Half Term Tony. Is it a possibility?

[kfc1]

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?

My interpretation was that Abbott called Shorten "the Goebbels of economic policy" because he's accusing Shorten of spreading high-level indoctrinational propaganda etc. as Goebbells did.

 

[Gough]

My interpretation was that Abbott called Shorten "the Goebbels of economic policy" because he's accusing Shorten of spreading high-level indoctrinational propaganda etc. as Goebbells did.

The PM was trying to answer a question as to why 60% debt to GDP ratio is suddenly okay, when a 13% ratio was a "budget emergency". How is that question spreading propaganda?

 

[kfc1]

The PM was trying to answer a question as to why 60% debt to GDP ratio is suddenly okay, when a 13% ratio was a "budget emergency". How is that question spreading propaganda?

Ask Tone. i'm just explaining why I don't think what he said is much different to what Dreyfus said in 2011.
I'm still wondering whether Tony is a complete moron or master troll, or both.

 

[sherb]

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

Plenty to see.

An appalling lack of judgment for one.

 

[Lester Burnham]

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?

We are not judging the group on the actions of some, particularly acts practised hundreds of years ago. It also makes no sense to be over-sensitive about those acts.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Plenty to see.

An appalling lack of judgment for one.

How was Abbott's comment different to Crean's?

 

[kfc1]

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

I thought the reference to Goebbels was obviously a reference to the concept. It would be completely meaningless to refer to Shorten as a random member of the Nazi party - the meaning of the reference comes from the concept of Goebellian propaganda.

 

[Gough]

I thought the reference to Goebbels was obviously a reference to the concept. It would be completely meaningless to refer to Shorten as a random member of the Nazi party - the meaning of the reference comes from the concept of Goebellian propaganda.

But where is the propaganda in the question? He was using the PM's own words.

 

[sherb]

How was Abbott's comment different to Crean's?

He directly called an opponent a Nazi. He also did it while he is the Prime Minister.

Personally I think the country can do better than this clown. Labor or Liberal, I don't care.

 

[Maggie5]

I thought the reference to Goebbels was obviously a reference to the concept. It would be completely meaningless to refer to Shorten as a random member of the Nazi party - the meaning of the reference comes from the concept of Goebellian propaganda.

You asked what was the difference.

 

[kfc1]

But where is the propaganda in the question? He was using the PM's own words.

Ask Tone. i'm just explaining why I don't think what he said is much different to what Dreyfus said in 2011.
I'm also not defending Abbott's opinion, I just came for the faux outrage over ZOMG NAZIS!!!11

 

[Gough]

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.



That's not really convincing.


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.

Saw the Weddos a dozen or so times over the years, A Tale They Won't Believe always went off.

 

[kfc1]

Personally I think the country can do better than this clown. Labor or Liberal, I don't care.

Might be the only thing that both 'sides' of politics agree on.

 

[Gough]

Ask Tone. i'm just explaining why I don't think what he said is much different to what Dreyfus said in 2011.
I'm also not defending Abbott's opinion, I just came for the faux outrage over ZOMG NAZIS!!!11

Yes you are, you've spent the last couple of pages trying to defend the comment. Don't be pretending that you don't barrack in the same way everyone else who treads these boards does.

 

[sherb]

Might be the only thing that both 'sides' of politics agree on.

That's what I was implying when I talked about lack of judgment.

He's hardly the flavour of the month in his own party - let alone the public and the opposition - and and he comes out with crap like this.

 

[kfc1]

Yes you are, you've spent the last couple of pages trying to defend the comment. Don't be pretending that you don't barrack in the same way everyone else who treads these boards does.

I defended the comment relative to the faux outrage over it being a nazi reference, and in view of what Dreyfus had said about Abbott in 2011. I didn't, and not, defending the opinion itself.
Who do I barrack for?

 

[Gough]

I defended the comment relative to the faux outrage over it being a nazi reference, and in view of what Dreyfus had said about Abbott in 2011. I didn't, and not, defending the opinion itself.
Who do I barrack for?

You're no lover of the left of politics. That's what shits me about the right wing at the moment, having so hounded Gillard in office, faced with the prospect that they've backed a dud, all of a sudden you guys don't take sides. It's pathetic, at least stand up for what you believe in.

 

[The Speaker]

I wonder how many people up in arms about today's comment are the same people who constantly point to Eric Abetz's family history.

 

[kfc1]

You're no lover of the left of politics.

I'm no lover of the right either. Neither major party fits my political views.
If you had to classify me, I'd be classified as a swinging voter.
Given the number of unpopular opinions I post on here, I don't think you could accuse me of not standing up for what I believe in.

 

[clogged]

I wonder how many people up in arms about today's comment are the same people who constantly point to Eric Abetz's family history.

That has factual basis.

 

[Maggie5]

I'm no lover of the right either. Neither major party fits my political views.
If you had to classify me, I'd be classified as a swinging voter.
Given the number of unpopular opinions I post on here, I don't think you could accuse me of not standing up for what I believe in.

As a swinging voter, would you ever vote Greens?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

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

Here's some more questions for you to ignore.

• Why do you think "Australian Aborigines" was one society?
  
• Why do you think they were "the most backward of any society on earth"?
  
• Why do you think all hunter-gather societies practices infanticide and cannibalism?

I defended the comment relative to the faux outrage over it being a nazi reference, and in view of what Dreyfus had said about Abbott in 2011. I didn't, and not, defending the opinion itself.

Your defending it due to that? Most are 'defending it' due to hypocrisy.

Abbott himself immediately withdrew the comment. Everyone thinks it is in poor taste, so the outrage is not 'faux'.

I thought you were trying to argue that Dreyfus' comments were similar. I explained why some would see them as different, especially in light of the fact Goebbels was head of propaganda, and you have said you think Abbott was referring to Shorten as being overly propaganda-ry. You haven't provided any evidence for that, however, nor explained why the context we've explained to you is somehow under-explained.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

On the "Goebbels of Economic Policy" thing, I think that it doesn't actually mean what Abbot thinks it means (another suppository of wisdom), Goebbels (apart from being a Nazi) is known as a master in a certain field (propaganda) in effect Abbott is actually calling Shorten a Master of Economic Policy doesn't excuse Abbot though as we have to look at his intent.

But that aside Dreyfus previous "goebellian" comparisons are not the same as Abbott's latest stuff up if only because Dreyfus was making a valid comparison about propaganda with context, Abbott was just slurring an opponent.

 

[Maggie5]

I wonder how many people up in arms about today's comment are the same people who constantly point to Eric Abetz's family history.

What family history? Not sure why you bring it up especially if it not complimentary.
Just making sure if like me do not know, get to know what has been said despite the fact it may not be true.

 

[Bosun]

Ask Tone. i'm just explaining why I don't think what he said is much different to what Dreyfus said in 2011.
I'm still wondering whether Tony is a complete moron or master troll, or both.

I wouldn't mind an answer. After all the media outrage, all the s**t PR over using any analogy to the Nazi regime during garbage.....sorry question time (by any party) why would he choose to use Goebels!!??

It's just plain ******* stupidity and its a massive worry on his judgement. He could have expressed it in so many other ways.