Reporting on world events from a Bairnsdale Conservative perspective.
Monday, October 01, 2012
How Bastards Argue
They are rude, provocative, abusive, deceitful and wrong. But when they are anonymous, or feel no one is looking ..
===
the article which started it .. Outrage Miss Placed Over Jones' Gillard is Liar »
Outrage at broadcaster Alan Jones claiming at a function that Australian PM Gillard's father died of shame from her lies to parliament. However, the salient truth ignored by this outrage, with Shadow ...
Wow. Politicians speak deceptively. Amazing revelation. Who told you that? Julian Assange? The idea that that truism could justify Jones' little piece of gratuitous spite is an extraordinarily unnecessary piece of ethical bankruptcy, and the very height of bad manners.
It is ok to say someone is wrong. No need to kill people and march through streets hitting police for it. It is also ok to be wrong. I think it a little rich to beat someone up for being right. Jones shouldn't have targeted Gillard through her dead father. However, he is right in substance. The comments were made at a dinner, not broadcast on 2GB, but those wanting him to retract them ignore that fine point.
Nothing you've said actually contradicts my earlier statements. As for "right in substance", well... he's only Right-Wing in substance. Coalition pollies lie like breathing. How quickly we forget the outrageous double-talk from the Neo-Cons as they lied us into war with Iraq... and that one cost oceans of blood, and more...plenty of that sort left in Coalition ranks. The whole "Ju-liar" thing is just a beat-up; good for rallying the die-hards (like yourself); not for much else.
Fascinating. Nothing you wrote contradicts the central assertions .. Gillard's lies have led to the deaths of over 1000 poor desperate people, tens of soldiers, endemic corruption in Unions, wild spending .. how does that compare with your imaginary 'rivers of blood'
? You're just trolling now. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but many thousands of people were killed in that invasion. Your accusations vs Gillard now are drawing a stratospherically long bow. Give me something real.
How about the millions alive today because Saddam is dead? It is sadly ironic the US coalition which invaded Iraq and overthrew that government 9 years before the Arab Spring have probably saved more lives than they actually took. But then that was the point of the invasion. Under Saddam, Iraq was a threat to world peace. One wonders why you equivalent the deaths of Saddams soldiers and henchmen with desperate poor people. In Iraq under Saddam, a woman could be raped and murdered, and her whole family killed and imprisoned if she was pretty. Under Gillard, a person can be robbed by pirates and drowned because they dreamed of a better life .. and you support both.
here's the list of contentious statements you just made: 1. " the millions alive today because Saddam is dead?" You can't prove that. 2. " the US coalition which invaded Iraq and overthrew that government 9 years before the Arab Spring have probably saved more lives than they actually took." Again, no proof for this highly-arguable contention. 3. "... that was the point of the invasion." Yeah, RIGHT. SURE it was. THAT'S why the USA has invaded North Korea, Burma, China, Russia, Uganda, Nigeria, etc etc. Pull the other one! Anyway, your original complaint was about pollies lying - and that was NOT the pretext given to the People at the time. (Something about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which turned out to be pure bullshit) The attack was ALSO against We, the People - BY OUR OWN GOVTs!!!! Yeah, pollies lie and we often force them to do so with our own collective immaturity - but lying us into WAR? That's REALLY bad!!! Well over the line!!!
Also, I equate the " deaths of Saddams soldiers and henchmen with desperate poor people." because THAT'S what armies in countries like that are made up of, at least in part - "desperate poor people". Not many "haves" would put themselves in that kind of harm's way. Oh - and don't forget "collateral damage"...and the special nightmares that only chaos can bring... and HAS in the Iraqi context
One thing I WILL agree with - there are some horrible human rights violations going on, and these must be opposed as best we can. The solutions you seem to be championing don't seem to work very well - too much damage.
Oh & btw - re your "Under Gillard, a person can be robbed by pirates and drowned because they dreamed of a better life .. and you support both" you're making the mistake that pervades this entire debate - that Australia is King of the Seven Seas, and controls everything that happens by bullying desperate poor people with its nasty bureaucracy. Neither Labor nor the Coalition are any good on this issue. Their policies are just simple pandering to this country's petty xenophobia, and that's that.
The arguer is a former friend. They have no problem taking liberties in the name of that friendship or tolerance. The spark is a comment Alan Jones made at a dinner at Sydney University. He immediately defended it at the function, as the audience didn't like it, saying that the audience shouldn't go weak in defence of their position. He later apologised in full. My point is that the substance of his assertion, regarding the PM's lies, is correct. My friend starts by saying it is bad manners .. and reflects on everyone who agrees with Alan Jones' politics. When I agree the statement was in poor taste but the substance was correct, He agrees and takes it further by saying that the 'Ju-liar' meme is a beat up and right wingers (of which I'm not, I'm conservative) are responsible for 'rivers of blood in Iraq.' I mirror his statements and remind him that the substance of Gillard's lies are far from being a 'beat up', but terrible for many poor people. To which he makes the claim that the Iraq war was terrible. It is interesting that this creature of the left sees no upside in a free Iraq, or a downside in drowning poor desperate people.
No comments:
Post a Comment