News Corporation employs Andrew Bolt and provides him with a platform ensuring the inequality of speech. Bolt's Blog not only advocates conservative, right wing and Tea Party views it moderates out most opposing opinions which he is entitled to do. However Andrew Bolt simply lies when he says he provides an arena for fair and balanced discussion in a no spin zone. He doesn't it's all spin.
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Andrew Bolt's Blog,15/2/17; A trained misogynist as a boy, a believer as a young man and a comitted one as an adult; What a surprise Bolt's posts are all the same;
On my shows tonight - a dangerous Senate, and fake racism claims
1) What shows Andrew Bolt now that you have revealed your a guest on the Miranda Devine Show on 2GB Are you still entitled to call the show yours?
2) Let's point out Genocide by definition does not refer to the intent of killing a whole race. An act is considered genocidal if a large number of indigenous were intentionally killed. That did occur regularly across the country.
3) The definition of genocide is not up for grabs. Further more written record isn't the only record accepted by historians. Nor is this up as the only interpretation of the historical record such as when it comes to the concept of the stolen generation.
The problem has always been more system errors than individual errors that determined a racial bias however individuals involved so easily grew to accept systems in place that in fact are criminally racist today. Where for instance in the Catholic church was child molestation and abuse found on Bolt's treasured written record? However Bolt's such a prick he's like fixed roulette wheel changing not arbitrarily but where he wants. He's currently accusing Melbourne's police conspiring to hide from the facts from the official record that doesn't show Sudanese African kids are destroying our way of life but kids in general have been running amok. Bolt simply concentrates on evidence to produce his desired conclusion rather than find conclusions from the total evidence at hand. Cherrypicking is Bolt's method and his method is real fake news production in it's simplest and most obvious form. Bolt's best described as a spin Doctor a paid press prostitute ready to produce press pornography for a side and bugger the principle.
So it appears that Bolt has taken his argument for free speech beyond just the RDA and Section18C of the law. He's even against any laws relating to defamation and slander as well. He's simply against any rules when it comes to speech except manners. However their relative as well as usual Bolt the indigenous Australian as he likes to be known has reduced life to nonsense. It would be great if only he was a Monty Python sketch but we know he's not. That the courts have no place whatsoever or in any form making judgements on our speech. However wasn't Bolt's reaction to when MP Terri Butler was sued by a QUT student a cheer? It was significantly different as he was egging that case on? Bolt never lets hypocricy get in the way when it suits does. Today in a later post you will find him arguing that Amber Harrison was free to whinge but not legally. She got paid too much. Bolt's see sawing rather than say she shouldn't have been able to sue at all. He's got a foot in each camp and playing it safe. So basically Andrew Bolt is all over the shop turning his ideas into a meaningless jumble of debate which he demands must have rules. We clearly saw him demanding that of Miranda Devine and spitting the dummy because she wasn't abiding by his on her show. Which he continues to believe is his when 2GB don't. Yes Bolt is insane mad unclear a hypocrite an unlikeable Australian whose all over the shop and makes himself center stage of a comic opera.A paid but talent less dangerous jester.Labor frontbencher Terri Butler settles defamation suit with student over
Yet again the past is something to be forgotten for Andrew Bolt and in this circumstance it needs to be totally forgotten and the $500 billion blowout's history is just such an embarrassing case best ignored why? Because we are where we are today because of and admitted to by Tony Abbott He's said that he believes it's his single most and biggest mistake ever made while PM. It is the result of raising the debt ceiling to $500 bill from $350 bill and opening the spending gate.That;s something that never enters Andrew Bolt's explanations is it of why the brakes came off spending in the first place? From that point on spending in the Abbott era spending became the fault of the Labor opposition and it was running the country not the Abbott government. Today it's the fault of Labor/Greens yes but more so the fault of the incompetent LNP under Turnbull why? We hate Turnbull for not just fucking Abbott's career he was brilliant of course despite openly saying "sorry my fault". You won't hear that from Bolt. It's because Rupert's plans for News Corp were put on hold and Turnbull who he dislikes intensely is in his way of a media takeover of the country.
Can Bolt explain why the AEMO admitted to "refusing power to" SA why? They said because it wasn't in their commercial interest during the last blackout. That they have two roles one public and one commercial and the decision was base on commercial grounds alone. AEMO admitted the public interest was ignored. Is there any reference to that in McCrann's rant, not a peep. AEMO forced SA into prioritizing cuts to supply. All this has been acknowledged that commerce and politics have been playing ping pong with SA's energy in exceptional circumstances. Even McCrann has trouble denying that.What we are seeing here is simply a continuation of this political ping pong and it's media and fossil fuel driven. Yes the system which is 100 years old needs changing but not just an upgrade in the old technology only. But the decision making system and it's integration nationally. Like the NBN needed not just upgrading but a total change which in his wisdom Abbott fucked with a functionless and backward MXT. Notice how Bolt conflates politics with technology simply to suggest that old is gold and we can't afford to change rather than we can't afford not to. That old system is 100 years old and hasn't progressed or been brought up to date with the problems it caused in the first place. Should it be allowed to continue when rebuilding it is now more expensive than building renewables. The threat of we can't afford it is as fake as the threat Abbott made about the affordability of the NBN. It no longer holds true. So the blame game is brought to play as if the old system of generating power had no faults. That's pure spin that's not news.
$380,000 compo for a consensual affair is too much
Jeff Kennett is right: Channel 7 paying
$380,000 compensation to Amber Harrison seems hugely generous when her
affair with her boss was consensual.
Andrew Bolt's opinion is about as effective as his link it's a blank.What is the basis of his opinion? Generally it has some basis of justification in experience and his beliefs as a man. Bolt ever put in a situation where he felt free of obligations and responsibilities due to his naive belief in equality? It sound as if he has some historyhe does simply by the very nature of his gender coupled with it's internalized and sexist psychology.We know he publicly denied he was ever 'engaged' or living in defacto relationship. His first common law marriage. Much more than just 3-4 year consensual fling as he suggests here. Bolt was living with the lady and what's more it seems she was supporting him according to Anne Summers. Yet he felt quite justified leaving her not paying a brass razoo and waving goodbye. Is that the experience his judgement is based on?Just how miffed would Bolt feel if the family court ordered him to pay 60% in a divorce settlement if he left his wife today. After all she gave up her career and brought more wealth into the family than he did materially and by way of cultural capital as well. She raised his standing in the community back despite it seems that she and his children have lived a life of stress because of his chosen career and his selfish demand to work from home? Bolt's made reference to that. What is the value of compensation married to Andrew Bolt?How easy it is to make judgements of these kinds but it's what economic rationalists want and attempt to do. Reduce ones life everything to a gilder. It's all Bolt is doing when he says"compensation to Amber Harrison seems hugely generous when her
affair with her boss was consensual." implying there was equality. He's crying 'foul' on what basis sex and gender equality of course and how there is no inequality really in the work place to complicate things even more. The naive belief that all is equal in his universe justifies what Bolt did in Darwin all those years back when he fancied himself as a 'minder to a belly dancer' rather than the unemployed de-facto of a school teacher. I wonder whether he was a 'dole bludger' back then as well or he simply believed in the trickle down effect of the shared arrangement. One things for certain it's hardly likely women would sympathize with Bolt's opinion nor the majority of men. Given Amber Harrison has worn the blunt end of the experience but then is this an indirect argument for free speech in the work place and that laws with regard sexual harassment have no place. Is this a metaphor or a euphanism for Bolt's poor Worner he's had to suffer reverse Sexism.Given that The page isn’t redirecting properly I'm still certain I'm right because Ibelieve I know Bolt the man.
Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete. This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies.
This otherwise known as the trickle sideways effect not by any means the trickle down effect. It's not a case for celebration. Alex Wood took it on himself to take this issue from the very start to court and he knew the probability of costs being awarded against him for that very reason even if exonerated. He wasn't blind to that fact and he was most likely egged on to do it. However what we see here is really the true nature of class warfare Woods received affirmative action and benefits from his team if you will. When that same affirmative action attempted to assist Aboriginal students at QUT was being challenged and denied by that very same class. Self interest for simply making a political statement was their motive not and inkling of acceptance of positive discrimination here. I wonder if it would have been taken on board if the computer room was a private donation to the QUT for the same purpose if these bigots would have accepted it. Isn't that what Bolt says he's all for? The privatization of welfare, positive discrimination and trickle down? I sincerely doubt it he hasn't argued that once. Bolt is simply against any assistance to Australian blacks because only White Lives Matter. Take into consideration of his post on Amber Harrison above and only White Male Lives Matter. Fact not Fiction there is no Reverse Racism or Sexism. There is Reverse prejudice which is clearly understood given the institutional bias revealed when social history is taken into account but that's neither racist nor sexist .