Those wishing to discuss Australian politics are invited to do so here rather than here.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Forty-second parliament: open thread
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
701 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 » Show All
No GP, my definition of courage is standing up to your convictions and not just absenting by being not present and has nothing to do with your absurd definition of Left and Right. Whether I’m being disagreed with or not, I stand by my convictions. I would have disagreed with her if she’d voted against the motion, but I would not have thought that she lacked courage. I am all for discussing differences of opinion, but what annoys me is automatic dismissal and labelling of any opposing viewpoints as “Leftist” as you just did to me.
What a fantastic display of hypocrisy.
People may want to have look at Larvatus Prodeo, where historian Naomi Parry has given a very interesting account of the Stolen Generation, in NSW. Generic Person, I suggest you may use this to start educating yourself.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/02/12/guest-post-by-naomi-parry-debunking-windschuttle/
600
But a courageous person, who believed what they were saying, would persevere
I urge you then to find an example where I have dismissed your arguments.
No 603
A courageous person is not a person who engages in futile exercises.
My comments regarding Tuckey and his unfitness to serve in Parliament were not based on his lack of class or competence on Sorry Day. That was just the reminder to me that he, Alby Schultz and a few others are just so boofheaded, unintelligent, uncultured and generally socially lacklustre that they are a drain on the resources of their party and the Parliament. It is not so much that I disagree with their views as that they seldom present any coherent views at all.
The fact that Tuckey is more renowned for his thuggish and idiotic rabblerousing in the house than for any single positive achievement after so many years of “service” is proof of my opinion.
The fact that these imbeciles hold safe seats for lengthy periods is an indictment of their party organisations.
I appreciate that there is dross on all sides of the house, but at least most of them have the good grace to behave in a civilized manner. Tuckey is a seventy year old juvenile delinquent. Maybe for his own good he should have been removed!
“A courageous person is not a person who engages in futile exercises.”
Touche.
What makes you so authoritative on that subject? On the one hand we have people arguing about politicians lacking the courage of their convictions, and then when they express their opinion, they are chastised for being “uncultured” and “socially lacklustre” (in other words, people who disagree with the “frothing at the mouth leftie” mantra). Heaven forbid should people hold different views.
As previously stated, GP, we have no objection to you holding different views.
We do, however, object to the way you make sweeping statements, refuse to support them with evidence, and then start throwing around labels.
Heaven forbid that we should draw the conclusion from this that, in fact, you can’t support your own statements, resent being asked to, and start frothing at the mouth because people don’t just accept that what you believe is Holy Writ.
I realise young people nowadays are uppity and should just take everything you say as the truth without question, but instead of waving your walking stick around and getting apolectic with fury, you should take a few deep breaths and remember that when you were young, you liked things explained to you too.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Generic Person is going to be swayed by (or even consider intelligently) articulate and persuasive arguments?
No, I didn’t think so.
Never the less, I am enjoying watching the valiant effort to beat him about the head, neck and shoulders with the cudgel of reasoned argument, so keep it up.
For anyone claiming that tens of thousands of children (50-100K?) were all taken away because they were all being abused is abusing our intelligence, and simply rewriting the personal histories of these people.
This is the kind of crappola the rightwing uses to cover racist-policy and utterly inhumane treatment.
Kids were just herded up like animals, pushed into vehicles and whisked away, often without even informing the parents.
For god sake, tell me what is humane or caring about that?
This is the most egregious bit of BS coming from the White Armband Brigade and should be flatly denied oxygen.
Thousands and thousands were NOT being abused, they just happened to be the product of sexual-depredation by whites on blacks and whisking them away was yet another method to pretend it wasn’t happening or that ‘we’ somehow cared.
I’m sick of this codswallop, and mealy mouthed excuses, because it’s plain to see, it was an attempt to wipe them out in the tried and trued methods.
“589
Generic Person Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
No 586
They are. Is it any wonder why Aborigines comprise the largest percentage of prison detainees?”
Generic Person
Answer your own question here, explicitly and in detail, or remain silent.
Then readers can reach their own conclusions on what you mean by this.
zoom, when you pretended to have evidentiary underpinnings to your arguments regarding the divide between classical economists and modern conservative opinion earlier in this thread, I thoroughly dismissed them with proper justification. You subsequently admitted that you had only a cursory understanding of what you had said. Why should I bother in that case?
Furthermore, see Mr Cusack’s stunningly supported vitriol against Wilson Tuckey.
So, please, either get off your high horse or let it gallop away with the other wilderbeasts.
He’s starting to weaken! Keep up the onslaught!
613
Because it shows that, confronted with reasoned argument, I listen and respond. If I have to, I admit ignorance and admit that I was wrong.
That’s all I expect of anyone else.
By the way, horses aren’t wildebeasts.
602
Liz
Good article, thanks. I hadn’t scrolled up to your post prior to my rant at 611, but essentially, it’s the same message. I’m totally fed up with the obnoxious claims to some ‘moral superiority’ for what was, by the overwhelming accounts, morally indefensible.
Windschuttle is a disgraceful, deformed little dwarf disguised as an ‘academic’: head and heart both made of plaster.
The RBA forecasts inflation is going to get worse and remain at the top or above its 2-3 per cent target range right out to June 2010.
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23218517-31037,00.html
FYI KR, as I am sure you are aware, Windschuttle never completed a PhD, and has not worked at a university since the early 1990s. So references to him as a ‘historian’ or ‘academic’ are not quite right (I note your inverted commas). ‘Writer’ or ‘polemicist’ would be more apt.
Guest post by Peter Russo…Haneef legal team.
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/keeltys_media_blackout_revisited/
jen Says at #539:
February 15th, 2008 at 9:17 am
“Having worked in sexual assault services for many years let me reassure you Glen that sexual abuse of children happens in white communtites. As does violence against women by men.
There is no suggestion that this behaviour should be tolerated in any community, and it has nothing to do with the apology for stealing children (not for protection, but in the hope of eradicating “aboriginality”).”
I have just logged on and read the previous posts.
Having been involved in the study of, attempting to prevent, and counselling of victims/survivors of child sexual abuse and domestic violence for more than 30 years [ye gods is it that long!], nationally and internationally, allow me to fully endorse jen’s remarks as quoted.
Child sexual abuse and domestic violence occur in ALL sectors of the Australian community, including, but not restricted to, wealthy white communities.
We have never contemplated withholding the sources of income or sending in the military or even, perhaps unfortunately, withdrawing offenders from their family victims of wealthy white offenders at any where near the rate that was practised with the indigenous people even when no abuse was present.
To isolate indigenous people as perpetrators of these crimes and to ignore the ubiquitous and endemic prevalence of such throughout our entire society is blatant racism.
For such unwarranted focus Nelson, and all who endorse his attitude, deserves condemnation.
JOM thanks for your inflation news. Please outline whether it is (a) the government that was in for the past 11 years or (b) the government that has been in for the past 3 months, that has had most to with that. Just (a) or (b) please
If you have the stomach for it, have a gander at some of the ill-informed, inarticulate and downright racist comments here. I feel physically sick after reading a couple of screenloads.
617
Pancho
yep, he’s a polecat alright! Isn’t that what you called him? LOL
Odious little toad that he is, pandering to the redneck belief that we never done those black-bastards no harm, and all we ever wanted to do was help ‘em, and look at those white whingers saying we were cruel to them.
Beneath contempt.
GP
following on from your remarks
“On the one hand we have people arguing about politicians lacking the courage of their convictions, and then when they express their opinion, they are chastised for being “uncultured” and “socially lacklustre” (in other words, people who disagree with the “frothing at the mouth leftie” mantra). Heaven forbid should people hold different views.”
I take it you supported k nettles and b browns stance re g bush and his visit
( i seem to remember the MSM and Gvt went ballistic)?
Listened to Gary Humphries(Senator, ACT) on the local radio this morning – he seemed to think that the Coalition was going to be Opposition for at least 2 terms(5 to 10 years) is what he’s expecting.
Andrew, I’ll go for neither.
The former Labor opposition agreed with Mr. Howards economic conservatism. Why is Swan complaining? Didn’t he say that the then Howard Government was just riding on the back of the mining boom and that anybody can run the economy. How did all that change in 3 months?
He also commented that the Howard Government had ignored the RBAs warnings about inflationary pressures and that, unless action was taken, inflation was bound to rise.
A bit like climate change, really – leave it too long and it takes longer to correct the damage.
If Howard and SuperTreasurer had heeded the warnings, the problem would be a lot easier to fix.
Where is GP, by the way? Time for his nap?
I think his argument John was that the economy pretty much runs itself these days. Since the Reserve Bank have only just started to release full minutes of their meetings since December last year, it may have very well been the case that the long term projections throughout last year predicted very similar inflation figures. But that’s something that we can only speculate on, however it is good to have increased transparancy in Reserve Bank meetings.
You finally managed to beat him into submission with your razor wit, zoom. I think the bit about him mistakenly using the phrase “wilderbeast” was the knock-out punch.
Rejoice!
New Morgan Poll. If anyone is interested!
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4270/
JOM not good enough
answer the question (a) or (b)?
At this stage Andrew A, however after the Budget it will be the Labor Government.
If Mr. Howards economic policies were so bad then why has Rudd adopted them?
There’s a wicked kind of joy in watching the discomfiture of the RWDBs as they struggle to come to terms with the election loss. I try to restrain my schadenfreude because I know deep in my heart that it is wrong, wrong, wrong but after listening to some of the bile coming out of the blogosphere over the apology, I can’t help myself.
Since it so annoyed me when it was said (so very frequently) by the other side when the shoe was on t’other foot, as it was clearly intended to do, can I be one of the first to say to the sorehearted and disgruntled:
“If you don’t like it – you can always leave the country.”
Damn, that felt good.
633
Just Saying
Here! Here!
Well said, and pour another schadenfreude larger for this little brown duck, coz it tastes so sweet! LOL
If they don’t like it, then they can just p1ss orf!
625 [Why is Swan complaining? Didn’t he say that the then Howard Government was just riding on the back of the mining boom and that anybody can run the economy. How did all that change in 3 months?]
And while they were riding on the back of the mining boom, how come the conservatives allowed inflation, interest rates and the current account deficit to blow out? Surely they could have been capable of producing better economic results than they did in these vital areas.
I support their right to hold their views and certainly they expressed them However, I also seem to recall that Mr Brown acted in an unparliamentary manner causing him to be ejected by the Speaker.
Lol, Steve. Labor has inherited a booming economy yet they whinge?
I’ve just scanned 3 hours of the apology debate , which is disappointing because 90% of the LCP voted for the apology & regard the issue settled.
I would mention 2 points that may have caused much misunderstanding:
1/ Australians foremost historian on the ’stolen’ generation Peter Read spent 25
years of research & his evidence frankly is overwhelming & never challenged
2/ There is no dispute many of the aborigine kids taken were sexually and/or healthwise abused and many more taken who were not abused.
Dodson publicly ackowledged on Tuesday his appreciation for the missionaries & aid people who looked after those aborigine kids taken from abused etc homes
3/ But the fact is the kids were taken on the grounds of ‘race’ and various State Government at the time actually report this.
Had ‘race’ not been the criteria , over 100,000 odd ‘white’ kids would have been removed for sexually and/or healthwise abused reasons instead of a few
AND the non abused kids would not have been taken away either
4/ It was a generation unlike ours who are better informed who believed not only in Aborigines being beneath ‘whites’ but that ANY non white was beneath a non white….hence the “White Australia” Policy was then the Immigration Law
5/ John Howard was of that ‘white Australia’ generation. ‘Stolen generation’ is an assault on HIS generation.Politically Howard used it as a prejudical wedge
highlighing the abuse but not the race discrimination by which the abused kids were taken nor the fact many taken were not abused
6/ NO ONE absolves the ’sexual abuser’ but the kids were victims and were taken (unlike most white abused kids) on ‘race’ grounds whether they’d been abused or not.
Those who are in self denial will never change their views because Howard’s case whilst false overall had enough parts of the truth (the abuse) to convince
some that Howard’s version is the whole truth.
No 629
I think it is you who is mistaken. I have not been silenced.
Ah, a witty comeback too. Have mercy, Generic Person!
Neither have I.
I am speaking at the Indi Rally to apologise fo the RACIST opolicies that caused so much harm to aboriginal people for so long.
That, GP, is standing up for your convictions. Not doing a “no show”.
JOM as a Labor supporter, I am not whingeing about the economy. I am frustrated at those conservatives that are trying to blame inflation and interest rate rises on a government that has been in for a few months and has not changed any policy settings yet, rather than acknowledge that their so called superior economic managers left an economy with an inflation problem
And Nelson says Sorry – Again.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/15/2164063.htm?section=justin
Give him another couple of dozen goes or so and he might get it right.
And lose the leadership.
Jen @ 641 – Is that speech at the Indi 500 at the Gold Coast? I hope thay can hear you!
yep JV-
that’s the one.
I’ll just speak loudly in my best Wilson Tuckey voice.
What Aunty Faye Lynham was upset about was that Nelson borrowed her story of being taken away from her father (from the oral history files in the Museum of Vic) and placed it after the section in his speech where he said that some children were taken away from squalor and misery. He implied that her father approved her being taken away, whereas he didn’t, only agreeing when promised that he would see his six-year-old daughter whenever he wanted. Which never happened. Aunty Faye said that when Nelson (mis)used her story she felt as though she was stolen all over again.
Generic Person, have you bothered to read the article and discussion I linked to? Or aren’t you interested in learning about this history?
Pages: « 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 » Show All