Bolt...

[ealesy]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The name Andrew Bolt and the terms truth and facts used in describing him. Priceless (if not somewhat distrubing)!!

There is no such thing as truth/facts when talking about any fundamentalist on either side of the political spectrum.

[Gossy7]

[Gossy7]

Ealesy, you do know he writes what he writes just to wind people like you up?

[ealesy]

Meh, I don't pay any attention to him.

I might have a read when I'm in need of a laugh but other than that I take no notice of him.

[boris]

Don't read him, if you don't like him. Simple.

This.

For the record I love Andrew Bolt and I love what he writes. Most people just can't handle the truth/facts. He's a classic.

A real classic. =D> Truth... =D> facts... =D> =D>

[Sismis]

2 with one cast Gossy. =D>

[BERT]

And I bet you all can't wait to see what he writes in tomorrows paper so you can be outraged again.

[robbie67]

The thing I hate the most about the c***, is that to get a decent form guide I have to contribute to the c**** wages. He has me beat for now. I do have my fingers crossed that someone shoots the c*** though.

[filthy2]

The thing I hate the most about the c***, is that to get a decent form guide I have to contribute to the c**** wages. He has me beat for now. I do have my fingers crossed that someone shoots the c*** though.

This although Rob I wouldn't waste a bullet on the opportunistic prick. Since the Judgement was brought down, I am enjoying his public humilation too much as REAL Journalists have been empowered to tear down the dog. He was an Aide in The Hawke/Keating Govt and only took up this gig to fill a void of extreme Right Wing "writers" a la US Fox News. Fair and Balanced .........

That is the extent of his "commitment".

Let him wallow in his humilation. Let the c..t suffer.



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.'''

But according to Summers, he always had grander ambitions, with an eye on the potential of television. ''In 2006, through a third party, Andrew Bolt sought guidance from [Fox Television chairman] Roger Ailes on how he could replicate the Fox News model Down Under. 'He saw the political power that comes from right-wing ranting,' says a colleague of Bolt's, 'and he appointed himself to do it.'''

Summers writes that his approach was ''rebuffed'', and he only got his show this year.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bolt- ... z1Zr7d7aqt

[rockhole]

There is no such thing as truth/facts when talking about any fundamentalist on either side of the political spectrum.

Very profound, Ealesy. My thoughts exactly.

[filthy2]

A revolting tiresome pig.

Host Barrie Cassidy introduced the first segment, 'The Sunday Papers', in which guests comment on a story from that day's newspaper given to them by the producers. Bolt ignored his item and instead started talking about a report on the BBC that, Bolt claimed, demonstrated the Earth was not warming. Marr remonstrated with him, both for deviating from the script and for the absurdity of his claims. When Bolt persisted, Marr picked up a newspaper and in a show of mock exasperation turned his back on Bolt.

A couple of hours later, Bolt posted on his blog an image of Marr with pursed lips, seemingly in mid-sentence, with the invitation to his many followers to click on it and watch the segment. Over the next few hours 133 comments were posted, some remarking on Marr's apparent rudeness, others commenting on the picture itself.

"I saw an expression like that on an egg-bound chook once," said 'Jackie of Gaia!'.

"Poor fellow is chronically constipated," responded Fay of Charlestown.

"I doubt that, Fay," chimed in Alan Jansen. "Given what Marr proudly admits to, constipation is unlikely to be a problem."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3320366.html

[Choppy]

That is the problem...it is not about free speech and the like...[/quote]
Just wondering where abouts do you call home?

Roughly?[/quote]

I live in Malvern. Not sure what the relavance of that is, or what your insinuation is. Perhaps something along the lines that I have no appreciation or understanding of people on the land? If so, you've missed the point. If not, I apologise for suggesting that, but please kindly tell me what the point of that question was..[/quote]
Mere curiosity. Just wondered how much substance you had for saying they only look at issues from their point of view. Perhaps you'd like to explain how the Murray Darling Basin should be looked at by them?[/quote]

Happy to boncer...

People in the Murray darling basin could start by respecting the view of the scientists who have done the research and NOT go about burning the report to create public hysteria. Participating in a civil manner in the public debate/discourse and offering their views would be great. this enables the politicians to weigh things up holistically.

Instead, many have assumed thet their right to farm in the Basin is a God-given one (because 'me dad farmed here, and so did me grandad, and he fought in the War before that')...the farmers need to realise that what they are doing MUST be sustainable, and if it is not, they have to accept the referee's decision and perhaps their industry needs to change. What did the gold miners in Ballarat do when the alluvial gold ran out?

Burning the Report just gives Bolt and Miranda Devine etc a platform from which to spout their bile...

[dom_105]

People in the Murray darling basin could start by respecting the view of the scientists who have done the research and NOT go about burning the report to create public hysteria. Participating in a civil manner in the public debate/discourse and offering their views would be great. this enables the politicians to weigh things up holistically.

That's all well and good if you live in a fairytale land.

People in the basin made their views crystal clear in relation to the North-South Pipeline, yet it didn't make those occupying Spring Street at the time weigh things up holistically.

If a Government makes up their mind, and then decides to undertake a series of feedback sessions to try and show that they give a f*** about those that their policies impact, no amount of civil negotiation will change their mind. Political pressure, the more public the better, is what gets shit done in this country.

Those who make a living off the land are not going to walk away from their farms just because inner-city types who make their living in inner-city occupations feel that it is a good idea for them to do so. They are going to fight tooth and nail against anything that might impact their business.

[boris]

Ok... to ignore the point made in the quoted speech (which is a good'n in my opinion......)

If a Government makes up their mind.......no amount of civil negotiation will change their mind.

.... unless of course the milkibar kid Andrew Bolt writes a creative piece that becomes such a compelling piece of opposition policy, that the whole nation (including the government) are forced to change their minds. Because he alone is the defender and holy upholder of freedom of creative speech.

Dont we all just love the Boltser? Oh yes we do.

[Choppy]

People in the Murray darling basin could start by respecting the view of the scientists who have done the
Those who make a living off the land are not going to walk away from their farms just because inner-city types who make their living in inner-city occupations feel that it is a good idea for them to do so. They are going to fight tooth and nail against anything that might impact their business.

why does it have to be a city-country divide? If a credible scientist lives in the city what has that got to do with it? the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was not conceived by the "latte sipping watermelons of Brunswick Street" that Right-wing commentators loooovvvvvvvvvee to mention...it was conceived by credible scientists and was going through a consultative process.

As for fighting tooth and nail...that is irrelevant and it does not make unsustainable farming practices legitimate. If the cotton farmers of QLD (see Cubby Station) were to fight tooth-and -nail against their industry being closed down, would that be agood thing? I don;t think you'll find many Australians putting up their hand to say cotton farming is sustainable in this country.

Not sure if you are aware of the notion of Tragedy of the Commons, but have a look (I'm not trying to be patronising in saying that)...

[boncer34]

People in the Murray darling basin could start by respecting the view of the scientists who have done the
Those who make a living off the land are not going to walk away from their farms just because inner-city types who make their living in inner-city occupations feel that it is a good idea for them to do so. They are going to fight tooth and nail against anything that might impact their business.

why does it have to be a city-country divide? If a credible scientist lives in the city what has that got to do with it? the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was not conceived by the "latte sipping watermelons of Brunswick Street" that Right-wing commentators loooovvvvvvvvvee to mention...it was conceived by credible scientists and was going through a consultative process.

As for fighting tooth and nail...that is irrelevant and it does not make unsustainable farming practices legitimate. If the cotton farmers of QLD (see Cubby Station) were to fight tooth-and -nail against their industry being closed down, would that be agood thing? I don;t think you'll find many Australians putting up their hand to say cotton farming is sustainable in this country.

Not sure if you are aware of the notion of Tragedy of the Commons, but have a look (I'm not trying to be patronising in saying that)...

Mate your response to me basically said, "Country people need to listen to the scientists. They dont know nothing."

People that live on the land and need it to survive may have a point if they disagree with a Scientist.

[Choppy]

Not sure if you are aware of the notion of Tragedy of the Commons, but have a look (I'm not trying to be patronising in saying that)...[/quote]
Mate your response to me basically said, "Country people need to listen to the scientists. They dont know nothing."

People that live on the land and need it to survive may have a point if they disagree with a Scientist.[/quote]

And how does "living on the land and needing it to survive" absolve them of farming sustainably? If the science is telling s that current farming practices are unsustainable, is that not enough for farmers, people, whoever, to stop and listen...instead of burning Reports and basically looking like self-righteous brats. You have grape farmers in the Mallee (who produce grapes for boutique wines) having the gall to stick up posters alluding to the "food bowl of Australia". Um, since when are boutique wines a staple food item?

Why the demonisation of science? Yes, some people' s livelihoods are going to be impacting, but I think we are a wealthy enough and compassionate enough country to compensate them...but it would not be the first time human beings have headed down a path only to find it waas the wrong one and had to turn back...

[Sismis]

There is a lot of work to be done in this area. We do need to focus on more sustainable/higher output farming. We also need to look after the people on the land. Farming could be the only area where we can sustain a competitive export advantage.

First step should be to put together incentives to change the way we utilize these resources.if the farmers need to change we need to help them. It has not been the easiest time on the land over the last decade and you really cannot blame the ones who have made it through (many didn't) for looking at how they can maximize $$.

Farming has contributed a lot to Australia over the duration and by the look of it will continue to do so long after the mining boom.

[boncer34]

And how does "living on the land and needing it to survive" absolve them of farming sustainably? If the science is telling s that current farming practices are unsustainable, is that not enough for farmers, people, whoever, to stop and listen...instead of burning Reports and basically looking like self-righteous brats. You have grape farmers in the Mallee (who produce grapes for boutique wines) having the gall to stick up posters alluding to the "food bowl of Australia". Um, since when are boutique wines a staple food item?

Why the demonisation of science? Yes, some people' s livelihoods are going to be impacting, but I think we are a wealthy enough and compassionate enough country to compensate them...but it would not be the first time human beings have headed down a path only to find it waas the wrong one and had to turn back...

It doesn't. Of course they need to but most of the suggestions in the report would wipe farmers out. Whats the point of the implementing the changes if its going to wipe them out? What about compensation? How about we give them help?

And I'm not demonising Science. Rubbish argument to say I am.

[Choppy]

It doesn't. Of course they need to but most of the suggestions in the report would wipe farmers out. Whats the point of the implementing the changes if its going to wipe them out? What about compensation? How about we give them help?

And I'm not demonising Science. Rubbish argument to say I am.[/quote]

Hi. Where does it say 'wipe them out' in the Report? It calls for cuts in water allocation...not wiping out farmers. That is an inference made by the extremists that did the burning in the first place. Some businesses will probably have to go, of course, but on a whole the industry can continue to exist and do so far more sustainably. In fact, it is those who become sustainable that will survive. Arguably called natural selection, my friend.

All this talk of wiping out farmers completely is just hyperbole.