Andrew Bolt's Blog,8/6/15; Bolt's Yes But case for George Pell, Panahi provesIslam is a Religion of Peace; Focus on the past when the present is too embarassing ;Bolt promotes blood sports for a purpose; Sloppy as the Arctic is Bolt;
Link PJ Media conservative opinion and commentary website allied with Brietbart
Results however are results and the
Islamist leaning Party the AKP did extremely badly. Will Erdogan accept
the result? That is of more concern now. Further what does this mean for the region?
Link Powerline a rabidly conservative ezine in the US
Again Bolt remains unusually silent
but has nevertheless recently supported an escalation of the war in
Iraq. An escalation that would be both illegal and guarantee an
escalation throughout the Middle East. Abbott however remains extremely
silent about the criticisms being handed out to his current coalition
leader Obama. Is it because he doesn't want to see boots on the ground
or is it he can't be seen to be supporting Democrats. I suspect like
Bolt Abbott is pro escalation and possibly conscription is at the back
of his mind.
However the Vietnam war cost 3million
Asian lives and 59,000 American. Do these warmongers really want to go
down this road simply in hope of winning the next election?
Link Paywall for Murdoch
The Suadi's are our allies and we
remain silent. We can criticize the Indonesians. Bolt raises no issue
to the non response by Tony Abbott or Julie Bishop apparently happy to
allow it to be a conscience vote. He does mention however mention
foreign governments protesting why are we left out of his commentary?
All this cut and paste space filled
that is quite a disjointed and meaningless collage until you come to
the end. It was cobbled together so Bolt could say.
"I think Leavitt vastly exaggerates the ABC’s commitment to a “diversity of perspectives on climate change”"
However where in his cut and
paste or in the Guardian does it mention that complaints were generated
by named ABC staff? This blog according to Bolt's rules then remains
unsourced. These days when Bolt runs a lot of "I think arguments" and it really boils down to the fact he rarely does. Think that is.
UPDATE
Link The Guardian and the Telegraph
Link Andrew Bolt...so totally unsourced
There is one thing that Bolt
continuously goes on and on about and that's Yes but arguments. He says
they are common to the ABC and the Left but not to the likes of staunch
conservatives like himself. What does Bolt do here he runs a" yes but "
argument against Saunders the victim in this case. "Yes Saunders has a horrific story to tell but" It's probably a lie according to some current academic theories. "Yes we must believe Saunders to be fair but" He is a wiley and experienced media campaigner and has been for years.
It's common practice in most
organizations that if the CEO or any executive is accused of misconduct
that they stand down until an investigation is completed. MPs do it as
did Arthur Sinodinos and so do corporate executives and the police.
It's common practice. Any number of character witnesses could argue
against this action but it's neither the time nor the place for it to
happen. Bolt on the other hand disagrees with the practice his" yes but I know George and respect him" number is supposed to exonerate Pell at this time.
As Bolt questions Saunders
character lets question his. Why should we listen to him? Do we really
have to reveal his history of convictions for use of loose facts, lies
and defamation. Do we have to say show that rhetoric is his simply his
tool of trade and truth often takes a back seat? I don't think so Bolt's
reputation is well known and as such he's doing Pell no favours as a
Quixotic defender.The sins of the ‘fathers': Catholic Church and Abbott Government on trial
I wont ask why Bolt bounces from the Arctic to the Antarctic obviously
it makes sense to him but nobody else. The Arctic ice is thinner and is
breaking up giving companies like Shell the chance to to drill where
once the couldn't.
WHAT YOU WONT HEAR FROM BOLT THE QUESTION IS WHY???
Link The Herald Sun 2007 relevant to the max for Bolt who advocates against history.
"Should a judge publicly really take sides with an activist in a deeply
political war with a conservative government? Or should they, as I
always assumed, at least preserve a show of impartiality?"
"Judges are appointed by the executive government, without intervention by the existing judiciary.
Once appointed, judges have tenure and there are restrictions on their
removal from office. For example, a federal judge may not be removed
from office except by the Governor-General upon an address of both
Houses of Parliament for proved misbehavior."
Here's one for the books Judges
shouldn't Judge according to Bolt known and named and shamed for his
"sloppy journalism". Why are they there if not to make judgement? They
have been appointed by government for that purpose with full regard for
their abilities and character to do just that. Any criticism of the
judges is criticism of our whole legal system.
Should constant complaing be heard
from those in government or from their supporters the likes of Andrew
Bolt they might care to suggest a completely new system of justice for
Australia. Bolt has already been convicted of defaming a judge. What
should the new system be Mr Bolt? Should Bolt be allowed to submit a
list of those in the justice system he feels are inappropriate? I
challenge him to make that list. There still exists even here in
Australia laws that pertain to contempt of court. Would Bolt should
challenge them please.Anything to stop the incessant Bolt whinging
" The best option for Australia might be judicial appointments commission like
that adopted in 2006 in Britain. Fairer and more open, it has produced
judges of high quality. A similar Australian body should be established
to consult widely in preparing a shortlist of names against clearly
defined criteria. The government would select the appointee. The
commission must include people other than lawyers, who should not have a
monopoly on who runs our courts. The method of selection must reflect
the fact judges serve the community at large."
Link The Age
Yet another fantasy that could be
clearly labelled sloppy commentary by Bolt. He couldn't make the mud
stick to his targets Turnbull and Bishop so in order to protect Morrison
he's suggesting others are calling him out. Sorry it just adds up to
deflection on the part of Bolt. However the point made how is it Abbott turned his back on democracy and stood up for trying to be crafty?
Link Paywall for Murdoch
Talk about Murdoch logic Panahi tells
us how more Muslims have joined IS than the Australian army and it
should be of "great concern" to us all. How does one make an idiotic
generalization like this? I mean it's really moronic and defies logic.
1) There are about 500,000 Muslim Australians. 350 almost half Christian converts are IS sympathisers.
2) 600 Australian defense personal
are currently in the Middle East and some 29,000 non Muslims are in the
ADF. It's a predominantly Christian army.
3) Therefore Christians more than any other group in Australia are ready to fight.
4) So Australian Islam is a religion
of Peace. Christians on the otherhand are the eager war mongers. The
coalition of Christian forces have killed some 13,000 Muslims in this
current action and have been involved 1.1 billion deaths since the 2003
invasion of Iraq
Stupidity however reigns supreme in Newscorp
Link Paywall for Murdoch
Another blog that actually nails how
it's better to focus on the past at the moment than than face the
embarrassing reality. Bolt's blogs are about anything else than the
reality of this government. Particularly when it comes to the erudite
remarks of Tony Abbott our suppository of wisdom and his brilliant 24
second silence when interviewed on camera.
Link Paywall for Murdoch
"This is live baiting, banned and criminalised decades ago because of the extreme levels of cruelty"
So Andrew Bolt opposes the law only
when it's a case of the ABC reporting it being broken. When the ABC
reports on the cruelty of live baiting in the greyhound industry Bolt
takes offence not at live baiting mind you but merely ABC's reporting of
it. So we can assume Bolt supports bull fighting, fox hunting, dog
fights and other such brutal bloodsports. Yet I bet if you go anywhere
near his pet Dutch dog a less seemingly blaze advocate for the right to
kill animals will appear.
However Bolt's target in this blog
isn't even the ABC it's specifically Jonathan Green. Tony Abbott's new
surveillance laws ensure your privacy from the cradle to the grave is
now gone. Yet with as many leaks as there are today in government and
government departments imagine the damage Bolt will be able to do for
his masters. The " we are just collecting metadata " is total bull the fastest growing industry today is the harvesting of personal data for the hidden persuaders. It's highly tradeable and Newscorp hackers are ready buyers and collectors. Dirt is their trade.
No comments:
Post a Comment