Tuesday 23 February 2016

Andrew Bolt's Blog,23/2/16; Why aren't suspects charged? Julia Gillard was witch hunted by Bolt so Bolt please take note; Science will no longer be on curriculums in Canada either; No Aboriginal Culture isn't about detroying the land for profit or over accumulation on a finite planet; Science questions itself its the ver nature of science. Are you calling yourself a scientist Mr Bolt? Abbott gave himself 7 months grace; Botl quotes Kipling an invader of India Should he have quoted Howard when he invaded Iraq? Reverse Racism does not exist Freedom to protest does;

 

 

 

Abetz on the heckling of conservatives on the ABC

When in life does Andrew Bolt believe gender no longer counts and that equality actually exists? He keeps telling us  it does exist and feminism is not required and is in fact not wanted. Positive discrimination is neither or wanted. It's simply and area dominated by left wing female fright bats.  If children particularly girls complain of bullying does  he apply that attitude to them?

 

 

 

Terrorist suspect arrested

How many suspected terrorists does it take to change a light bulb none because the light bulb has far more chance of being charged. How many of the 400-500 suspects are stopped from flying out of Australia none they are only delayed and have to wear the expenses for their inconvenience. Why are these people allowed to fly the next day because they didn't warrant being stopped.  However the why we will never know because it's a "border security" issue. Are they all nationalities? Are they all religions? We will never know. Why might they be being stopped? The New Border force needs to do something at our airports. How many terrorists does it take to change a light bulb? We don't know!  Why is the light bulb dead? Did a terrorist do it? Does Border Force the AFP or National Security Know? Call Bolt he'll tell us.

 

 

Bishop cleared. Witch hunters, please take note

Only Bolt can say the law wasn't done. Remember the smearing he did  of Julia Gillard her reputation isn't in tatters though. Remember the smearing of Bill Shorten got from Bolt. All during the Royal Commission. The person Bolt protected during that time was Dyson Heydon wasn't it? How the worm turns.

 

 

 

 

Survey: most Canadians are warming sceptics, too

Great I guess the world governments will all ratify the popular vote sack researchers and science altogether drop those courses for divinity and Conservative re-education well done Mr Bolt before or after the price of oil and coal keep dropping? Oh that's another survey that will be accused of as wrong. What you overlook Bolt is Canadians approve of cap and trade and even raising taxes which actually proves everything you say here as wrong

 

YES?NO

The earth is getting warmer 79/16

The earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activity 61/39

The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity 44/56

Support the cap trade system 66/27

Increase taxes on carbon based fuels 49/44

Just look at the questions and ask which is the most ambiguous with the story of global warming and you will see it's the one Bolt supports as the most and claims is the most significant. However if it were the case why do most Canadians approve of Cap and Trade and even more approve of raising taxes on fossil fuels? Something Bolt totally ignores. He's selling his narrative and not the one revealed in the research. It's why he even goes to the extreme of calling the researchers charlatans. The man has no respect for any form of science or research climate social or demographic

Bolt like the paid Tobacco Industry spinners and advocates is merely  trying to establish confusion in a science wherein fact there is 97% consensus  and over 100 governments  of countries agree. The stock market certainly does as does the boom in renewables and the technology that accompanies them.  Bolt is truly pushing s@$t up a hill, no a mountain. His principle. if you say it often enough something might stick.

 "I am in no position to judge if he is right or he is wrong. I just note that those screaming that “the science is settled” are obviously wrong."



 

 

 

 

Aboriginal culture can’t produce non-Aboriginal wealth

" Australians need to be honest about what they want. Cultural choices have consequences So if Aborigines are to live more “Aboriginal” ways, then we (and they) must accept the consequences - in particular, more poverty."

Obviously Andrew Bolt ignores NITV and doesn't bother to listen to Stan Grant that his notion of equality actually means removing the children of poor white families too. For Bolt dysfunction isn't the fault of any one  indigenous person  in a family or community like it is among whites but the fault of the whole aboriginal  culture. Aboriginal families just don't love their kids like whites do.  If problems occur the persons causing the problem are generally removed from the family jailed or slapped with an intervention order the children aren't removed. But in Bolt's view aboriginal  children are the ones who need to be removed.

"If the poverty and the child neglect appals us, then we must stop funding the culture that produces it." Simply said Bolt is anti- welfare but especially when it applies to the  indigenous it's the fault of their culture. If Muslim it's the fault of their culture. If rural it's the fault of their culture. If single mothers it's the fault of their culture.  All decisions and problem solving needs to be done through the prism of white bureaucrat management who still hold in the purse strings. 

 Dallas Scott  Bolt's favourite black blogger was admired and supported by Bolt only this month when he described Aboriginal industry as it applied to Lake Tyers. The only people to profit were those holding the purse strings. Who in the case of Lake Tyers weren't indigenous. Bolt in that blog totally agreed with Dallas Scott.  Now he's done a 180 degree turn and is the claiming the  reverse of Scott said. 

Bolt has never acknowledged Stan Grant and what he has had to say recently never tried to debate him because he'd look and stand out as an  ultra- racist next to him and not just someone who wants to problem solve.

Obviously from the getgo Aborigines had to struggle like no others for jobs for  equal pay  even for the information about what was available to them. The vast cattle stations built their wealth on their backs and allowed social welfare to come in and take their children. Bolt blames their communalism and extended families yes their extended families were to blame. Like the white man the men could go to war  and die for their country. But they couldn't march in uniform or  have a drink with their mates at the RSL or pub after. They were just socially rejected but aggressively rejected. As far as Bolt is concerned they never wanted to do these things anyway.  There were no apartheid  rules in this country according to Bolt were everyone was equal. To say otherwise is a historical lie. How was it governments were paid on their behalf and they claimed they would keep and save their wages for them but all records and millions of dollars have been lost. Imagine if it had been the unions  that had done this to Aussie workers What would have Bolt said?
National Press Club: Stan Grant – National Press Club – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

 

 

 

 

The Age should define The Science we must not question 

 

"[The researchers] found that political affiliation was a much larger determinant of a person’s willingness to accept humanity’s role in climate change than other social fault lines. Conservative voters were more likely to be sceptical, while progressive voters typically believed the science."


What does The Age have to do about defining science when  they are just reporting a poll? Bolt can't distinguish  the difference between the particular and the general.  He loves to confuse the difference between Scientific method and  the questions raised by  particular research all peer- reviewed and part of the scientific process from which  generalizations emerge. Why peer-reviewed because idiots like Bolt who claim to understand the details of research don't. They tend to be ignorant of it and merely act towards the information gleaned according to their interests.  Science is also an epistemological methodology from which we draw knowledge. Bolt claims he has the right to question the particulars and he does.  He goes to the doctor drives a car and accepts all the benefits science  has offered us  without question. However he seems to believe climate is the only area in which science can't be applied.  It becomes a complete smokescreen  for those  to hide the fact that financial interest is far greater than knowledge.This is the only area in which appeals to god are even made in the chase for the almighty $$$$

If Bolt was simply talking about particular research  papers which are put to peer reviewed testing that would be fine. 97% of scientists have come to  agree the planet is warming. Bolt turns to his bundles of particulars to try to dam those 97% of  scientists. Particulars that have been tested. Attempts to damn the peer review process on which science depends is spin but not science.  Yes Bolt not only dabbles in the particulars but merely pulls out a mish mash of information from Meteorology to Global science to simply create confusion which he says justifies  his central point that there hasn't been any warming for 18 years which even now he has  reworded because it's been proven wrong. The planet has been heating since records began. He  has changed his wording  to " And, of course, satellite records show little warming over nearly 20 years,, and certainly much less than the climate models predicted." 

 If Bolts denials aren't based on a disbelief in science or his ability to argue the errors in  peer - reviewed research what are  they?  Simply a smoke screen for political  and corporate self interest it's just business of conservatives and and those who stand to lose by the quick acceptance of  science and innovation which has got in the way of profit. The Fossil fuel industry doesn't like  the message and the loss that might accompany it.. Conservatives don't like rapid and progressive  change if that change is counters  financial interest. They plead they the corporations are David to the left wing influence of Goliath science and collectivist values.

 


Did Turnbull mean his capital gains tax claim?

No matter what the politicians say, that all the economic possibilities are being considered Bolt  can't accept what he's been told. Exactly what Abbott said when it took him 7 months to releace any of the details of his first budget. Like Abbott Bolt has only a slim grip on economics. He  simply doesn't understand it well enough to make it plausible.  So he uses others Mc Crann & Peter BH his troll but they don't either. 

The Cabinet are working through the tax issues even Eric has told you that but you chose  to ignore because you prefer to sell another narrative government incompetence.   It's an easy job being a cheap spin doctor. Abbott took 7 months and when his budget was released we saw the incompetance. Both in Abbott's ability to sell it and the policies themselves.We are in the same hiatus and time time period and Turnbull is taking advantage of it. Unlike Abbott however Turnbull will get up and talk about it.








Q&A makes mock of uniforms that guard us

Yes Rudyard Kipling did say that as part of British Colonial India and was referring to the protection offered  the colonist minority of whites and not the people of India. Besides it wasn't the uniforms that offered the protection Mr Bolt it was the guns that came with those uniforms. Had there been no colonial oppression, uniforms  and guns and more an appreciation of local culture  all may have  worked out much better. But the barbarian British with their weopens had come through gates demanding trade and protection on their terms..  

How many uniforms does it take and cost to protect us. Tony Abbott like a colonist believed in more much more. How much media spin does it take to tell us we ought to live in fear  because danger surrounds us and we don't know it. How much energy does it take to tell us we must spend  billions more to  go to war on the other side of the world to protect us from "radicalised Muslim children, after one schoolboy murdered police accountant Curtis Cheng and student Numan Haider stabbed two police." How much freedom and privacy has this cost? Julie Bishop for one thinks a lot at airports. But then all these uniforms need justification once established.

It's as if murder attempted murder violence never existed in idyllic modern Australia prior to us being told and sold it by Andrew Bolt.  Bolt is crying out the pain yes the pain of  being a victim yet again. This time of the reverse tribalism that Christians now  feel. Remember when Tony Abbott offered his hand out with Team Australia but Muslims , Aborigines and other tribes named by Bolt rejected it. Bolt cries  victim as he divides Australia  telling us who are and who arn't the enemy. It's simply the politics of diversity and fear that conservatives thrive on. Any election anywhere in the world and you can clearly see the sides Bolt supports. They deal in fear division and marginalization of those they can't profit from.

  When will Bolt begin to call Stan Grant a "token aboriginal" or " token Australian" he certainly would never challenge him in a real debate.  






 

 

Dividing us by race - and gagging your freedom to protest

One thing we can be assures of great debate and ideas will never flow from Andrew Bolt. Large and voluminous repetition is all you get. While Bolt prescriptively says race doesn't exist yet he more than most bangs on about it & tribalism. When it comes to diversity Bolt is like an extreme socialist cultural values all need to be uniform. They demand uniformity for and all except the superficiality of life. They get extremely edgy when it comes down to the real things of life property and inheritance. It's why Bolt advocates birthright as opposed to universal rights for all.

He couples it with freedom of speech simply because  he was convicted and found guilty of racial vilification. Basically Bolt is against any form of positive discrimination any attempt to provide access and equality for all. Individual rights are not universal but a birth right and inherited. For Bolt history begins at birth and from that moment everyone needs to be treated equally. He seems to regard monopoly as a reflection of life but ignores the fact that Go is not the same starting point for everyone.

What Bolt calls oppressive laws are liberating laws. Section 18C is an attempt at a genuine equality. Bolt yells that he's a  victim reverse racism. That's racism. Bolt yells reverse gender-ism if women get any form of positive discrimination. That's anti-feminism.

No comments: