Obviously quoting yourself ends the argument.

The Emperor has spoken.

red baron wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:26pm:


I'm sure that the Canberra Press and our ABC won't be prosecuted for any sh*t that they throw at the conservatives.

Gillard will approve, clapping her unclean hands.

By "unclean", I don't mean honest dirt but various signed documents.

Stephen Conroy's Totalitarianism for Dummies

1984 is possibly the definitive dystopian novel, set in a world beyond our imagining. A world where totalitarianism really is total, all power split into three roughly equal groups--Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania. 1984 is set in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One.

Winston Smith is a middle-aged, unhealthy character, based loosely on Orwell's own frail body, an underling of the ruling oligarchy, The Party. The Party has taken early 20th century totalitarianism to new depths, with each person subjected to 24 hour surveillance, where people's very thoughts are controlled to ensure purity of the oligarchical system in place. Figurehead of the system is the omnipresent and omnipotent Big Brother.




But Winston believes there is another way.

1984 joins Winston as he sets about another day, where his job is to change history by changing old newspaper records to match with the new truth as decided by the Party.

"He who controls the past, controls the future" is a Party slogan to live by and it gives Winston his job, but Winston cannot see it like that. Barely old enough to recall a time when things were different, he sets out to expose the Party for the cynically fraudulent organisation that it is. He is joined by Julia,(No not Gillard!!! She is Big Brother!!) a beautiful young woman much in contrast with Winston physically, but equally sickened by the excesses of her rulers.

The schmedia have opened themselves to an attack on their self declared 'freedom.'  Whatever that 'freedom' really is does not extend to political manipulation as we so obviously now have.  We also see a stepping over the line in their reports on other matters.  I give you two recent examples in Queensland.  The first was the 'Dr Death' incitement, and the second is their utterly disgraceful activity concerning those girls who were the subject of an international custody dispute.  The 'Courier Mail' contrary to Law, published their photographs....and there is alleged to be a prosecution about that.  Do we hear about it in the schmedia?  No way.  They keep their transgressions unreported while at the same time swoop like vultures on the alleged transgressions of others.

They have attracted the flies with their own sh1t. 

On the Federal level.....the Ashby/Slipper and Rares Judgement is the most momentous in judicial/political relevance.  There, the Judiciary declared that conspirators sought without foundation, to bring down the Government of the day.  Various political figures were fingered, and a member of the schmedia was barely spared.

A truly independant and free schmedia would have been all over this, relentlessly unleashing their investigative section to bring us the truth.  What did we get?  Nothing.

Okay.....the Judiciary will do the job as it always does, and where will the schmedia be when the sh1t hits the fan? 

Red, that's a statement not an explanation. Conroy's legislation only kicks in AFTER publication......how the bugger can that be censorship?

That's right it is a statement. I am stating that if Conroy's legislation gets through, the agenda for Labor will be to become invasive in every form of media there is, including forums like this.

There will be heavy censorship for any fair minded person speaking their mind and if it is anti Labor then God help them...that is what I am stating.

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:28pm:


Once an article is published it cannot be censored. Surely you understand that?

red baron wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:


im fascinated by how buzzard can defend media censorship but vehemently opposed internet censorship.  But alas, the explanation is so disappointingly obvious. While I originally thought that the buzzard was opposing censorship as a principle, I now see that he was merely opposing censorhip on what HE reads. he doesnt read newspapers or much of the MSM so therefore censorship is okay. but touch his beloved internet???  never!

principled positions are rarer than honest labor politicians.