Grey wrote on Apr 15^th, 2011 at 4:32pm:



What a moronic petition. Your own composition?

If Abbott is ultra-conservative, who is an acceptable, respected conservative?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/20/3197237.htm?section=justin

This is why I have turned away from the ABC as a news source - it is for lisping, sashaying Darlinghurst types and middle aged shrill women with silly red glasses and dyed hair.

This fvcker is no Australian. He is an Arab with an unknown place of birth who managed to get an AUstralian passport (to add to his Saudi and Jordanian one) under false pretences (there are thousands like him).

For the ABC to refer to anyone with an Australian passport as an Australian is tendentious, mendacious bullsh1t.

Well what 'ave we got 'ere then 'aye? Someone with their Oz flag tucked too tight up ther bum crack I guess...


I must agree actually. The vocal contrivances of some of the readers is quite startling. Especially the attractive blonde who begins each paragraph with a roaring death rattle sucking of air down her gaping throat. But lisping..  I thinks perhaps you are making a deeper reference...


Haven't been to D'hurst for yonks & I still watch a remnant of ABC News. Now I must say I have a cute walk - all my women tell me so. But sashaying? Nah. Not me. Again, there seems to be an element of personal concern in your presentation here. Is there something you feel you need to express about yourself? Go on. Be brave. We're here to help.


I see. Then this is all about your mother then?


Oh the angst. If you have never tried then you don't know. You ain't gonna get an Oz passport without a known P.O.B. Go on. Tell us what you really mean.


This fair land has recognized dual citizenship for quite some time. Whatz yer problem? Are you suggetsing my US born kids should burn their Oz credentials?


Better contact the Dept of Immigration right away if you have something to divulge. Or I suppose just stick around here. We need the giggles.


Okay. Back on topic. It's all about the ABC then. But a few thoughts on being Australian.. always a good topic between pulls at the pokies. Allow me to summarize how I read your thoughts... To be Australian one must:

• drape their body in what was once a fine flag, trailing it on the ground behind them.
  be deathly afraid of anything that is different.
  refuse to consider that times / places / people / customs change & evolve. Oh yeah, I agree. There are plenty of other cultures that stuff up on this one.
  give credence to the spite of a redhead english born former purveyor of fish while denying the veracity of anyone of Middle Eastern origins.  

cheers Mate.

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:25am:



That's an awful lot of waffle in search of a coherent point. To help you focus:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1298419401/49#49

But you may well be so cloth-eared that you do not hear the difference between an 'Australian' and an 'Australian national'.

I though Mohammed was the last person Alan spoke to (as in 'Alan's at the um.. bar', the cry one hears from the sons of Alan).

Earle Qaeda wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 11:25am:



This bastard probably has a British passport, lives in central London but I wouldn't call him English or even British. Would you?

He may be everywhere but he ain't speaking to nobody no more. It was Mohammed or nobody.

London is no longer an English city, says John Cleese. Is he right?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100084274/london-is-no-longer-an-englis...

Ken oath he's right.

Thank you for confirming that my point was coherent. Most of the waffle came from elementing the original post.


Cloth-eared? Geez. Haven't heard that pommism since Till Death Us Do Part. Anyways, 'Australian' & 'Australian National'. Whatever are you on about? Both phrases are interchangable. One sounds homey while the other has a nice official cling to it. But if there is more to it I am afraid you failed to elaborate.

But perhaps we are closer on this than either of us would dare to confirm in public. I never took much stock in dual citizenships & jumping flags. Hence I did not pursue a US passport in all those years when I had the opportunity. More's the pity.

Lived there 30 years... only ratbag militiamen  & movie producers spelled it America with a 'K". I am actually glad to come across an Australian (I assume you are) who doesn't dismiss the US out of hand. Thank you for that. Now if you have the patience tell me about European values. I'm wondering why I never learned them in my NSW public school. Was never required to teach them there either. Or are you just trying to avoid saying christian?


Jeez where were you in 1969? Seems sensible to me to support wars by reason of consideration, not accident of birth. But hey I like your Musselman reference [two ess's there I reckon]. I enjoy reading Master & Commander too. Fabulous series.


Oh be polite. No finger jabbing or yelling. That's so un-Australian.

Civilized. Yeah I like that bit too. And actually I also detest anyone who  comes here with vaporization on their mind. But wow, you don't need to be a M'man to carry that thought. Hence it is rather vile of some folx to label 'em all that way. But sex with pigs... some confusion there. Isn't that more a Kiwi or Irish thing? Or maybe specific to seafaring nations? Anyway, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

EQ

Grey wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 9:00am:


The English language itself was formed and reformed by waves of immigrants.

On the original topic, my observation is that the ABC (Radio at least) tends away from the government of the day. When Howard was in power, it was noticeably left-leaning.

It's a feature of Neo Conservatives that they don't care which nest they're raised in. I call 'em cuckoos. Tanner told them from student politics days, 'Gillard is a conservative and a careerist, she'll just use you'. He opposed her selection for a labor seat, he opposed her admittance to the left faction and he opposed her bid for the leadership and he wouldn't serve her for a minute. Smart guy Tanner.

Sounds good. Except.. if that's true, why'd they cancel The Sideshow? That despicable act definitely wasn't pandering to the then opposition.

I really like Counterpoint. Sure they just pander to whichever guest they have on, but sometimes I get the impression that the pandering has become more a case of egging on. As far as the guests go, to me it just seems like one whiney sook after another. The guy a couple of weeks ago who was lamenting that "young conservative males" have an extremely tough time getting a leg over these days was a classic.

I also like Late Night Live.

Methinks urban is the keyword above. Had to giggle last night watching dear Graham do the weather. You want detail in NSW? You get one detailed overview of Sydney followed by a regional report covering Western Sydney. You want rural drama? Then watch the horrors of ABC as it parades row after row of slicker stereotypes in RM gear. Perhaps Soren is correct about the 'Abnormally large number of young people'. Perhaps it is just naivette.

Grey wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:12am:



Well Phillip Adams is 72 for one. I always enjoy listening to LNL (I guess I must be a gladdy)

You don't get much more LW than Phillip Adams. He was a member of the Communist Party at one stage. At the same time, he's a multimillionaire and past entrepreneur from his "Life Be in It" campaign.

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:32am:


I used to listen to him until about 6-7 years ago but can't any more. He reminds me of the Nietzsche quote about people with shortish attention spans whose minds are perpetaully flitting and darting about like "nature's winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind".

muso wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:32am:



This is why the left is buggered the world over - the Philip Adamses are its 'intellectual' voice: multimillionnaire advertiser, film producer and tv critic. Only the semi-educated proles would let such a man usurp their political platform.

Anarchism is for teenagers.

Adams is a 'media studies' type, an urban media junkie and advertising copywriter (where he made his fortune). A talker.

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2011 at 10:52pm:


Agence France Presse is not better than the ABC:

Family plead for Australian accused of Hamas ties
(AFP) – 7 hours ago

SYDNEY — The family of an Australian man detained in Israel over alleged links to Hamas has called the charges "preposterous" and urged Canberra to intervene.

The Palestinian-born Eyad Abuarga, an information technology expert, was arrested in March as he tried to enter Israel through Ben Gurion airport and charged with "belonging to an illegal organisation", in this case Hamas.

....

"My husband cannot admit to something he has not done. I am calling on the Australian government to intervene and to do all it possibly can, to return my husband back to his family and homeland, Australia."

SO now Australia is the 'Palestinian homeland'. They don't even want to return to 'Palestine' any more. And what IS his name? Abuarga? A burqa? Abu Arga?

i love today tonight

Cliff Richard wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:


Really? I thought it would be too left wing for you. Hasn't Fox got something more along your lines? 'Barking at the moon tonight, (with Anne Coulter)'.

No. I am saying that an Australian passport doesn't make him an Australian.

If I went to an African country, say Somalia or the Congo and got their passport,  I would not then become a Somali or a Conger [ahem]....

Grey wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 3:50pm:


Exactly. It wasn't that communism took over the left - it was that anarchism was taken over by the right.

Anyway, anarchism never really took off - with the exception of Spain in the civil war and a few Russian utopians. Chomsky is probably the most influential anarchist around these days, but that's about it.

In this country, libertarians were more influential than anarchists. They largely became feminists (Germain Greer) or conservatives (Padraic McGuinness). Some went on to become Greens.

Anarchism could never become a political movement because its central platform is the destruction of the state. Therefore, to achieve any political gains, anarchists can only go one way: freemarket liberal democracy.

A few tried becoming Bolsheviks, but look what happened to them.

Grey wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 5:17pm:



SOunds like Nationalsozialismus ohne Führerprinzip.

Grey wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 11:49pm:



You want a strong state to organise people's lives and activities without it having a strong head or leader. This is why anarchism is an adolescent fantasy.

Pat Condell nails the stupid mongs:





"The multiculti leftwing middle class prickocracy!!!"

Perfect.

Soren wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:


Ahhh, yes. You would. You would need to be a citizen thus you would be Somalian or whatever. A passport does define your nationality mate. That's what they are for.

boogieman wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:



Nonsense.

The passport you hold doesn't in itself indicate the acculturation you received in your formative years. There is a difference between natives and non-natives in every place. Your nationality is not merely about your travel documents.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:00pm:



Entirely correct imo, soren.

It is clear that distortions and omissions [of facts] in ABC news and current affairs presentations, can only protect the guilty, and shield the guilty, from scrutiny.

And that is what the leftists and humanists directing the presentation of news and current affairs at the ABC are guilty of.

Preventing real, and open, and informed, community debate on 'contentious' issues.

Particularly, the issue of how ISLAM/moslems are 'interfacing' with Western culture.




AND THE SAME 'ENVIRONMENT' IS SEEN ON MANY ABC [online] PUBLIC FORUMS...
Real debate on many ABC public [online] forums are 'hamstrung', when those who posit a different worldview are nearly always gagged.
My experience is that on ABC public [online] forums, only a worldview which is self-effacing [and critical of Western culture] and which moslem-tolerant, and anti-Israel is welcome.

Only those persons who expresses an opinion which is PC, and non-critical of ISLAM, need to bother to express an opinion on ABC forums.


I will be watching "Q&A Stopping the boats",

This Thur, 9.00 pm

Will anyone in that forum, address the threat which ISLAMIC culture poses to Australia, and all non-moslems.

Why won't ABC news agencies, confront what ISLAMIC religious doctrines clearly promote [i.e. a culture of supremacism, deception, violence against local infidels, to further ISLAM's influence locally] ???

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:



What really appals me about people today, people who are referred to as 'liberals' [<---- a good example of the absolute perversion of a words' true meaning]...is the intellectual oppression which 'liberals' will engage in, to secure a 'debating ' 'high ground', on any particular issue.

I mean, isn't FREE AND OPEN DEBATE, meant to be, intended to be, a contest of ideas ???

Yet [supposed] liberals today, will always try to secure a 'high ground' in any debate, NOT IN REASONED DEBATE,
but by seeking to gag the expression of any opposing argument.

The majority of 'liberals' and leftists today, are not willing TO DEBATE, others in intellectual argument.

The majority of 'liberals' today seem wholly unwilling to listen to any intellectual argument, which does not align with their own POV.

But rather, the primary aim, the sole aim, of leftists and humanists [within any supposed 'debate'] is to remove anyone from the debate, who does not share their own POV.

That is not debate.

And that form of 'debate', has no intellectual merit, at all.


That form of 'debate' is merely, a form of applied intellectual 'thuggery'.

And such conduct fosters the intellectual and political 'environment' from which actual, worldly tyrants can spring up.




In the world of 'liberals', and political argument today, it is winning the 'prize' [of political power] which is everything.

And the position of 1/ reason, 2/ integrity, and 3/ moral values, count for nothing.




Dictionary;
liberal = =
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. favourable to individual rights and freedoms. Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed; not strictly literal.
5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.


Dictionary;
merit = = excellence; worth.

Yadda wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:52am:



How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter?
Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions. You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:


What is your counter-argument? It can't be unconvincing if you don't say why it isn't.

You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt.
You are saying this in a political debate.
By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt.
Your effort is feeble for that purpose.
Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda.
But what are you doing posting in a political debate.
Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you?

At this point I should say namaste
but
I won't.
So
there.


nameste

Yadda is right. All liberals, athiests and humanists are wrong. However, he is also wrong because Yadda is not right either.

We are all wrong.

Can you be wrong and right at the same time?

I never studied analytic philosophy, but it would seem that you can.

As a continental man, I always thought that we are always wrong, but in this case Yadda could not be right about the atheists, liberals and humanists being wrong, but be wrong too.

As you can see, it is very hard to be right.

Yadda is righteous, by the way, which is not the same as being right. That's something else entirely.

That's right. What to do?

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 9:15pm:



He is right - no - wrong!

Really, though, there are not thousands of views. There's only about two or three.

Big Donger wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:



Right, wrong, whatever, it's all perspective.

So you're saying there's an absolute morality lying dormant somewhere beneath the ever changing notions of morality?

Platonism has been thoroughly refuted.

In regards to my moral views, yes they are just perspectives. Just as everyone elses is.

While moral views are perspectives, people still believe that the perspective they hold is better than the alternatives. People take the moral perspective they do because it benefits them in some way; hence, there is a great deal of egotism in one's moral views. Selflessness is often the exception, not the rule. This is why I singled out Yadaa here. He tries to bring himself across as some kind of truth holder, but his moral views benefit him in some way; they are psycho-physiological manifestations of his soul that project his egotism.
In fact, to take the projector out of the moral perspective one espouses is what is called "the view from nowhere". Hence, it's a logical fallacy to claim that one escapes perspectives.
This is why some people gravitate toward Labor, others toward the Liberals, others the Greens, others God etc. because each has a doctrine that best expresses the personal perspective of the projector.
You can tell a lot about a person by the group he gravitates toward.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:


Brilliant. So what are the psycho-physiological manifestations of your soul that project your egotism and bring you psychological or physical benefits? Is it just the bringing yourself across as some kind of truth holder?

But if your view is no different from anybody else's on the subject (an ego boost) - why should people bother listening to you in particular?

Soren wrote on Jul 11^th, 2011 at 10:17pm:


Oh yes they are!

What is a view? A view is a looking at...- A mexican riding a bicycle seen from above



Only when you have viewed the Mexican, (or a tree)  from all possible views in all possible dimensions do you have an accurate picture. This is true of issues. The more views (opinions + facts) you collect, the more chance you have of making a reasoned assessment or decision. A person who takes one view and excludes all others is a bigot.

Grey wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 11:06am:



How the bugger do you know it's a Mexican when you've had only one view??

You and Time just crap on without realising that you are refuting yourselves with every post.


But you probably sense it, that's why you bandy the the worrd 'bigot' too readily - it's a a shorthand for 'I can't think of a reason so I'll just assert something and hope it'll bamboozle them".

Soren wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 1:02pm:



Pffft. You've not refuted a single thing I've said.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 12^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:



That's just it - you refute yourself. Applying your statements to your own stance shows up how untenable both your stance and your statements are. But you do not seem to even realise that relativising everything makes your every statement relative, that is, applicable only to you. Yet you boldly speak of 'other people', as if you were not yourself 'other people'. I suppose subjecting yourself to sociology for decades does that.

You are very binary for a relativist. It does not follow that just because your relativism doesn't hold up I have to somehow, therefore, argue for absolutes.

Relativism is untenable because it essentially says that there are no principles, only self-interest disguised as principle. But then this statement is nothing more than self-interest disguised as an insight into principle. In other words, does your statement about projected egotism include your on statement? If not, then your statement is untrue - not all statements are as described. If yes, then you are just projecting.

I don't see how it is necessary for me to be an absolutist to be able to show this. How am I pinned anywhere by showing that a relativist position is a paradoxical position?

Quote:


Paradox is the land where truth lives.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 10:11am:



They are grounded in epistemological absolutes.

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:


Ah, you are very tricky fellow, my frien, very tricky indeed. We have these epistemological abolutions in my country. No good! Thank the god Mother England come and teach us good manners.

I think is nice in your country. You are Englishman, no? You are a good man.

Soren wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:



What are these epistemological absolutes?

Ah, this tricky deconstructionalist argument will not wash with us, my good man. You are a very tricky fellow, very Post Modern academic fellow, very French.

If you don't mind me saying, sir, I am thinking we have very much in common.

We both come from the behind.

Soren wrote on Jul 14^th, 2011 at 5:03pm:



The regress argument only further reinforces my point.
If it's a perspective from a perspective, then there is ... only perspectives.

You fellas have a horizon that extends for decades. Well done. Alas, Epimenides goes back further. Even before French deconstructinists (I know you'd find that hard to believe).


Epimenides,  (flourished 6th century bce?), Cretan seer, reputed author of religious and poetical writings, including a Theogony, Cretica, and other mystical works. ...
For his reputed claim—cited by St. Paul the Apostle (Titus 1:2)—that all Cretans are liars, Epimenides, a Cretan, is credited with invention of the paradox of the liar, in which a sentence says of itself that it is false, thus being true if it is false and false if it is true.



Time is our Epimanides:
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1302552215/105#105

Soren and Imp2 try to form a bleh bloc but get bogged down in own hubris.

Soren wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:


Ah, my frien, this good philosopher is very much favoured by the Frenchman, Jaques Derrida.

You are very clever man, very smart man. You study at Bradford Polytechnic? This is very good school I can say, number one school in all of the worlds. I have good diploma from this school, my friend.

I now look for job as post-structuralist. This is good job, frien. I can also work as post-colonialist.