Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.
A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.
Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.
What will you all demand next?
Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?
OK, once more:
The judge WAS impartial. He held Bolt to account for the FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATION in his blogs, nothing more. He didn't say "Don't be racist", he didn't say "Stop denying climate change", he wasn't a warrior for any movement.
He punished Bolt for the lies that he told in his blog, and let it be known that the key facts which made the basis of Bolt's cynical posts were in fact false. Nothing more, nothing less.
The rest is a figment of Bolt's imagination in an even more cynical attempt to create a ground movement of right-sided resistance to Indigenous progress and to gain further unquestioning support for his anti-environmental, anti-muslim and anti-indigenous views.
The fact that some of us are celebrating the judge's good work is because we are happy for a voice we hate to have been made publicly accountable for a change. It doesn't happen often, please let us enjoy it. The fact that he is an ex-Saint is the cherry on the cake.
That is really funny...you think Bolt is anti-Aboriginal.....'anti-environmental'?...'anti-muslim'...? Any other labels you can throw.
David Marr has also made journalistic errors when criticising a Christian group. it's well-documented. But these are forgiven, because he's one of the good guys.
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
Austinnn wrote:To dragit, Spacey and other folks complaining that this thread is in the wrong place, just pretend we're not here. You don't have to click on the thread, it's obvious from the title what it's about.
But in order to make it MORE relevant;
Did you know that there's absolutely NO TRUTH in the claim stated in this post that Andrew Bolt was once on St Kilda's reserve list, and he got cleaned up by Mordy in a reserves game and the impact broke his spine in several places, and that Rupert Murdoch took him under his wing and taught him to hate and resent and write. I repeat that this claim is FALSE.
You speak a lot of sense, my friend.
But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.
A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.
Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.
What will you all demand next?
Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?
I do want a media watch dog. I know politicians and journalists and if you think there is not a need for regulation of this industry you don't understand the way it is structured. I am not a fan of Chomsky, Pilger or Brown and as a centre left leaning person don't believe they represent a sane view just as I don't think bolt represents a sane view. We have media ownership that means that a few can influence the political landscape. Gina Rienhardt was so impressed by the influence the media had over the mining resources tax she bough into Channel 10. She is personally responsible for Bolt's promotion and has expectations of content that is friendly to her personal views. I know an Age journo that has been totally disillusioned by the fact that her articles are routinely changed to reflect editorial demands. We are coming into a world where one service will provide all the news content and commentary will replace true journalism which is impartial. Bolt is a commentator disguised as a journalist. Australia's nanny state is responsible for our sound financial position, deregulation or self regulation by industry is what screws the world's finances.
That's great...you want a watchdog overseeing the media.
It'll be interesting to see what they decide are the 'correct' opinions.
In honour of those who went before, in the dark and desperate years.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:But I repeat that the reason I contributed to this thread is...someone wanted to CELEBRATE a judge finding someone guilty.
A judge is supposed to be impartial, not a warrior for the Left.
Yes, Bolt has been wacked. I'm sure you're all happy.
What will you all demand next?
Do you really want a media 'watchdog', as Bob Brown has called for?
OK, once more:
The judge WAS impartial. He held Bolt to account for the FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATION in his blogs, nothing more. He didn't say "Don't be racist", he didn't say "Stop denying climate change", he wasn't a warrior for any movement.
He punished Bolt for the lies that he told in his blog, and let it be known that the key facts which made the basis of Bolt's cynical posts were in fact false. Nothing more, nothing less.
The rest is a figment of Bolt's imagination in an even more cynical attempt to create a ground movement of right-sided resistance to Indigenous progress and to gain further unquestioning support for his anti-environmental, anti-muslim and anti-indigenous views.
The fact that some of us are celebrating the judge's good work is because we are happy for a voice we hate to have been made publicly accountable for a change. It doesn't happen often, please let us enjoy it. The fact that he is an ex-Saint is the cherry on the cake.
That is really funny...you think Bolt is anti-Aboriginal.....'anti-environmental'?...'anti-muslim'...? Any other labels you can throw.
David Marr has also made journalistic errors when criticising a Christian group. it's well-documented. But these are forgiven, because he's one of the good guys.
You're drowning.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:I have logged on this morning to see that the 'bully boys' have smelt blood, and are circling.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
Bob Brown good, Bolt evil.
I'm sure you're all desperate to have the last word so go ahead.
Sounding a tad Bolter like there, ILPK. You know, all put upon by those who disagree. Bolter the Downtrodden, Bolter the Silenced.
And, just like the Bolter, you attribute to those who disagree a motive I cannot detect in what has been written. I did try.
So, I'll press on. Here's a piece on Leo Strauss. You should determine no motive to me other than that of someone who likes to understand how we got to where we are now. However, I do see motivation as primary and not all motivations are designed for the greater good.
"The question of nihilism is complicated, but there is no doubt that Strauss’s reading of Plato entails that the philosophers should return to the cave and manipulate the images (in the form of media, magazines, newspapers). They know full well that the line they espouse is mendacious, but they are convinced that theirs are noble lies."
I wonder whether the Bolter sees his lies as "noble"?
I hope you do read the full piece. Ironically, if you don't, you'll prove Strauss's "Wise" to have been correct in their disparaging opinion of what is best for you.
And, that's exactly what Murdoch (who deems himself to be one of the "Wise") and the Bolter (who may be one of Strauss's "Gentlemen", subservient to the Machiavellian games of the "Wise", I can't be sure) want to perpetuate. It's their end game.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
Real Estate Agent.
Thats a 'profession' which needs no aurhenticness , compassion or genuine grasp of Reality ... just an application of market forces ... and even 'they' are bent to suit.
LOL @ The big boys smell blood ... fair dinkum.
You are embarrasing yourself (again) ... must be nearly time for another ID change.
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
I don't agree with Bolt or endorse anything he says .. but he made a very valid point regarding the inconsistent racial discrimination laws.
Apparently if you're Slav - Macedonian you can write and publish anything against Greeks and get away with it !!
You can go ahead and revile and incite as much hatred against Greeks as you like !!
You don't even have to be subtle about it (as Bolt was re: white- Aborigines).. you can just write whatever hateful racist thing you like against Greeks.
Last edited by samoht on Tue 04 Oct 2011 3:18pm, edited 1 time in total.
samoht wrote:I don't agree with Bolt or endorse anything he says .. but he made a very valid point regarding the inconsistent racial discrimination laws.
Apparently if you're Slav - Macedonian you can write and publish anything against Greeks and get away with it !!
You can go ahead and revile and incite as much hatred against Greeks as you like !!
Unfortunately, looking for good points in Bolt's writings is like looking for gold dust in a pig sty.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
I'm not looking at good points vs Bolt .. I'm looking at bad points re: anti-racist laws.
They are so inconsistent.
aren't Greeks people too ? .. don't they have feelings ?
Should Slav-Macedonians have a license to write and publish any incitefu/hateful thing that they conjure up against Greeks .. that's what VCAT has more or less
issued to them .. with their stupid verdict .
samoht wrote:I'm not looking at good points vs Bolt .. I'm looking at bad points re: anti-racist laws.
They are so inconsistent.
aren't Greeks people too ? .. don't they have feelings ?
Should Slav-Macedonians have a license to write and publish any incitefu/hateful things against Greeks .. that's what VCAT has more or less
issued to them .. with their stupid verdict .
VCAT vs Federal court.... hmmm, which is more credible?
Yes it sounds like a bad decision, but it's VCAT ffs, I'm sure they could/should/will take it to a higher authority.
I know it's VCAT (which should nevertheless espouse or be consistent with Federal laws as Victoria is still part of Australia I hope) .
Anyway we need consistent anti-racist laws... the VCAT verdict just highlights that... and I trust the Aussie Greeks (who should have the same equal rights to be protected against racial vilification as any other race/ethnicity) are not clutching at straws as this goes way beyond Bolt here.
I Love Peter Kiel wrote:That is really funny...you think Bolt is anti-Aboriginal.....'anti-environmental'?...'anti-muslim'...? Any other labels you can throw.
David Marr has also made journalistic errors when criticising a Christian group. it's well-documented. But these are forgiven, because he's one of the good guys.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Probably, though I'd have to read more of his 'work'. From memory; Cynical. Disengenious. You can't refute those claims by saying I'm using labels. I know he doesn't outright I say that he wants to destroy the environment or the Indigenous or Muslim communities of Australia, he's far more snakey. At times he'll even appear to be offering 'practical solutions'. But it's clear from his stance that he has no respect for any of those 3 areas, and probably more. Show me one thing he has written which contradicts my accusations.
As far as your bleating about David Marr goes, I suggest that you read this article:
There's lots of great info on here, and good debate too, thanks to The Other Thommo, Grumpy One, avid, Gazrat, ILPK, and everyone else involved. Thanks to The Other Thommo particularly for the link to the Kochs; very illuminating.
To ILPK: I'm noticing that your arguement seems to fall into the concept that there are two enemies here, The Right and The Left, and if one throws a grenade, the other has to throw a grenade like some great Idealogical War. This kind of thinking is endemic at the moment in Australia the USA the UK and elsewhere. It's encouraged by the media because it brings a difficult subject like politics down to the level of something much easier to sell; Sport.
I would suggest that it doesn't have to be a war, and we don't need to pick a side to cheer for or against. That's what we have footy for. You can defend your man Bolt and rail against the 'Warrior for the Left' Judge Mordy as much as you want, but it just makes you look defensive and paranoid: "The Left Is Taking Over"/"Political Correctness Gone Mad" The two songs on constant rotation in Newspaper letters pages and Talkback radio at the moment. Who will stand against this Socialist Evil? Will you, brave soldier?
No need to be paranoid. To step into your 2-team mode for a moment; The Far-Right have some of the richest and most powerful people on the planet tirelessly working to colour the media debate, inhibit scientific discovery and stop progressive movements from fighting the unfair advantage they have created over the decades. Despite the disgusting amount of destruction and pain caused by bad banking in the western world, banks and the Capitalist Economy are controlling our civilisations, Governments are still colluding with huge corporations. Huge communities of maligned minorities are still powerless and fractured. Your Team is still on the top of the ladder.
Outside the realm of sport, (and this is speculation from all over the political spectrum based on proven facts) the lives of all of the people that you care about will be compomised shortly by the increasing temperature, dwindling of resources, disappearing links in the food chain, agricultural decline, rapidly rising cost of living, larger drain on power to protect us from a harsher environment, higher dependence on welfare, an increasing amount of unrest from a growing underclass of real poverty, less to go around, people with less to lose and more desperate to survive, bigger risk of friction between socio-economic classes, religions and ethnic groups or nations and unless you are one of the very rich who manage to get tickets to the new beginning on some spacestation or planet, you and your decendants will be stuck here with the rest of us to try and live in this mess. A bit dramatic for you? Wait a few years.
Bolt's ideology is all about keeping things as they are, or even as they were before we tried to improve things. He critisises people who have tried to change laws, because he sees it as brainwashing, and because he's being paid to do it by people who are protected by those laws. Of course brainwashing exists in many forms, but naturally he's only really against the kind of brainwashing that would create a world different from the one he grew up in, where it was every man for himself. If it was up to folk like Bolt, we'd do nothing and simply try and find a bunker to hide in when things get really tough.
A lot of people who oppose Bolt oppose him because he is inhibiting change. He denies Climate Change as if it hasn't already been scientifically proven time and time again. He denies that the Stolen Generation happened against overwhelming evidence and real trauma, and is cynical about anyone using their heritage to get anywhere. I say anyone, I mean anyone who isn't white. He knows that his actions are going to build a hostile debate which will delay everything and he still does it, to make a handsome living off a billionaire that he is protecting on the flimsy premise of standing for decency and truth, while at the same time exposing himself as opposed to those two ideals.
I read that you are concerned with creating a better future for Indigenous people, and Bolt probably thinks he is too. We probably all want the same thing but it just gets muddled up in The Great Idealogical War. Put down your flag and you'll see that we're not enemies.
We want to help those who can't protect themselves. We want to come together, not to be some big individual-less soviet bloc, but because we know we can't do anything alone, and history has proven that. We help each other, because no-one else will. Together, we have a stronger chance about making the world we live in better for everyone, not just the richest 5%.
(I am not a socialist, capitalist, communist, libetarian, environmentalist, neo-con, nihalist, I am part of no movement, I support no team except St Kilda Football Club and Liverpool Football Club.)
Just My Opinion
------------------------------------------------
There is right and left..both have their positives and negatives which is how it should be ..it's healthy..and should all come together in some sort of forum to debate and resolve but when you get types like Bolt, who in the guise of a messenger of all things truthful and supposedly unbiased on our media airways and hard copy espouse there own agenda ... we the little people suffer in the long run.
This guy is poison.
Bolt and his publisher were represented at the Federal Court by Neil Young QC.
Young has held silk since the 1980's and is a very highly respected practitioner - indeed, he won his reputation before a Royal Commission in the 1980's - as a very young barrister.
So Bolt was represented by very, very competent representation.
Very, very close to the best money could buy.
The decision is open to appeal - but, to date there has been no appeal and, indeed, we have Abbott saying he would change the laws to prohibit such action in the future.
That comment by Abbott (who is very closely associated with Bolt) would indicate the futility of any appeal.
Mind you this is the Abbott who is a devout Catholic, trained to be a Catholic priest, is against pre-marital sex but who then spent his time touring Australia to find out who he may have fathered - and claimed an ABC cameraman who was then found to not be one of Abbott's illigitimate children courtesy of the years Abbott spent "sowing his seeds" accross the nation.
In regards one other matter that this discussion covers (the credibility of the press), from my associations and involvements I was very well aware that Howard and Costello never spoke and, indeed, avoided each other except when absolutely necessary from 1999.
When I passed comment on this, the usual response was that I did not know what I was talking about because, if that was the case, the media would be reporting it!
"Well, no!!
And trust me, as one walks into a room the other walks out, not even acknowledging each other".
To the top wrote:Bolt and his publisher were represented at the Federal Court by Neil Young QC.
Young has held silk since the 1980's and is a very highly respected practitioner - indeed, he won his reputation before a Royal Commission in the 1980's - as a very young barrister.
So Bolt was represented by very, very competent representation.
Very, very close to the best money could buy.
The decision is open to appeal - but, to date there has been no appeal and, indeed, we have Abbott saying he would change the laws to prohibit such action in the future.
That comment by Abbott (who is very closely associated with Bolt) would indicate the futility of any appeal.
Mind you this is the Abbott who is a devout Catholic, trained to be a Catholic priest, is against pre-marital sex but who then spent his time touring Australia to find out who he may have fathered - and claimed an ABC cameraman who was then found to not be one of Abbott's illigitimate children courtesy of the years Abbott spent "sowing his seeds" accross the nation.
In regards one other matter that this discussion covers (the credibility of the press), from my associations and involvements I was very well aware that Howard and Costello never spoke and, indeed, avoided each other except when absolutely necessary from 1999.
When I passed comment on this, the usual response was that I did not know what I was talking about because, if that was the case, the media would be reporting it!
"Well, no!!
And trust me, as one walks into a room the other walks out, not even acknowledging each other".
To the top wrote:Bolt and his publisher were represented at the Federal Court by Neil Young QC.
Young has held silk since the 1980's and is a very highly respected practitioner - indeed, he won his reputation before a Royal Commission in the 1980's - as a very young barrister.
So Bolt was represented by very, very competent representation.
Very, very close to the best money could buy.
The decision is open to appeal - but, to date there has been no appeal and, indeed, we have Abbott saying he would change the laws to prohibit such action in the future.
That comment by Abbott (who is very closely associated with Bolt) would indicate the futility of any appeal.
Mind you this is the Abbott who is a devout Catholic, trained to be a Catholic priest, is against pre-marital sex but who then spent his time touring Australia to find out who he may have fathered - and claimed an ABC cameraman who was then found to not be one of Abbott's illigitimate children courtesy of the years Abbott spent "sowing his seeds" accross the nation.
In regards one other matter that this discussion covers (the credibility of the press), from my associations and involvements I was very well aware that Howard and Costello never spoke and, indeed, avoided each other except when absolutely necessary from 1999.
When I passed comment on this, the usual response was that I did not know what I was talking about because, if that was the case, the media would be reporting it!
"Well, no!!
And trust me, as one walks into a room the other walks out, not even acknowledging each other".
In spite of all this, freedom of speech only extends to "fashionable opinions". You never see Age scribblers or ABC commentators dragged through our courts.
ANDREW Bolt is an opportunist who saw a gap in the market for right-wing opinion in the Fox News style and set out to fill it, according to a profile in the latest issue of The Monthly magazine by Anne Summers.
Steve Harris, editor-in-chief of the Herald and Weekly Times Group (publisher of the Herald Sun) between 1992 and 1997, told Summers of a conversation with Bolt some time before he became the Herald Sun's Asia correspondent in 1997. ''There was no shortage of people filling the left-hand side [of political opinion], I told him, but there was a shortage of people of the right. He responded by saying, 'Yes, there is a shortage in that area, maybe I can fill that space.'''
On his return from Asia in 1999, Bolt was offered a weekly opinion column and the platform for building his profile.
No sane and real person could be as relentlessly rabid as Bolt's media persona... he simply provides a focus, outlet and justification to many people's prejudices and impotent sense of outrage... and it's made him rich.
Furphy wrote:
In spite of all this, freedom of speech only extends to "fashionable opinions". You never see Age scribblers or ABC commentators dragged through our courts.
Actually they have been, on many occasions, for defamatory comment.
Unlike Bolt however, they were sued, and it cost their employers mega-dollars.
There are grounds for Bolt to be sued for the articles in question, and Mordy's judgement indicates that the action would have been succesful.
But it was never about money. It was about revealing Bolt to be an opportunist hack who is fast and loose with the facts before an impartial judge. That has been done.
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
