with blind, self-rightous rage.
Where does that come from?

I think it may have something to do with status seeking. Whoever shrieks and waves their arms most stridently, and visibly, asserts themselves in the social hierarchy most effectively.

One must let it be known that this and that is completely morally beneath one's self. Simple disagreement doesn't suffice.

I seem to recall one red-haired woman shrieking " Another boat, another policy failure" .  Oh how correct she has proved to be .

JC Denton wrote on Dec 17^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:

I think it may have something to do with status seeking. Whoever shrieks and waves their arms most stridently, and visibly, asserts themselves in the social hierarchy most effectively.

A lot of the frothing reaches Tourette syndrome proportions. It's embarssing to think that such people are allowed out unsurepvised.

Right wingers are generally grumpy but at least they have some wit and a perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyByBORmtH0