Bolt...

[boris]

What a puffing panting, self obsessed waste of oxygen.

His imperialistic opinions and rants are only applauded by a very narrow group of fox hunters on one side of politics.

Tap tap.

[rockhole]

Anyone who takes the Bolter seriously is not playing with a full deck. However, I love the way he infuriates the Left Intelligentsia with his far right bullshit. My God how they swallow it!!!

[gringo]

Anyone who takes the Bolter seriously is not playing with a full deck. However, I love the way he infuriates the Left Intelligentsia with his far right bullshit. My God how they swallow it!!!

Bolt is one of a number of similar commentators in this country. The problem is that right leaning people swallow it, and then vote accordingly.

Hence you have a peanut like Abbott resonating with the masses.

[BERT]

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

[boris]

ooooh Berty.... dont read this post if ya cant hack it!!!!!

Look away , look away, SIMPLE.

[BERT]

ooooh Berty.... dont read this post if ya cant hack it!!!!!

Look away , look away, SIMPLE.

I'm just saying if you can't stand him, don't read him. No one forces anyone to read him. If you buy the paper just bypass the page his stuff is on.

What I don't understand is if you hate him so much, why do you continually read what he writes?

[Choppy]

...that's not the point. The fact he is out there spreading ill-informed bigoted vitriol creates a groundswell for those opinions. I for one have personally emailed Bolt and asked him about his sources. Needless to say, the sources on this one particular article were laughable (if only).

The concern is that more people listen to him and start to think 'geez, that Andrew Bolt says some pretty insightful stuff'. Wrong. nothing wrong with having conservative views, provided they are well researched, intelligent and balanced. His views are not this.

[MH_Bomber]

See how Abbott just couldn't help himself yesterday.

[tonysoprano]

...that's not the point. The fact he is out there spreading ill-informed bigoted vitriol creates a groundswell for those opinions. I for one have personally emailed Bolt and asked him about his sources. Needless to say, the sources on this one particular article were laughable (if only).

The concern is that more people listen to him and start to think 'geez, that Andrew Bolt says some pretty insightful stuff'. Wrong. nothing wrong with having conservative views, provided they are well researched, intelligent and balanced. His views are not this.

well said. on lateline it mentioned how his research on the defaming racist articles was limited to googling stuff. f*** me - anybody could be a "journalist".

[Choppy]

does not suprise me in the slightest he would use Google as a source. He has probably never entered a library in his life, and I am sure he has never conducted any formal research and managed citations and references etc.

The article I was referring to was about the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Bolt's predictable opposition to it - once again becasue it is some Greeny, Leftist plot to take us back to the Dark Ages. I emailed him and he mentioned that his 'source' for all 'facts' was a person by the name of X (who has appeared on Q&A in th past; many of you will know who I am talking about). Person X is a 'scientist' (allegedly) whose peer-reviewed publications are nil, and whose recent publications include anti-environmental pieces in the Weekly Times and The Land (rural newspapers not scientific journals!) pandering to the fears and ideologies of those on the land. No disrespect to those people, but I think it's fair to say they see the issues only from their point-of-view, and not holistically.

The fact Bolt was basing his whole argument on person X's unsubstantiated and incredible rants, was in my view, reprehensible. He packages himslef up as insightful and yet has no cred whatsoever..

That is the problem...it is not about free speech and the like...

[boncer34]

does not suprise me in the slightest he would use Google as a source. He has probably never entered a library in his life, and I am sure he has never conducted any formal research and managed citations and references etc.

The article I was referring to was about the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Bolt's predictable opposition to it - once again becasue it is some Greeny, Leftist plot to take us back to the Dark Ages. I emailed him and he mentioned that his 'source' for all 'facts' was a person by the name of X (who has appeared on Q&A in th past; many of you will know who I am talking about). Person X is a 'scientist' (allegedly) whose peer-reviewed publications are nil, and whose recent publications include anti-environmental pieces in the Weekly Times and The Land (rural newspapers not scientific journals!) pandering to the fears and ideologies of those on the land. No disrespect to those people, but I think it's fair to say they see the issues only from their point-of-view, and not holistically.The fact Bolt was basing his whole argument on person X's unsubstantiated and incredible rants, was in my view, reprehensible. He packages himslef up as insightful and yet has no cred whatsoever..

That is the problem...it is not about free speech and the like...

Just wondering where abouts do you call home?

Roughly?

[Sismis]

Anyone who takes the Bolter seriously is not playing with a full deck. However, I love the way he infuriates the Left Intelligentsia with his far right bullshit. My God how they swallow it!!!

Spot on. I reakon half of his readers just do it to get there righteous indignity on each day. They then send a letter into th HS or post a comment on his blog. That'll learn him....

[boris]

I'm just saying if you can't stand him, don't read him. No one forces anyone to read him. If you buy the paper just bypass the page his stuff is on.

What I don't understand is if you hate him so much, why do you continually read what he writes?[/quote]

Dearest Bert.

If you choose to read on please be for-warned that you need not continually read what I have written, so please self sensor lest we fall into a nanny state. You see, according to the leader of the opposition (Andrew Bolt) freedom of speech itself is at stake here, because someone has had the audacity to not share the great man's opinion ( a judge!!!!!)

When did I say I hate him so much or that i continually read him? Perhaps you confuse me for someone else?

I dont know the man personally, but hate is a very strong word...

I certainly wouldn't take the time to be interested in the Carlton football club other than when we have to play them once or twice a year.... but i like to know how their form is and what they're like so I can enjoy watching us play them.....

Also (RH) I would say that only the "Bolter's" supporters are the only ones who take him seriously. According to the justice system, he doesn't deal in fact or truth, so no one can take him seriously from this point on??? I don't know????

Anyway, now that freedom of speech has been totally eroded, the Boltster will enjoy a new sense of celebrity. I'm sure that his matyrdom at the hands of the uneducated will only make his greatness all the more..

His fans, screaming out that they lost due to poor umpiring decisions -like Carlton supporters after a final, will take their lickin and be back out in support of the team for the next big game. Bolt will shout louder and go redder in the face lifting "nup-wont-cant-dont" Tony's pom poms high in the air (with a delightful scissor kick) until he pulls a journalistic hammy.....

Anyhow, I digress........don't worry about me Bertsta, I'll be OK, but thanks for caring about what i read, and for looking after me in case i might come across an article that hurts me....But I'm pretty sure you didnt read this post anyhow given your own rules eh?

Ps. FYI I dont "continually read" the fox hunter, neither do i hate him.

Carn the the Bombers.
Thank God for the footy eh?

[Choppy]

does not suprise me in the slightest he would use Google as a source. He has probably never entered a library in his life, and I am sure he has never conducted any formal research and managed citations and references etc.

The article I was referring to was about the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Bolt's predictable opposition to it - once again becasue it is some Greeny, Leftist plot to take us back to the Dark Ages. I emailed him and he mentioned that his 'source' for all 'facts' was a person by the name of X (who has appeared on Q&A in th past; many of you will know who I am talking about). Person X is a 'scientist' (allegedly) whose peer-reviewed publications are nil, and whose recent publications include anti-environmental pieces in the Weekly Times and The Land (rural newspapers not scientific journals!) pandering to the fears and ideologies of those on the land. No disrespect to those people, but I think it's fair to say they see the issues only from their point-of-view, and not holistically.The fact Bolt was basing his whole argument on person X's unsubstantiated and incredible rants, was in my view, reprehensible. He packages himslef up as insightful and yet has no cred whatsoever..

That is the problem...it is not about free speech and the like...

Just wondering where abouts do you call home?

Roughly?

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..

[boncer34]

does not suprise me in the slightest he would use Google as a source. He has probably never entered a library in his life, and I am sure he has never conducted any formal research and managed citations and references etc.

The article I was referring to was about the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan and Bolt's predictable opposition to it - once again becasue it is some Greeny, Leftist plot to take us back to the Dark Ages. I emailed him and he mentioned that his 'source' for all 'facts' was a person by the name of X (who has appeared on Q&A in th past; many of you will know who I am talking about). Person X is a 'scientist' (allegedly) whose peer-reviewed publications are nil, and whose recent publications include anti-environmental pieces in the Weekly Times and The Land (rural newspapers not scientific journals!) pandering to the fears and ideologies of those on the land. No disrespect to those people, but I think it's fair to say they see the issues only from their point-of-view, and not holistically.The fact Bolt was basing his whole argument on person X's unsubstantiated and incredible rants, was in my view, reprehensible. He packages himslef up as insightful and yet has no cred whatsoever..

That is the problem...it is not about free speech and the like...

Just wondering where abouts do you call home?

Roughly?

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..

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?

[j-mac31]

Bolt is a complete c*** and needs more people speaking out against what he says so that people that read his shit don't eat it up as the truth.

However I don't particularly Racial Discrimination Act as it stands - takes too much away from freedom of speech.

Some of the judge's comments on Bolt's writing style for the articles in question were humorous though - no shit, that's how he always writes.

[BenDoolan]

Andrew Bolt would fit in well in Mississippi in the 1960's....

[s'dreams]

Pfft ... half his "bloggers" are liberal party staffers who try to come across as outraged ordinary Australians, but can't even manage to put misspellings in the right places...

After all - Bolt along with Alan Jones was one of the main drivers behind the much publicised "Convoy for Change" which attracted 14 truckies, 60 grey nomads, 45 Japanese tourists and 200 liberal staffers...

His influence is very highly overrated (like look at his ratings for MTR and the Bolt Report... worse than the attendance for a Norf home game vs Port at Etihad o a Sunday).

IMO his biggest crime ... is he has become utterly utterly predictable and bloody boring.

Just treat him like one of the "World is Ending" speakers at theSoap Box corner outside the Stae Library. Laugh at him or walk on.

[rockhole]

The greatest criticism of his slapdown in the courts re racial discrimination was that his standard of reporting was abysmal with regard to accuracy. Many of the "facts" he put up to justify his rantings were simply incorrect. Had he been accurate with his research and not mocking and sarcastic in his tone, he may not have got into so much strife.

[Gossy7]

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.