Half Term Tony. Is it a possibility?

[kirky]

I quoted what was said, to answer your question.
If Abbott's "truth campaign" is Goebbellian, that would make him Goebbels, would it not?
I don't really see any difference in what was said today and what was said by Dreyfus - the words are different but the meaning is the same.
All of it is pretty juvenile and doesn't belong in politics.

If you can't see the difference then you are the fool!

 

[kfc1]

If you can't see the difference then you are the fool!

Can you explain the difference?

 

[kirky]

Can you explain the difference?

An intelligent person could see the difference.

 

[kfc1]

An intelligent person could see the difference.

So I should ask someone other than you to explain it to me then?

I am a massive fan of vaguely abusive one-liners that scream "youre wrong AND DUMB" but occasionally I like to dabble in the art of conversation where a disagreeing opinion is explained.

 

[Gough]

There's tumblewweeds on this board when it comes to finding anyone prepared to try and defend this government's shithouse policies, but when the PM calls someone a Nazi, people rush to defend him. Go figure.

 

[kirky]

He was wrecking the joint as an Opposition Leader and gas taken it to another level as PM. We as a population should be ashamed of ourselves and especially those on the right.

One can only hope that come 2016 election or earlier this fool is kicked out because there is little chance of the Liberal Party room showing any backbone to remove him.

 

[kirky]

So I should ask someone other than you to explain it to me then?

I am a massive fan of vaguely abusive one-liners that scream "youre wrong AND DUMB" but occasionally I like to dabble in the art of conversation where a disagreeing opinion is explained.

You do know the religion of the person who made that comment in 2011 don't you?

 

[kfc1]

He was wrecking the joint as an Opposition Leader and gas taken it to another level as PM. We as a population should be ashamed of ourselves and especially those on the right.

Is that a holocaust joke?

You do know the religion of the person who made that comment in 2011 don't you?

Yes, and?
This will get tedious if we need to go back and forth a dozen times to get a coherent paragraph out of you.

There's tumblewweeds on this board when it comes to finding anyone prepared to try and defend this government's shithouse policies, but when the PM calls someone a Nazi, people rush to defend him. Go figure.

Not really sure that's a 'go figure'? Quite clearly the Govt has shithouse policies that aren't worth defending.

 

[PP34]

There's tumblewweeds on this board when it comes to finding anyone prepared to try and defend this government's shithouse policies, but when the PM calls someone a Nazi, people rush to defend him. Go figure.

Both sides should keep Nazi comments out of politics.

It's pathetic.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

So I should ask someone other than you to explain it to me then?

The difference is Abbott said Shorten was the "Dr Goebbels of the economy" and Dreyfus said that calling a scare campaign a "truth campaign" was using "Goebbelian cynicism". Goebbels is renowned for his propaganda, so in one case Dreyfus is saying the Coalition's creative use of language aligned to a strong contempt for the reality of a situation is similar to high-level indoctrinational propaganda.

In the other case, Abbott is calling Shorten "Dr Goebbels" because, um.... because he's a Nazi?

The question put to Abbott was referring to his comment that "a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result looking around the world". It seems that Abbott has finally come around to telling the truth about the so-called debt and deficit disaster, albeit only after his Govt has added to the debt substantially.

Shorten asked "Isn't it the case that Tony Abbott's "pretty good result" would see Australia lose it's AAA rating?". There is no context here to accuse Shorten of propaganda.

There is no context when referring to previous comments that would seem to justify "Goebbelian cynicism", let alone Abbott's direct suggestion that Shorten was a leading member of one of the most murderous regimes in human history.

Unfortunately for Abbott, the fact he has come around to point out our debt-to-GDP isn't really that bad actually reveals that Abbott was spinning the truth to an irresponsible extent when he made the original claim about our debt being a disaster. So Abbott did act, and continues to act, far more as a minister of Propaganda than Dreyfus or Shorten. If you want to be Godwinian about it.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Ah, circles and roundabouts....

A bit over a decade ago K.Beazley, as opposition leader, attended a rally where someone in the crowd had a placard depicting Howard as Hitler. The Liberal Party went ape ship about it as, amongst other things, it made light of the real horror faced by the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Beazley, they felt, should publicly distance himself from such imagery.

Fast forward ten or so years and Abbott is at a rally standing directly beneath placards calling the PM a bitch, a week after his favorite media attack dog has suggested the PM be put in a sack and drowned, and now as PM he likes to casually describe Labor as Nazis whilst in parliament. Then, with that little self-entitled, s**t eating grin of his, withdraw his remark.

How far down the pole the Liberal Party has slid over the last decade.

FWIW, connecting debate about domestic issues to the most heinous figures and events of the 20th century is pathetic. It reveals Abbott for the student politician he has always been. The man is without any class.

 

[Lester Burnham]

About as convincing as the indigenous 'cannibalism' documents!

The topic is not particularly relevant to the discussion of the proposal by the Prime Minister but why do you think that Australian Aborigines were different to other hunter gatherer societies such as those found in New Guinea and the Ancient Britons?

 

[Maggie5]

So I should ask someone other than you to explain it to me then?

I am a massive fan of vaguely abusive one-liners that scream "youre wrong AND DUMB" but occasionally I like to dabble in the art of conversation where a disagreeing opinion is explained.

Perhaps because one was referring to a person and the other was a concept?

 

[nylexbandit]

Ah, circles and roundabouts....

A bit over a decade ago K.Beazley, as opposition leader, attended a rally where someone in the crowd had a placard depicting Howard as Hitler. The Liberal Party went ape ship about it as, amongst other things, it made light of the real horror faced by the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Beazley, they felt, should publicly distance himself from such imagery.

Fast forward ten or so years and Abbott is at a rally standing directly beneath placards calling the PM a bitch, a week after his favorite media attack dog has suggested the PM be put in a sack and drowned, and now as PM he likes to casually describe Labor as Nazis whilst in parliament. Then, with that little self-entitled, s**t eating grin of his, withdraw his remark.

How far down the pole the Liberal Party has slid over the last decade.

FWIW, connecting debate about domestic issues to the most heinous figures and events of the 20th century is pathetic. It reveals Abbott for the student politician he has always been. The man is without any class.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Perhaps because one was referring to a person and the other was a concept?

Was Simon Crean referring to a person or a concept when he said

Day after day the Minister for Health and Ageing comes in here repeating his Goebbels chant: John Howard is the best friend that Medicare has ever had.​

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...9;query=Id:"chamber/hansardr/2005-09-05/0000"

 

[clogged]

The topic is not particularly relevant to the discussion of the proposal by the Prime Minister but why do you think that Australian Aborigines were different to other hunter gatherer societies such as those found in New Guinea and the Ancient Britons?

Here's the curious thing, from one of the reports you referenced:

Finally, what was the reason why, when the Aborigines had every justification, according to their own laws, for celebrating the killing of the early white invaders by eating their flesh, the number of white men eaten was exceedingly small in proportion to the total number killed, this being true even in areas where revenge cannibalism was the accepted practice?

Yes, why? The reason given is effectively "they didn't like the taste" although apparently they loved the taste of Chinese people.

I call bullshit. They didn't eat white people because they didn't eat people full stop. The fact is its easy to make up stories of cannibalism if there are no documented victims, and so they could easily call aborigines cannibals of other aborigines, but not the settlers, because you'd have to describe who they ate. The best that can be done is accuse them of eating shipwrecked people, who were assumed dead anyway.

And in line with Tony's Nazi remarks, well Europeans were pretty good at making up stories about those they hated being cannibals. The Jews were being accused of blood libel (the sacrifice of children for eating) until the 20th century. Despite the fact that Europeans inherited the infanticide taboo from Judaism!

 

[romeoh]

The topic is not particularly relevant to the discussion of the proposal by the Prime Minister but why do you think that Australian Aborigines were different to other hunter gatherer societies such as those found in New Guinea and the Ancient Britons?

In what ways were they different?

 

[Maggie5]

Was Simon Crean referring to a person or a concept when he said

Day after day the Minister for Health and Ageing comes in here repeating his Goebbels chant: John Howard is the best friend that Medicare has ever had.​

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber/hansardr/2005-09-05/0179;query=Id:"chamber/hansardr/2005-09-05/0000"

Person? How long did it take you to find the link. If I could be bothered, I am sure that I can find another to combat but you continue with your blind support of the PM.
Further you are missing the point. This is not about individuals making an inappropriate comment, this is about Tony Abbott that is making a habit of these type of comments and shows a pattern. He is unsuitable to hold the position of Prime Minister of any country.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Here's the curious thing, from one of the reports you referenced:

Yes, why? The reason given is effectively "they didn't like the taste" although apparently they loved the taste of Chinese people.

I call bullshit. They didn't eat white people because they didn't eat people full stop. The fact is its easy to make up stories of cannibalism if there are no documented victims, and so they could easily call aborigines cannibals of other aborigines, but not the settlers, because you'd have to describe who they ate. The best that can be done is accuse them of eating shipwrecked people, who were assumed dead anyway.

It's a section from one of the reports I referenced but not necessarily representative.

We can debate the evidence such as Roth

293. Cannibalism. — Though the primd facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre, and any information concerning particulars is but
charily given by the aboriginals, there is no doubt but that this custom, though gradually becoming more and more obsolete, certainly does take place, within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland. Thus in the Boulia district, especially with children who die suddenly from no lingering illness, portions of the corpse may be eaten by the parents and by their blood brothers and sisters only : the reason assigned is that " putting them along hole" would make them think too much about their beloved little ones, though unfortunately this is apparently contradicted by the fact that if the child has been ailing a long lime previously and become emaciated, &c, it will be buried. Proofs also are to hand that within the last ten years,
since 1885, true-blooded aboiiginal children have been killed, with the object of being eaten, at Noranside, Eoxburgh, and Carandotta. In the more northern areas half-caste infants are not uncommonly murdered at the present time, either at the instigation of their white fathers or their assumed black-blooded ones : but to what extent, in the latter case, for the main purpose of providing food, it is impossible to speak with certainty. My friend Mr. Edwards, late of Eoxburgh, is the only European who to my knowledge has been an eye-witness of such an orgie : this was in 1888, between Eoxburgh and Carandotta, when he saw an infant being roasted in one of the native ovens, and subsequently watched the blacks opening the body and making for the fat, but he became too sick and faint-to observe anything further. With regard to people of maturer years, those who have died suddenly and who are in good condition at the time of death — not the old or the emaciated — may similarly be eaten​

Why would you make the assumption that Australian Aborigines were different in behaviour to other hunter gatherer societies?

 

[clogged]

It's a section from one of the reports I referenced but not necessarily representative.

We can debate the evidence such as Roth

293. Cannibalism. — Though the primd facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre, and any information concerning particulars is but
charily given by the aboriginals, there is no doubt but that this custom, though gradually becoming more and more obsolete, certainly does take place, within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland. Thus in the Boulia district, especially with children who die suddenly from no lingering illness, portions of the corpse may be eaten by the parents and by their blood brothers and sisters only : the reason assigned is that " putting them along hole" would make them think too much about their beloved little ones, though unfortunately this is apparently contradicted by the fact that if the child has been ailing a long lime previously and become emaciated, &c, it will be buried. Proofs also are to hand that within the last ten years,
since 1885, true-blooded aboiiginal children have been killed, with the object of being eaten, at Noranside, Eoxburgh, and Carandotta. In the more northern areas half-caste infants are not uncommonly murdered at the present time, either at the instigation of their white fathers or their assumed black-blooded ones : but to what extent, in the latter case, for the main purpose of providing food, it is impossible to speak with certainty. My friend Mr. Edwards, late of Eoxburgh, is the only European who to my knowledge has been an eye-witness of such an orgie : this was in 1888, between Eoxburgh and Carandotta, when he saw an infant being roasted in one of the native ovens, and subsequently watched the blacks opening the body and making for the fat, but he became too sick and faint-to observe anything further. With regard to people of maturer years, those who have died suddenly and who are in good condition at the time of death — not the old or the emaciated — may similarly be eaten​

Why would you make the assumption that Australian Aborigines were different in behaviour to other hunter gatherer societies?

Again, this evidence only exists where the victims are undocumented. Which makes it an easy accusation.

Are all hunter gatherer societies cannibals?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Person? How long did it take you to find the link. If I could be bothered, I am sure that I can find another to combat but you continue with your blind support of the PM.
Further you are missing the point. This is not about individuals making an inappropriate comment, this is about Tony Abbott that is making a habit of these type of comments and shows a pattern. He is unsuitable to hold the position of Prime Minister of any country.

So Abbott's comment was the same as Crean's and just everyday political banter? Nothing to see here at all.

 

[Maggie5]

So Abbott's comment was the same as Crean's and just everyday political banter? Nothing to see here at all.

Missed the point again, but I am not surprised. PM hard to defend.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Again, this evidence only exists where the victims are undocumented. Which makes it an easy accusation.

What evidence do you need?

Are all hunter gatherer societies cannibals?

Most likely.

And at the time of colonisation Australian Aborigines were the most backward of any society on earth.

 

[Gough]

Some Aborigines may have practiced cannibalism.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/28/1035683357802.html
So did some convicts, do we judge a whole group on the actions of some?

 

[clogged]

What evidence do you need?

That in the early settler period there were no cases of settlers being eaten as food, which is curious. The only documented case of actual cannibalism was Alexander Pearce. The rest reads like hearsay and spook stories.

Most likely.

That's not really convincing.

And at the time of colonisation Australian Aborigines were the most backward of any society on earth.

All societies have taboos. The Jews were more backward than the Greeks of antiquity, yet the Greeks permitted infanticide. The Mayans were more advanced than many other cultures but openly practiced sacrificial cannibalism.