Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 18
th, 2010 at 5:40pm:
codswal wrote on Dec 18
th, 2010 at 4:32pm:
As for your own "reasoning", you say he is "telling it how he sees it". Well, that counts for zero. Anyone capable of putting a couple sentences together can "tell it how he sees it". If a 4 year old "tells us how he/she sees it" then that seems good enough for you, which, by default, utterly destroys any supposed superiority in Bolt's arguments.
time.
---------------------
hes a journalist he is paid as a journalist... if thats your take on it.. then that goes for every journalist that ever was..
get over yourself... do as I do.. dont read the ones you dont like...
he will never say what you lwant to hear...
that everything this govt does and has done is fantastic.isgreat. is showing great leadership..blah.blah.blah.
infact right now you will fin d it bloody hard to find one journalist on your side of the fence saying anything worthy of LABOR....so you will find it hard to find someone to read..
The very fact that Bolt is masquerading as a journalist is the problem. Bolt is subverting the chain of cause and effect to suit his political ends. To claim Gillard "has blood on her hands" is to make Gillard responsible for the weather, rough seas, rocks, crappy boats, the people on the aforementioned boat, and the smugglers. Where is the responsibility of those on the boat? and the smugglers? How can anyone be blamed for bad weather? Miss Anne Dryst couldn't answer this question and departed from this discussion once she had to contemplate using logic, rather than an aversion for someone (gillard).
Logic 101: having an aversion for something does not make that something responsible for the act in question. Are you intellectually honest? Or are you, like many others here, passing off your hatred for Gillard as if that amounts to any to anything when one epistemologically examines the chain of cause and effect?
If Gillard is responsible for this incident, then, using Bolt's own unique brand of "logic", Bolt is responsible for the deaths of innocents in the Iraq war.
AB warned the government some years ago regarding the potential ramifications of their reckless policy fiddling.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with Gillard being responsible for bad weather or bad boats etc, but it's EVERYTHING to do with the governments removal of a working policy only then to install a failed one.
And then stupidly wait until the problem is well out of hand before recognising that the problem has gotten away from them.
As if their weakening of the policy was ever going to have a different result.
So yes, this government because of it's inept incompetent handling of our border protection system now does have 'blood on it's hands'.
Because that boat would not have been there had the former governments border protection laws still been in force.
Why doesn't Bolt use this particular brand of "reasoning" - blaming people 100 times removed from the act in question - for Liberal politicians and himself?
If Bolt cannot consistently apply this "logic" for all arguments that assign blame, then he has no credibility.
The argument of those claiming Gillard has "blood on her hands" is simple: Their hatred of Gillard is primary, only then do they look around and search for evidence to assign her with blame.
Forum
Pages: 
Calls for Bolt to resign re call for PM to resign (Read 30237 times)
