And the boats keep coming

What a load of rubbish. Who/which newspaper has a weekly column by Philip Adams in it? This is bias?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I read it. And it was stupid.

The opinions of a far left wing blog does not have the monopoly on common sense. In fact, it lacks common sense as it puts ideology in front of people's lives.
Click to expand...

And you prove my point exactly. Rather than comment of the substance of the piece you again try to dismiss it by attacking the source. And what a curious attack it is! You've never actually been able to mount a case as to why Crikey is bad, or unbalanced, or biased or whatever your take is other than the fact it is Crikey. You are asking us to accept an a priori assumption that Crikey is bad because you say it is bad.

I WISH the MSM had thoughtful and insightful analysis of the intellectual calibre of the Rundle piece. There are parts of it I disagree with quite strongly but overall I am impressed by the scope and breadth of the discussion. If you can find me a Australia right wing polemicist of the same magnitude I would happily read them on a regular basis, I wouldn't necessarily agree with them but I would most definitely respect their opinions. The problem is though that the right is so intellectually defunct that they rarely exist, I certainly can't think of anyone in Australia in Rundle's league.

As for Crikey as a whole, the ironic thing is that the article references both Manne and a certain Keane, who happens to be Bernard Keane, the chief Canberra correspondent at Crikey and someone who holds roughly the same views as Manne and has published numerous articles supporting that view. A view that YOU agree with. So far from being this biased, far left wing blog, it actually enunciates views on a daily basis that you have already claimed to vehemently share.

Goes to show how much you know about the "far left wing blog" you try to denigrate! :D
 
Last edited:
amb said:
What a load of rubbish. Who/which newspaper has a weekly column by Philip Adams in it? This is bias?
Click to expand...

So I assume to accept that the ABC isn't biased because they have Andrew Bolt on once a week on Insiders?

Ever heard the phrase 'false balance'?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Did I make these claims? I don't actually remember doing so. Please show me the evidence I did.
Click to expand...

You did, simply by responding "nope" when I brought up the opposite. Then you declined to provide any evidence.

That aside:
1. You are free to read the court decisions on Malaysia where (I think from memory) four of the judges specifically mentioned that Malaysia was not Nauru.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you could point out the relevant sections in the court decision. Or at least point out where I could find the opinions of the justices. And considering the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the decision concluding the complete opposite to what you have concluded perhaps you could tell us why we should believe you, a guy on the internet, and not the S-G, someone who has actually studied law.

And what of the decision that stated that you must give asylum seekers access to the courts?

2. "Where possible" are the key words for sending boats back. I'm pretty sure that the threat is sufficient as an additional deterrent on top of the others.
Click to expand...

So if Indonesia doesn't want the boats back where would you send them?

The policies of our neighbours had no ongoing effect on Nauru previously from what I can tell, and should have no impact on any solution in the future.
Click to expand...

Because it seems that at the time they didn't really care that we sent the boats back to them. They've changed their mind in that time though.
 
Wildy said:
Then perhaps you could point out the relevant sections in the court decision. Or at least point out where I could find the opinions of the justices. And considering the opinion of the Solicitor-General on the decision concluding the complete opposite to what you have concluded perhaps you could tell us why we should believe you, a guy on the internet, and not the S-G, someone who has actually studied law.
Click to expand...

Either of us could look it up if we wanted; but it is a moot point if the laws are changed. Did you miss that bit the first time round. This is what I mean by irrelevant land.

Wildy said:
And what of the decision that stated that you must give asylum seekers access to the courts?
Click to expand...

??
Did I make some claim around this?

Wildy said:
So if Indonesia doesn't want the boats back where would you send them?
Click to expand...

That would probably invoke the "if safe" provision. Duh!

Wildy said:
They've changed their mind in that time though.
Click to expand...

If they have done so then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
 
bit_pattern said:
So I assume to accept that the ABC isn't biased because they have Andrew Bolt on once a week on Insiders?

Ever heard the phrase 'false balance'?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one claiming bias, you are remember. I read/listen to an article no matter where without seeing bias. I read/listen with a neutral mind. I take it on it's merits unlike some.
 
amb said:
I'm not the one claiming bias, you are remember. I read/listen to an article no matter where without seeing bias. I read/listen with a neutral mind. I take it on it's merits unlike some.
Click to expand...

What did you mean by this, then?

I see. The ABC been your primary news source?
Click to expand...
 
@ Skepticemea The ABC is perceived to have a left wing bias which I again apart from Kerry O Brian do not see.
 
Last edited:
amb said:
@ Skepticemea The ABC is perceived to have a left wing bias which I again apart from Kerry O Brian do not see.
Click to expand...

So you're not claiming bias just stating that there is a perception of bias.

I need to sit down, I've gone all dizzy.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Either of us could look it up if we wanted;...
Click to expand...

Well since you were the one to comment on the nature of the decision I suggest that you back up your claim, or were you lying when you said that you'd back up your claims?

...but it is a moot point if the laws are changed. Did you miss that bit the first time round. This is what I mean by irrelevant land.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss it, and last time I checked the laws hadn't been changed so it's neither moot or irrelevant.

??
Did I make some claim around this?
Click to expand...

Yes. You handwaved all the decisions, not just the one regarding the Malaysia Solution. There was a reason why I used the plural, I wonder why that is?

That would probably invoke the "if safe" provision. Duh!
Click to expand...

So in other words part of the Pacific Solution cannot be re-implemented then? So why did you say otherwise before?

If they have done so then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you want to send the boats back to Indonesia. If you want to send them back, "if safe" like you suggest or "all of them" if you're amb, then Indonesia changing it's mind isn't a good thing is it?
 
Skepticemea said:
So you're not claiming bias just stating that there is a perception of bias.

I need to sit down, I've gone all dizzy.
Click to expand...

Yes, from mainly Liberal Party supporters. The vast majority of their listeners and viewers are perceived as been Labor voters. Something I don't agree with.
 
amb said:
Yes, from mainly Liberal Party supporters. The vast majority of their listeners and viewers are perceived as been Labor voters. Something I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Still dizzy. I don't remember even been this dizzy.
 
amb said:
Yes, from mainly Liberal Party supporters. The vast majority of their listeners and viewers are perceived as been Labor voters. Something I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't make sense of this sentence. Skepticemea, you're doing better than me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom