Taking To Task

The following was posted on a business discussion board but the admin thought it not suitable. Not that this post was unsuitable, but that many people got overheated and irrational and started launching personal attacks. So the entire thread was nuked to the detriment of us rational headed posters.

I was replying to someone by the name of Bfahle who had replied to a post by Don. Don's post was about how wonder it had been to see the President "live" and how some lefty hecklers cursed at them on the way out. And how the country would be better by voting for Dubbya - Don is on the right of politics and a true blue entrepreneur who gets very passionate about lefties vs righties.

My stuff is the normal stuff. Bfahle's stuff is the indented stuff.

Let's begin...

Bfahle,

Thanks for taking Don on about politics. It should be entertaining.

Before posting. I need to clear up I am NOT a US citizen. Hence I only have a vague idea of what propaganda you are subjected to on a daily basis - from BOTH sides.

Anyway...

One sees what one is looking for. I also fail to see what dressing nice has to do with it. Perhaps they "looked scummy" because they no longer have jobs, or even homes, in the current economic climate.

MY EXPERIENCE tells me, those who dress a certain way are generally that way. If I see someone walking down the street in ripped jeans wearing a tie-dye shirt with dreadlocks, there is an almost 100% certainty they will be on the left of politics and most probably a socialist. Regardless of what the economy is doing.

Even in Australia - with our BOOMING economy - the protesting left side of politics looks this way. Even when they have jobs.

My experience says, dressing "scummy" has a lot, if not most, to do with your political leaning. A look at any university campus should confirm this. As the leftist/socialist doctrine is implanted most at uni.

This is not to say that all left leaning people dress scummy. I never said that and I am heading off any attempt to imply that I did. I am saying, the scummy dressers are almost exclusively leftist/socialists.

To deny this is to deny reality. To "spin" this is to lie to yourself.

Perhaps they were showing their disrespect for the liar that you were going to see.

Because I do not get US local news I cannot comment on certain things. However, I can guess about what is shown based on what is shown down here...

The fans of the left will visibly and noisily protest the appearance of a right politician. Maybe even throwing eggs and what not.

The fans of the right will NOT visibly and noisily protest the appearance of a left politician. They just won't go to the appearance.

I "bet" if I had a bumper sticker that said, "Bush is Best" my car would get vandalized. But if I had a sticker that said "Kerry is Cool" my car would be left alone.

Take from this what you will. Again, this is the reality of the world we live in.

But I certainly expected more from you than calling the man a liar. And to do so without backing it up. Because it is now a statement just hanging there.

See. It's like our election down here. After the Left Labor party lost they started calling the winners campaign a bunch of lies. We lost because they lied. And they never backed it up to show how they lied.

Of the US news I get down here, I do hear Dem pollies saying things like "He lied to us." And they never back it up.

Lie: a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth.

This means your comment - and those of the other Dems - means Bush intentionally told people something he new was not true.

As a lawyer I expected you to not make such statements without facts to back it up.

See. By calling Bush a liar based on going into Iraq and not finding WMDs, you are saying that DESPITE the intelligence provided by the govt intelligence agency, Bush new better. DESPITE the intelligence from other countries which said Saddam had them, Bush new better.

As far as I am aware, Bush had the same intelligence all other pollies were aware of. So when Dems have said Saddam had them and is a threat, and it turns out he didn't have them, then those Dems are also lying, aren't they?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And to take it any other way is hypocrisy and self-delusion.

Seeing as lying is based on knowing something different to what is being stated, what is your proof that Bush is a liar?

Also...spitting...cussing

Also, I fail to see what swearing (or not) has to do with being a "good" citizen.

It has to do with at least being respectful of people you disagree with. And being civil.

When the protesting left turn up at these events. It isn't the fact they use swear words. It is that they use those words with HATE and direct them at people who disagree with them politically, and for no other reason than those people disagree with them politically.

Let's not isolate the action from the context the action takes place in, ok?

So you're saying Bush supporters do not engage in free speech. Just a bunch of automatons.

Don did not say they do not engage in free speech. But please. Cussing someone (a stranger) out for their political belief while calling "racism" "bigotry" and "right to free speech" when it is leveled the other way, is the pot calling the kettle black. And you know it.

Again. If you deny this you are being self-delusional.

I'd argue with the rest of this, but you obviously are just spouting party rhetoric, and haven't bothered with the facts, which are easily available on-line. Baby Bush took a budget surplus, left to him by Clinton, and has turned it into the most massive debt load ever seen in our country. In far less than four years.

As I said, I am not current on all aspects of the US economy. And only have what filters down to me.

But I think before you isolate something and say "he took a surplus and turned into a deficit" you need to understand the why of it. Why was there a surplus - the real reason not a fantasy reason - and what really turned it into a deficit?

And you have to be honest enough to see the faults of those you are for.

Was the economy already going down the gurgler when it was handed over from Clinton to Bush? Why/why not? Did either of them do anything to set it up - did Clinton in league with Greenspan create the dotcom bubble which found its bursting results become visible on Bush's watch? If so, is it fair to blame Bush? If not, why not?

And lets be clear when we talk about an economy being in deficit - which is the govt's level of money - vs the real economy on the street level.

Just because the govt spends more money than it steals in taxes, doesn't necessarily mean X number of businesses will automatically fold.

In my experience, govt does NOT create jobs. Businesses create jobs and then the govt takes credit for it.

The only jobs govt creates are govt jobs - when they create new depts to oversee new laws they have forced upon us.

---snip a lot of "let's be down on Bush's character" stuff--

Can you objectively look at your chosen candidate in the same light? Can you see the faults of your favorite? Or are you as one-sided as those on the other side are?

It isn't a question of who said what, or didn't say what. Fact is, ALL politicians - even the ones you want to win - are false. They all tell you what they think you want to hear only to get into office. This is where the allegations of Kerry's flip-flopping come from.

But any good polly worth their salt, should be sufficiently vague as to not be nailed down to having said anything.

And watching any polly speak, you see this vague way of speaking.

Last year, someone in the Bush Administration outed a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. They did this as political revenge against her husband, who had written a scathing first-person article about the purported purchase of material for WMD by Iraq a few weeks previously.

Ok. I have to assume this statement of motive (political revenge) is a known fact, otherwise you are applying your opinion and passing it off as known fact.

I happen to agree with you. And do think Tenant's resignation was also part of something the CIA has up its sleeve. But I have no proof to be able to make such a bold statement. All I have is what amounts to "conspiracy theory" and that is all.

You don't here about this in the press much, because SIX of the major news outlets are under investigation for covering up TREASON in the matter, and therefore have a conflict of interest. Two reporters have already been held in contempt for refusing to cooperate. It is one thing to cover up sources of whistleblowers. It's another thing to cover up people who call you peddling treason.

I assume you also have proof of this. And if so I would like to see it so please provide links.

Also. While wailing against the machine about this and how the media is quiet, can you also wail against the Dems for introducing the "National Service" bill while the media keeps quiet about it? Or will this be something else you blame Bush for?

I just wonder if you can see the faults of your side, is what I am getting at.

5. Every off-spring of both Jeb and George W. has an arrest record. Both of George's girls have arrests for fake id's; Jenna has an arrest for underage drinking. Of course, after Bush became president, both of the girls drank *publicly* in sight of the secret service, until sloshed. This is common knowledge in Texas.

Common knowledge? No facts in other words.

Again. Do you see the faults in the side you are for?

Bush is bad because his kids are bad. That kind of 'trickery' doesn't work with me.

How did you feel about Clinton/Lewinsky? Was he a bad man because he played up on his wife in the whitehouse with a staff member? If not why does he get a free pass while a Reps indiscretions do not?

I know Clinton is the past. But it is the point I am getting at - seeing the faults of your own side as much of the other side.

I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of not permitting drinking by minors, personally I think the current law is stupid. But Ceasar's wife must be above reproach. And most particularly, federal agents should not stand by and WATCH teenagers commit a crime in their presence.

What crime was committed? And how do you know this for fact?

I am for less laws governing what we can and cannot do. In Aust the drinking age is 18. So a 17yo who drinks is committing a crime of drinking under age.

Who are they hurting by doing this? Why is it a big deal?

Cops see "crime" all the time and do nothing about it. I have seen cops look on at a bit of a fight. And when someone approached them to ask if they were going to do anything they drove off.

This is not a reflection upon the leader of the country. It is a reflection of the "officer" using their own judgment about interfering in what a person is doing to themselves of their own accord.

He's also very good friends with Ken Lay (Enron), who contributed heavily to his 2000 campaign.

I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

Soros is pouring millions into Kerry winning.

So what? Who cares what stupid rich people want to do with their money? It is the PEOPLE who do the voting despite the amount of money poured into a campaign - just ask Howard Dean.

Sadly, thanks to Bush, we will now *have* to combat terrorism in Iraq, where it never really existed before. Say what you will about Hussein, and he was an evil man, but he kept his country under his boot heel.

How do we know it never existed before? It's not like the media would report it anyway.

Doubt this? Then where is the media outrage of what's going on in the Sudan? Where is the media reporting of the rallies in Iran for true democracy?

Unless we are there, we do not truly know anything about Iraq.

Now, it is completely out of control.

As I said above, how do you know this? Because the media said?

I heard someone comment about Bush's "poor handling" of Iraq. This was a citizen who worked an office job. How, pray tell, does an office girl know whether Iraq is being handled well or poorly?

Answer: She cannot know. No-one can know. Not even those media people who write stories from their hotel room or from only a few blocks from their hotel room in Baghdad. Because we don't know if it could be handled better or not. It is something we cannot know in current time. It is something we can only talk about in hindsight - which is folly anyway.

And that is completely and unquestionable entirely Baby Bush's fault.

Why is it entirely Bush's fault?

Events do not happen overnight. A long series of pre-events happen.

E.g. Many say it was the assassination of the heir to the Austrian thrown that triggered WWI. But the arms race before hand has to be taken into account - why was their an arms race? Why didn't those nations trust each other? What was Austria doing in Serbia that angered them in the first place? What politics were coming into play before hand?

Applied to Iraq. Why did Iraq really invade Kuwait all those years ago? What was the build up of that? Why did the UN impose sanctions and continue to do so when they obviously weren't working? What led the US to play Iran against Iraq and make enemies of both? Why were Iran and Iraq fighting each other in the first place? Why did Russia go into Afghanistan? Why did Clinton make it a US policy to make regime change in Iraq happen?

See. There is a LOT more at play here. These things go back many years and through many years of underlying build up. To lay all the blame of everything on one man is being one-eyed.

Hmmm. I would have thought you would have *loved* her. She had no control over where she was born. Neither did you, so thank your mother (and your immigrant grandparents) instead of being so self-righteous.

She was, in fact, born in a dictatorship, Mozambique. Her heritage is an unbelievable meltingpot: Swiss, German, French, Italian, Maltese, Alexandrian, and African. She speaks several languages fluently, including French, Portugese, Spanish, & English, which she did not learn until a teenager.

She's very traditional. She earned her money the old fashioned way (she married it). She stayed at home with three children. She remained married until her Republican husband died in a plane crash. Furthermore, so far as we know, Mrs. Kerry has never run a stop sign and killed anyone. The same cannot be said for Laura Bush.

Search your mind. In your ENTIRE family, including all your bad seed cousins, is there anywhere NEAR the record of bad acts that you can find in just the old public record of the four Bushes of the current presidential family?

Again I ask... can you face the truth of your own side? Is Kerry (a self-confessed commiter of war crimes) above reproach?

I understand you are arguing against Don's stance in the post. But I see nothing objective in your post to indicate you are anything but a Kerry supporter. (Bush hater)

And the way you write it you make out as if Laura Bush deliberately and on purpose killed someone. Is this your one-eyedness coming out? It reads that way.

Sorry to bother you with the facts and all.

Are you able to objectively look at the precious facts which go against your "side"?

See Bfahle, I have been called a lefty. I have been called a Bush lover. Because people see what they want to see and not what is there.

From an objective point of view I have previously written I think it would be best for Kerry to win the election. Because soon there will be an economic collapse unlike ever seen before - unless income tax is abolished (that is the only thing that will prevent the crash and get us out once the crash happens).

If Bush wins, it (the collapse) will happen on his watch and then Hillary will run and get in for 8 years. And as she is a socialist, she will be very bad for the economy.

For the sake of the economy and the country as a whole, I am able to put aside left/right this/that and objectively decide what it is that I see as best. Because whichever side wins in Nov, they will lose the next one and be out for 8 years.

Of course, I could be wrong. But what if I am not?

Sunday Jana Sunday

Those bloody lefties just cannot accept that normal and intelligent people don't vote for scumbag socialist pin heads.

On the Sunday show after the election, if you missed it, lefty journo Jana Wendt asked Laurie Oaks why the Labor party lost the election even though they won the campaign.

Laurie quickly put her in her place by pointing out that the Labor party didn't win the campaign. If they had, they would have won the election.

Not to accept that, she pushed. And Laurie had to explain that if the Labor party actually had a good comeback to the interest rates and economy thing, then they did a poor job of getting their case across. Either way, they lost the campaign as evidenced by them losing the election.

Poor Jana didn't like being put in her place by Laurie. So once the segment had ended she introduced the next segment by saying something like... "The Labor party, who MANY believe won the campaign..."

Oh dear Jana. Resorting to the oldest trick in the book of mis-reporting. Saying anything you darn well want to and attributing it to "many". Who are these "many"?

Who are the "public" or "Australians" you often quote?

Hey Jana. How about this?

Many believe Jana Wendt is a socialist who sympathizes with the murderous Kim Jong-il. And Australians would like nothing better than to export her and her dumb "noddies" to the country she so adores.

And sources confirm she secretly longs to be the wife of Kim Jong-il as her lust for power knows no bounds. And she sees being Kim's wife as the best way to get the most power - the power over a nation - which would otherwise be unavailable to her.

And in a recent poll it was discovered the public does not want Jana on the TV screen. They view her as a slimy hypocritical communist who preaches "distribution of income and means" while benefiting from an anti-communist system known as free enterprise and capitalism.

And this is how the likes of Jana spin their trash.

Princess Mary's FAKE Gallstone Operation

According to the Danish Royal spin doctors, 32 year old Princess Mary underwent gallstone surgery to have a gallstone removed. And it was done in a brief laparoscopic procedure. The doctor, Jacobsen, and his staff, operated through small incisions in the abdomen, guided by a tiny camera.

My take is that this story is a ruse.

And that what really happened was one of three things...

Thing # 1: She was having trouble getting pregnant and went in to have some of her eggs extracted in readiness for IVF. At the same time, Prince Frederik gave some of his sperm - to fertilize the eggs. And in a few days time, after the fertilized eggs have been growing for a while, Mary will go back into hospital to have the eggs implanted.

We will know if this is the case or not if Mary does go back into hospital in a few days for a "check up" or to "have stitches removed" or some other lame excuse.

Thing # 2: She was pregnant but it was a tubal pregnancy. And the brief stay in hospital - which was only a few hours - was to abort the tubal pregnancy. This would explain the comment that she will spend two weeks recovering from the op.

Thing # 3: She went in to have her reproduction system checked out. To find out why she isn't pregnant yet.

All three of these possibilities are far more likely than having a gallstone removed. And all three of the above would require a small incision in the abdomen and a laparoscopic procedure. And all three are far more likely for someone whose sole role in life now is to be an incubator and to produce an heir and a spare.

Meeting The Enemy

I came face to face with a real lefty today while conducting business. The lefty was a girl (woman, whatever) who looked like a lefty. She loved Byron Bay (lefty heaven) was a "journalist" (typical profession for a lefty) and had floor cushions for a lounge (lefty furniture).

I asked her if she was Happy or Sad about the outcome of our election. She said she was VERY SAD. The election had taken her whole weekend.

After informing her I voted for Homer Simpson, she tried to extol the virtues of voting upon me. I told her I thought voting was a complete waste of time and explained why.

In her ignorance she said, "but what if everyone who votes informal would vote against the winner (which just happened to be a righty polly) then he wouldn't win."

She couldn't grasp the simple concept that getting 59% of the primary vote means you cannot be beaten.

She reckons Labor didn't win because we hadn't gotten to know Latham. If Latham had been around longer we would have seen what a good man he was and voted for him.

Did I tell you I thought she was a looney tree hugger?

Anyway. She commented on how developers get rid of trees when they create a new estate. And how sad that was (my suspicions of her being a looney tree hugger were confirmed). For she was complaining about what the developers do when creating new estates, and telling me how they should build the estates around the trees, while simultaneously living in such an estate - and thus condoning their actions.

Of course, her "build around the trees" comment was more aimed at new estates built AFTER the one in which she lives. Never thinking for half a second whether it is even feasible, let alone the cost such building tactics would add to the cost of house and land packages.

Oh well. I can't really expect rational thought from a lefty tree hugger.

The Results of My Scientific Election Day Experiment

Yesterday it was election day in Australia. And the entire nation of people above 18 years of age came out to vote. If we hadn't, we would have been fined. (Though it would have been interesting to see no-one vote due to lack of interest.)

Anyway. I decided to vote for people NOT on the ballot paper. I scribbled out the names that were there and replaced them with my own names. My list of candidates - in order of preference as I voted for them on my ballot - were:

1. Homer Simpson
   
2. Yoda
   
3. Al Bundy
   
4. Darth Vader
   
5. Kramer
   
6. Humphrey B Bear
   
7. Fat Cat

For those who are wondering about my final two candidates...

Humphrey B Bear is a man in a bear suit. The bear wears a vest, tie and hat and appeals to children. Humphrey cannot speak, although he does move his mouth.

Fat Cat is a man in a cat suit. The cat wears shorts with suspenders and a hat and appeals to children. Fat Cat cannot speak.

Ok. Here are the actual results of my local seat in order of most votes to least votes. The total roll for my seat is 81,526 and there were 7 candidates contesting the seat. The results below reflect 75% of the votes - or 61,183 counted - as when they stopped counting for the night.

1. David Jull (LIB - Liberal) 34,052 (59.8%)
   
2. Peter Eather (ALP - Labor) 16,028 (28.1%)
   
3. Willy Bach (Greens) 2,310 (4.1%)
   
4. Lyn Rees (FFP - Family First Party) 2,192 (3.8%)
   
5. John Walter (ONP - One Nation Party) 1,088 (1.9%)
   
6. Suzanne Wilson (DEM - Australian Democrats) 850 (1.5%)
   
7. Ken Martin (CEC - I don't know who these people are) 459 (0.8%)
   
8. Informal 4,204 (6.6%)

As you can see, the winner won by 18,024 votes. If I had voted for him the outcome would have been the same so my vote wouldn't have been needed to win. If I had voted against him, he still would of won so my voted would have been a waste of time. I voted for Homer Simpson and he still won. Which means, the time and effort spent voting was a complete and utter waste of my time. And it didn't matter who I voted for, he still won.

Now that this guy is in for another three years, I have no representation. Because the person who I wanted to represent me (Homer Simpson) didn't win. Someone else's representative choice won. I am forced to accept the other people's choice whether I like it or not. And this is called "democracy" and is touted as "fair."

In the case of my seat, he got over 50% of the primary vote. But it doesn't go like this in most seat. Most might have a 45% primary vote, and they win based on preferences. So at 45% it means 55% (the majority) did not want that person, yet that person wins.

Notice the large number of "informal" votes. Even if all those who didn't vote for the winner, including the informal votes, had voted for one single candidate, the winner still would have won.

But the thing with the informal vote is the number. 6.6% of the vote was informal. If "informal" was a candidate it would have received the third most votes. That 6.6% of the people have that little faith they cast a vote which isn't counted, tells you how many people are not fooled by the "voting is your chance to have a say" malarky. And it shows that such a large number can not vote and the outcome is not effected at all.

When the One Nation Party first came on the scene, they got 10% of the vote in some places and about 6% average. The govt commented how it showed a lack of happiness in the govt for those voters to vote for One Nation.

Yet in this election and in my seat, 6.6% voted informal. Somehow I do not think I will see/hear a comment from the govt how that reflects unhappiness in the govt.

Also in this election, about 1,500 people (or it might have been 3,000 - I don't remember which number it actually is) in the far north of my state, did NOT receive their postal ballot papers. So the govt has sent them new ones and given them extra time to vote.

No matter which way they vote, their vote will not change anything. And this debacle will prove it to them. And hopefully, they will learn the folly of voting. That it doesn't matter who you vote for, the outcome cannot be changed by you so you might as well not vote.