tip off

Open thread 30 June ‘09

We love having you comment here at Pure Poison but it’s a little bit difficult for discussion to continue uninterrupted on specific posts when off-topic comments land in the middle of them. So each day we’ll launch an open thread where you can leave comments that don’t quite fit on one of the other posts. Remember that tip-offs can be made here.

Have at it!

40
  • 1
    twobob
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    Yesterday I sent a post in Jeremy Sears post The end of childhood. It was a reply and countered that nature accounts for the increased likelihood that boys will be boys and hurt themselves by their very nature by increasing the proportion of males born to slightly over 50%. It also pointed out that the ruling by the judge will affect poor parents and that the income of the parents in charge of the child when he injured himself does in no way affect that.
    Jeremy Sears declined to post the submission even though it in no way contained libellous information or non factual information. It did not contain foul language and did not contain derogatory remarks of any kind toward other contributors to this blog. The hypocrisy of this act should be highlighted. Jeremy does not like to post submissions that counter his pathetic arguments and as such this hypocrisy smells a lot like another blogger that PP loves to smear. Poor form Jeremy.

  • 2
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    TwoBob: do you mean post #11, at 4:20pm?

  • 3
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    twobob,

    Nobody was doing comment moderation in the late afternoon or evening yesterday, so it was purely a delay in moderation. I approved your comment – along with about half a dozen others – about 20 minutes ago. You really should think about whether there’s an alternative explanation before assuming the worst of people.

  • 4
    savvas jwnhs
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    “Oh….do you want grab some pizza?”

  • 5
    confessions
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    bye bye malcolm:

    Once a leader has their net satisfaction ratings drop to a certain level, they never recover, to the point where the leadership itself starts to pull the party vote down. Whether that bottoming out is achieved in nine months or 20 matters naught, for once it has occurred, recovery has never been witnessed. The only thing that differs with these leaders is the length of time it took for their party to remove them — but remove them they did.

    Turnbull on a net satisfaction rating of negative 33, where 58% of the voting public disapprove of the way he’s doing his job compared to only 17% approval, has reached the level where recovery is pretty much impossible. It might move a few percent over the next few months one way or the other, but a proper recovery is little more than a fantasy.

    On those polling numbers turnbull would lead the coalition to a wipe-out in an election. They simply have to replace him in order to give the new leader time to cultivate sufficient trust with the electorate so as to prevent a walk-over by the ALP.

  • 6
    twobob
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Tobias

    Why were other posts, posted after my post approved prior to my post being approved? This is a tactic that I have noticed here, wait until I complain about a post not being approved then post it or my complaint whichever makes me look worse.
    Wonderful how the approval of about 20 minutes ago lines up so well with when I complained. Just a coincidence I suppose?

  • 7
    monkeywrench
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    confessions@5
    I reckon any more revelations from the email affair will surely sink him. Desperate Christopher Pyne this morning on ABC2 news was trying to puff some air into the punctured tyre that was the attack on Wayne Swan, but the writing’s on the wall….
    twobob@1….oops. Talk about letting your underwear show….it’s clear your agenda in here isn’t to comment on the media, but to attack “the Lefties” who run the blog no matter what. Give up.

  • 8
    RobJ
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Twobob, which posts, you realise the Mods/Bloggers (Jeremy, Tobias etc) don’t get moderated, their posts are published instantly?

    “Just a coincidence I suppose?”

    Paranoid maybe?

  • 9
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    confessions @ 5 – I see today that Bolt is trying to ask if the email was a set up by Labor to catch Grech and Turnbull out. What is with the conspiracy theory?

    Maybe someone did it to catch Grech out but there is no way that they could have predicted Turnbull jumping on it so much.

    Also why doesn’t he contact his newscorp buddy Mr Lewis at the Daily Tele and find out himself where the email came from?

  • 10
    confessions
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    I see today that Bolt is trying to ask if the email was a set up by Labor to catch Grech and Turnbull out. What is with the conspiracy theory?

    gawd knows, but it’s easier and more palatable to the sheep than pointing the finger where blame lies most: Lewis and the tele for beating up and running with a story that hadn’t been substantiated – even the mock up ‘email’ by the tele had “Godwin Grant” in the to subject. how is that journalism?

  • 11
    Idlaviv
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Grech, under oath, saying that he spoke with Lewis four times in one day regarding what?
    As dam buster asked. Why doesn’t the Bolta give him a call and find out.

    Hate to be standing in a line with twobob behind me.

  • 12
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Idlaviv – It was Lewis from the Tele who initiated the calls as well (according to last night’s mediawatch).

    So according to Bolt theory Rudd created the whole thing, then got someone to let out the whispers as bait to get Turnbull interested;
    Rudd photographed Turnbull hounding PMO staffers;
    Rudd fed the email to Lewis to get it published;
    Rudd then denies he did it all.

    My god either Rudd is up there with Machiavelli and has been scheming this since Grant dropped the ute off or Bolt is in need of a tin foil hat.

  • 13
    baldrick
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Bet you guys are happy Bolt is back..News Ltd, T. Blair and ‘The Punch’ are not real substitutes….oh the outrage possibilities!

  • 14
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    baldrick – There are several well shown reasons why Bolt is commented on more than the likes of Blair:

    1. Bolt states some of the most idiotic positions, and sticks to them;
    2. Blair does not state anything;

    I commented in here today on Bolt’s conspiracy theory because he has a long history of commenting on the so called lefty loonies and their tin hats when any other conspiracy theory is put out there.

  • 15
    bertus
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Dam Buster: Fascinating isn’t it how often – and how well – the extremists unintentionally describe themselves and their own motives when they ascribe viciousness, foul motives and falsity to their enemies.

    Is there a Latin phrase for this, saying altogether too much about yourself while purporting to hate the other? Perhaps Jeremy or Tobias, those masters of the “Ergo Propter Hoc” etc might enlighten us.

  • 16
    GavinM
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Hello DBoP

    “Also why doesn’t he contact his newscorp buddy Mr Lewis at the Daily Tele and find out himself where the email came from?”

    I reckon the only possible way we’ll ever get to find out the truth in all of this is if an inquiry is held in which the parameters for investigation aren’t set by any of the interested parties.

    Chances of that happening ? Zero.

  • 17
    RobJ
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, Bolt’s latest conspiricy is hilarious, well it would be if some of the idiot Boltards didn’t actually believe it.

    How could Rudd be so sure the email is a fake???…….LOL – what a bunch of retards. I don’t beleive for a second that Bolt subscribes to his own theory he’s just rattling the idiots cages., more hits, ching ching ….thank you, money for old rope.

  • 18
    confessions
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    dam buster @ 14: There are several well shown reasons why Bolt is commented on more than the likes of Blair

    baldrick has been told this many times before yet continues to run with his own unique bolt meme. Why is anyone’s guess, but it is becomming tiresome.

  • 19
    Bloods05
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Baldrick, Bolt has gone barking mad. Check out his post on the email affair today.

  • 20
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    RobJ – It is a crazy theory. Even in his comments on the article there are a number of people suggesting that Rudd is still lying about the email and things like “how could he possibly know that there was no email on the system in one day?”.. “It is smelly”.

    Unreal. If it does turn out that it did actually come from Rudd’s office then he would be in the big poo. But what do these people want? Rudd says it didnt come from his office, the AFP say the same. What more proof do they need?

    GavinM – I doubt they will investigate too far as everyone will not disclose sources. Even if the cources were wrong there is no way they will ever get a leak again if they start naming names.

  • 21
    confessions
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    yep, complete bonkers. why would anyone try to defend the indefensible?

    there’s also this post having a go at Flannery:

    Tim Flannery, undaunted by the failure of his predictions that global warming would cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to now be out of water,

    setting aside the flaws in mocking flannery’s predictions, isn’t it strange that Perth is now no longer included? Flannery made the same claims about perth so why hasn’t bolt taken him to task about that city as well?

    scanning the news reports from perth today is this:

    All sprinklers in the southern part of WA, and bores on the Water Corporation roster, will not be able to be used from tomorrow for two months, as the Government aims to cut back on water use. Garden-based industries will be exempt from the ban.

    Latest water usage figures show nine billion litres more than expected was used this financial year.

    The Government will consider making the ban a permanent winter fixture should this year’s trial prove successful.

    Funny how bolt’s rants about government water bans don’t apply to states with liberal governments. Flannery’s predictions about perth’s water supply seem to be spot on.

  • 22
    bertus
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    You can see it though can’t you Bloods? Rudd as George Smiley, Albanese as the dashing Peter Guillam, Lindsay Tanner as Lacon and the temporarily banished Gillard as Connie Sachs (on a diet).

    While amongst the Forces of Darkness we have Turnbull as Karla, Hockey as the fat Scottish moron Percy Alleline, and Abbott as Haydon.

    Then of course there’s little Godwin. Godwin the Mole. squeek squeek…

  • 23
    Marek Bage
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    I don’t have the stomach to trawl through the cesspool of what passes for conservative comment in this country, so I’m going to throw this one out to the audience.

    Have any so called conservative Australian barkers mentioned anything about what is happening in Honduras?
    For that matter, have any (so called) progressives done so either?

    Cheers.

  • 24
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Wow, surely you guys must be exhausted? month upon month of all standing around in a circle.

    Going, Yes! you’re right, Yes’ you’re right …

    What was that charming expression you “people” use? Oh it’s “rightards”

    Well, you can go “f**k your mother”! An authentic Russian saying…

  • 25
    GavinM
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Hello Marek,

    Haven’t heard much at all about events in Honduras — I guess maybe it’s a case of “yawn, another coup in South America” ?

    It would seem that Zelaya wasn’t too popular even in his own party though, and I read that the Supreme Court over there asked the army to boot him out, so it will be interesting to see what happens next.

    The fact that he’s an ally of the dictator Chavez is interesting though, perhaps the people of Honduras will thank their military one day.

  • 26
    Marek Bage
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Hey GavinM,

    I’m curious as to how you came to decide that Chavez is a dictator.
    Is it because you read it somewhere?
    Or do you have examples of dictatorial behaviour which have helped you form an opinion?

    Cheers.

  • 27
    RobJ
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t say that Chavez is a dictator, no more than Silvio Berlusconni, for that matter I’d vote for someone like Chavez before someone like Berlusconi.

    It says this on his Wiki page:

    ” The government of the United States claims that Chávez is a threat to democracy in Latin America.”

    LOL, of course the US has always had altruistic motives toward Latin America (Panama, Grenada, Pinochet, Gualtieri) If the US reckons he’s bad then going on their history of intervention and meddling in Latin America I’d conclude the opposite.

  • 28
    GavinM
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    I’d say shutting down newspapers and TV stations that are critical of his government is a good start along the way to dictatorship.

    I’d also suggest its suspicious when a President starts wanting to tamper with his country’s constitution to alter terms of rule. Yes I know it was done by referendum, which was defeated convincingly the first time around, but then somehow magically passed just as convincingly the second time — amazing what a ruler can achieve when all dissent is silenced isn’t it.

  • 29
    RobJ
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    “I’d say shutting down newspapers and TV stations that are critical of his government is a good start along the way to dictatorship. ”

    Or just owning them all and dictating what’s broadcast? Berlusconi – PM and major media owner – that’s equally as fucked up IMO, my point being that if Chavez is a dictator then so is (I’m immune from prosecution) Berlusconi.

  • 30
    fred p
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    “amazing what a ruler can achieve when all dissent is silenced isn’t it”

    George W Bush comes to mind. Opponents of the war were accused of loving Saddam and hating America, among other things. Maybe Chavez should follow Bush’s lead – rather than try to change the Constitution the legal way, he just ignored it and broke it at will. Sound dictatorial to anyone?

  • 31
    GavinM
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    Hello Rob,

    You could well be right about Berlusconi, but I’m struggling to see what relevance he has to Chavez and Zelaya…At any rate, I’m sure that Italy is still a Democracy and that if Italians aren’t happy with his government they’ll vote him out — I’m not so convinced that Venezuelans will have that luxury with Chavez, especially given that Mugabe, Castro and Ahmadinejad are on the top of his friends list.

  • 32
    GavinM
    Posted July 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Hello Fred,

    The American Senate voted for the invasion of Iraq by a majority vote of 296 – 133…No breach of the Constitution there. The tapping of private phonelines though, yes that was a breach of the constitution.

    Obama has also breached the US Constitution by interfering in the running of a private company and sacking its CEO, so I guess that means you’ll be calling him a dictator too.

  • 33
    Marek Bage
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Hey GavinM

    Busy day sorry for getting back to you so late.
    Would you be so kind as to give me the name of any newspaper or television station that Chavez has ‘closed down’?

    Cheers.

  • 34
    GavinM
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Hello Marek,

    RCTV is the TV station :

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011702003.html

    Can’t give you the names of newspapers, because I don’t know any the names of any Venezuelan papers – (past or present) – but a google search will give you plenty of references to him closing them down.

  • 35
    Marek Bage
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    Hey GavinM

    Do you mean Radio Caracas Tele Vision?
    This station?

    Now why on earth would a defunct television station continue a website complete with programme listings?
    A word to the wise… don’t believe everything you read about Venezuela in the US press.
    If you want to know what really happened between Chavez and RCTV then read this article.

    I took your advice about going to Google for instances of Chavez shutting down newspapers and came up with nothing.
    Not one newspaper, magazine or periodical met it’s demise at the hands of the thrice elected “Dictator”.

    I don’t care if you don’t like Chavez, many people don’t.
    However, I’ve always thought of you as a fair and principled interlocutor and would wish that you would refrain from regurgitating half-truths and outright lies about what’s going on in Venezuela and LatAm more broadly.

    Cheers.

  • 36
    Marek Bage
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Oh great!!!

    Now look who’s actually sutting down television stations.

    Yeah, Yeah, I know.. Yawn!!.

    Cheers

  • 37
    GavinM
    Posted July 3, 2009 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Hi Marek,

    All I can say is that there’s ample evidence around of RCTV being shutdown, here’s another link, there are plenty more but I can’t post all of them:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/5/29/83342/8775

    If its back on air again now, I wonder if it is broadcasting the same format as it did before — not being familiar with Venezuelan TV I can’t say, but I have my doubts.
    The article you linked is interesting, but looking further into the website of the author, I have questions about his political leanings as well — he’s an admirer of Chomsky for a start, so I would hesitate to give his opinion any more weight than I would those of the writers of any other article on Chavez.

    I don’t know why you couldn’t find any references to Chavez closing newspapers down, I just typed in “chavez closes newspapers” and did a bit of page scrolling.

    Wether I like Chavez or not is irrelevant really, I think he can be judged according to those who praise him and whom he praises in return – Mugabe, Castro, Kim Il Jong, Ahmadinejad – need I say more ?

    As to Zelaya and the situation in Honduras, unfortuneately the reporting here seems to be pretty light on and I haven’t had time to look too deeply into it — as I said I read that he tried to meddle with the Constitution and the Supreme Court requested that the army remove him, so I’m not sure how much support he has or wether those protesting are representative of the majority of people or if they are just his hardcore supporters…It’s a disturbing sign that the interim President is shutting down the media, but then again I haven’t professed any support for him and it may well be that a wannabe Right-wing dictator is attempting to replace a wannabe Left-wing one — nothing much ever changes in Latin America it seems.

  • 38
    Marek Bage
    Posted July 3, 2009 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Fair enough GavinM, I can see your mind is closed on this issue. I’ll leave it at that.

    Still, I’d love for you to point to one Google result that discusses the case of a newspaper being shut down by Chavez.
    You think you’ve seen the proof, but all you’ve seen is a throw-away lie by the odious Mona Charon in her article of April this year.

    Surely all those Google results mention the actual name of a newspaper that was closed down.
    Surely FOX News would be on the case and have the names of these defunct newspapers engraved on brass plaques for all freedom lovers to reference.
    Just one name, that’s all.
    How hard can it be?

    Cheers.

  • 39
    zoot
    Posted July 4, 2009 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    I don’t know why you couldn’t find any references to Chavez closing newspapers down, I just typed in “chavez closes newspapers” and did a bit of page scrolling.

    Where did you type it in GavinM? I tried Google and got the response:
    blockquote>No results found for “chavez closes newspapers”.
    Without the quotes the results were as Marek reported @35. Sorry.

  • 40
    GavinM
    Posted July 6, 2009 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Marek and Zoot,

    I just put the words in the search bar.

    I don’t know how many links I can put in one post – here’s a couple, there are many more and I’m not convinced that they would all be lying:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252008/gossip/pagesix/chavez_bares_daily_dope_fix_450325.htm

    http://www.indepthinfo.com/hugo-chavez/president-chavez.htm

    To be honest, wether the reports of him shutting down newspapers are true or not doesn’t make much difference — the fact is that he is a dictator who is trying to ensure that he stays in power for as long as he wishes to. His tampering with Venezuela’s constitution is ample evidence of this as is his government’s confiscation/appropriation of private property and industry.

    Once again I’m happy to judge him by those with whom he chooses to associate, Mugabe, Kim Il Jung, Castro, Ahmadinejad – as the old saying goes “birds of a feather….”

    This doesn’t talk about shutting down news outlets, but an interesting article about those Chavez supports — I really would look for someone else to admire if I were you:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30350

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...