This is 2 Bobs Worth's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following 2 Bobs Worth's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
2 Bobs Worth
Wellington Point
Interests: Music/Fishing/Politics
Recent Activity
You always know when a person's arguments are weak when they resort to "ad hominem" comments. He has called me effectively an elderly wing nut. wingnut: "n. An outspoken, irrational person with deeply-held, nominally conservative, political views. A person who chooses on principle to be flagrantly ignorant." I have deeply-held conservative social views- yes. Irrational, definitely not- my views come from over half a century of life experience - for the majority of my voting life I supported Labor. I haven't since Latham became leader when something clicked and all my suppressed doubts about Labor came together. Those doubts have now come to fruition with the current regime in Canberra. If Labor continues in its current vein, I cant see myself ever voting for them again. As for the "walking frame" comment- what one's ambulatory disability is should never be the subject of abuse and Keane should issue an unreserved public apology. It's ageist and has no place in public commentary.
For heaven's sake, LBor must be desperate if they think the milky-bar kid can save them. And they must think its true if senior cabinet ministers make comments like "He is an asset and we should use him. If that combination of discipline plus the asset can be agreed upon, it would be a fantastic boost to our fortunes," So is that it- Gillard or Rudd? Any wonder they're on 44% 2PP.
"Everything we have done to give kids a better start in life." Couldn't say "our kids" could she? Abbott can.
It's obvious that Faine through his friends (Murphy) is too close personally to this story which is why he can't be dispassionate. Nothing wrong with that per se, but of he finds he can't conduct an interview with neutrality, as a professional journalist (?) he must "state an interest " and withdraw. This is particularly the case should he wish to continue working for the public broadcaster.
Day 3, Still grey and cloudy here in Gympie- came up to go fishing at Harvey Bay on Friday with oldest son. Flooded in by a near record Mary River flood -peaking at 21 m tonight.Can't get home to Brisbane. Imagine if we'd had the Traveston Dam- would be well and truly full. Thanks for nothing Garrett (oh the power and the passion hey!)
If it wasn't for invasion day and the subsequent introduction of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, Gibbons wouldn't be retiring on a fat pension supplied by the system which resulted from "invasion day". Don't be hypocritical - refuse your pension and live in a gunyah eating bushes. PS Isn't a gibbon a monkey ?
Any wonder 4 out of 5 private sector workers chose not to join a union. Perhaps if they were more representative and put leaders put the members interests above their own, they wouldn't have to rely on using the FWA to recruit members.
" I'm appealing to those people to direct their energy towards more recent events?????" The alleged crime may have happened nearly twenty years ago, but the cover-up is still happening today. Each and every day that those who know the truth and are conspiring to cover it up, a crime is being committed. So don't give me any of that- it happened 20 years ago, move on nonsense. Could it be that those who are called for the book to be closed on this episode, have an vested interest in this investigation ceasing?
Glen comments: "That lawyer legal future would be a short one. If the lawyer is part of a scam and breaks the law then the full responsibility must lie at the feet of the lawyer. The lawyer,by creating a false document, enabled the scam to reach maturity and run its course. If the lawyer was honest and stuck to the law the scam wouldnt have got legs. Pretty simple really." And I believe this entire scam is summed up in those few sentences. Not only did the scam get set up because Gillard allegedly provided false "bona fides" on the AWUWRA to the WA Corp Affairs, but that money (some at least) was able to be laundered by the setting up of the second false document- the POA. On those two acts alone, if proven in a court of law, will be enough to sink Gillard. And- 'That lawyer's legal future would be a short one"- well it was. When the firm's ultimate "gatekeepers" (Gordon et al) discovered the scam, they cut Gillard's legal career short- but they should have gone further and reported it, So the gatekeepers themselves, it would appear, were also not "keeping the gate" as they should as officers of the Supreme Court.
I do like reading learned lawyerly opinion on these matters. I have had discussions with solicitors I happen to deal with regularly and to a person, have all said that if the evidence as presented is proven, she's gone for all money. And the other comment Gillard makes which so irks these practitioners is the one where she says shes' done nothing wrong because she" was only acting under instruction". To the layperson (read the great unwashed), this seems a very reasonable explanation and if Blewitt, Wislon et al acted illegally subsequent to her advice, she (Gillard) is innocent because she was only "acting under instruction". The professional, of course, knows that's no defence,especially if she was aware that the purpose of the fund was officially one thing and then it was used for other than the purpose stated. If an accountant, eg, was commissioned by a client to set up an illegal tax evasion scheme and he/she did so "under instruction",and if the consequences of such a commission was the evading of $Millions in tax, the accountant would be criminally negligent- even though he/she wasn't a signatory to the tax return. Gillard's excuse that "I was only acting under instruction" may fool many people, but i makes those in the know, cringe.
"But are the people who gamble their spare funds in coal industry investments really the victims here? " Typical of those who chose to tell others how to spend their money.People who are good stewards of their hard-earnt may chose to forgo the non-productive luxuries of life ( cigarettes, IPods, alcohol and mind destroying drugs) to invest in energy shares for a comfortable retirement. Of course left wing activists like Wilson and Moylan can't stand people who choose to provide for themselves rather than have the government direct how they spend their money. Of course condoning this blatant fraud giving it the euphemism "hoax" is only 1 step away from the " suspension of democracy" to deal with so-called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as advocated by Clive Hamilton and other such activists from the teat- suckers in academia.
Lets apply the Milne doctrine to some pet causes of the conservative. How about blockading abortion clinics? What about disrupting the GAL Mardigras? And we could always have a go at breaking through union picket lines- now wouldn't that be fun?
Tax implications in the AWUWRA- remember, it was tax fraud that eventually got Al Capone. Gillard, as a professional person played a major role in setting up this sham organisation which she admitted she knew was not for what is was originally proposed. An accountant who sets up a tax arrangement to evade the payment of taxes is as guilty as the beneficiary of such a scheme. It would appear, by her own admission, she is guilty of conspiring to commit a deception for the purposes of a personal gain for her lover and, by default a tax evasion. All it needs now is for a relevant authority to act.
I see we're supporting the Sea Shepherd mob in their anti-whaling endeavours in the Southern Ocean. Tax-payer superannuated ex-Green's leader Bob Brown is to take over running the hardline and death-threatening Antarctic anti-whaling campaign by the extremist Sea Shepherd organisation. Maybe the bottom end of the world is a good place for Brown-in his new job as rear-admiral of the fleet. The boat, the Steve irwin features a flag looking not unlike the pirate flag - does the flying of the jolly roger mean that Bob Brown is aboard?
Green-leaning Judge: And why did you steal $500 000 form the Commonwealth bank sir? Defendant: Sir,- what about me, I've got nothing, the bank is the largest in Australia and has squillions- I'm a socialist and believe in the equal sharing of wealth-I was making a political statement. Green-leaning Judge: Oh, well, thats all right then, off you go, as long it was only a political statement, I won't record a conviction- wold you like a hand from the bailiff to carry the money home? Good-day sir, come again.
Rhiannon was (or still is) a Communist- it is the communist strategy to overturn the free market system, and that will be done by whatever means possible- including breaking the law. The Greens leaders support for the actions of Moylan has the potential to undermine confidence in the Australian economy and lead to the loss of jobs. What Milne and Rhiannon did in supporting this undermining of Australian investment and business is tantamount to treason and should be dealt with as such. Gillard and Labor need to immediately sever their ties with the Greens and censure them in parliament, which needs to be recalled immediately to stop any further erosion of confidence in Australia's reputation. If Gillard doesn't act immediately to restore confidence in Australia, she needs to resign and let someone who will take over. If she doesn't, she stands condemned in being complicit in the undermining of the rule of law in this country, which is surely a sackable offence.
I have 4 gen-yers- three are in full support of my world view- in fact they even believe I'm just a tad progressive. The other one did the rebellious "prodigal son (daughter) thing, ran away from home at 15- got paid by the gov't to get pissed and stoned but now at 26, she's in full support of our world view. The "other side" she found was shallow, cold and hopeless. And my world view (of moral absolutes)is the view of most of their colleagues and friends. Look, I'm no saint, in my younger student days, I did just about every substance which was on campus and led a pretty wild life till I was almost kicked out of Uni.I've worked on the wharves, in the canefields, tobacco sheds,laboring on building sites, driven taxis and have experienced the seedy side of life, but came a fork in the road- one way lead to an early grave, the other to a satisfying, fulfilled life. I chose the right one and always like to see others too.
Peter Singer seems to believe animals can consent and there's inherently nothing wrong with it. Point I'm trying to make is- why is it not right for Bernardi to mention this issue in the senate. but its perfectly OK for a tax-payer funded radio to give encouragement to pornographers who seek to excite readers with erotics tales involving bestiality? And as for being obsessed with the topic- obsessed with bringing this hypocrisy to the public's attention-yes, absolutely. I have children who's heritage I seek to protect and if this nonsense carries on unchecked, I pity the future of Australia. I thought that was what this blog site was for- protecting our heritage form such degradation.
People get married for all types of reasons,myself for the reasons stated in my faith, and I too have had 31 years of happiness and raised 4 beautuful children. I don't expect people to agree with the statements, in the same way many of us wouldn't agree with, say, aboriginal dreaming and concepts such as whale "songlines" but not agreeing with them or even understanding them is no reason to pass laws desecrating those beliefs or sacred sites. Which is what my argument is. The Christian concept of marriage has served society well over the centuries, but the moral relativists seek to destroy it and I will do every thing in my power to protect it- if that makes me a biggot,redneck, bible-basher or whatever- so be it, but it won't change my mind. In the same way as I don't expect what I've said will change yours- so lets agree to disagree- but it won't stop me voting for those who don't support same-sex marriages.
I know there are Arthur and what percentage is "many". Do you know how many? I know the Uniting Church endorses the proposition, which is one of the reasons I left that denomination- but also notice how there numbers are plummeting dramatically at the expense of the bible-believing pentecostals. But they must be reading from a different bible, might I suggest.Here's the reason I believe that same-sex marriage to the Christian is sacrilegious. For starters,for a Christian to support ssm he/she denies the book which is the foundation of their faith. In 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul demonstrates that homosexuality is contrary to sound doctrine when he says, "…for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine…" Note that "sodomites" are practicing homosexuals. Homosexual behaviour is contrary to sound doctrine.
In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Paul says, "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself" (NKJV). To marriage itself- here's an extract of my submission to the House of Reps. "To the Catholic and Anglican Churches and other Christian Orthodox Churches, marriage and Holy Matrimony are synonymous. Holy Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church. The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The primary purpose of marriage is to fulfill a vocation in the nature of man and woman, for the procreation and education of children, and to stand as a symbol of the mystical union between Christ and his Church. In scripture it says: Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Marriage denotes intimacy where two become one flesh in the same way as through Holy Communion Christ and His Church become one. Christ is to the Church as Man is to Woman in marriage. It is therefore by definition a religious symbol and to most orthodox Christians, a sacred institution. I content that legalizing same-sex marriage is akin to the desecration of a sacred site. We would not dare try to interfere with let alone destroy an Aboriginal Sacred Site. Similarly, the same respect for Christiandom's sacred institutions, should be shown in the same respect we have other peoples cultures and religions. To many Christians, legalizing same-sex marriages is seen as blasphemy. To Christians, marriage stands as a symbol of the mystical union between Christ and his Church." This dovetails with the Christian spirituality argument of the previous blog. You don't have to agree with our sprirituality in the same way as we may not understand or agree with orthodox Christian spirituality, but don't pass laws which intentionally undermine that spirituality. Its the nature of democracy to respect other's beliefs.
Sorry to hog the blog, but I need to get this lot out (cont'd) It seems OK for ABC National to run publicly funded programs which feature writers who write about bestiality- in the name of art and literature. An author is allowed to advertise her wares on the ABC in the guise of “encouraging people to think “ about their sexuality and to the possibility of being aroused by sex with animals. Have a listen to the following Radio National Weekend Arts feature of the weekend of the Brisbane Writer’s Festival and listen to the discussion by writer and sexual “researcher” Krissy Kneen discussing her book which is about the “most transgressive form of sexuality” The book Triptych - An Erotic Adventure is billed as "a fictional work that directly challenges the reader to understand, and even appreciate, unorthodox and at times deeply confronting sexual desires." Link Listen from 24:30 to 27:00. 
The book is about sex with various animals including octopi, swans and dogs. 
But, as the introduction to the discussion says, lets have an “open honest and respectful” discussion on the issues of pornography, erotica and censorship. 
Of course, to the “progressive left” of the ABC, open honest discussions apply to everyone who supports their opinions, not those who don’t (like Bernardi) then we have to howl them down and shut them up.
Also, lets not forget this little gem when we talk about bestiality and its consequences. "AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which originated in non-human primates in Sub-Saharan Africa and was transferred to humans during the late 19th or early 20th century."(Wiklipedia.) How was it transferred from monkeys to humans? Go figure. Its also interesting to note that the moral absolute, which for centuries has underpinned Western society, the Bible, refers to the word sodomy as being interchangeable with bestiality and considered as grave a sin.
The funniest thing about this debate is the double-standards being applied to Bernardi et al who seek to point out the ultimate consequences of the moral relativism being promoted by the GAL lobby. On the one hand they are criticising the social conservative for daring to suggest there exists a moral absolute in heterosexual marriage, past which society cannot cross. The GAL lobby says, in today’s morally relativist society, your morality is not my morality so don’t impose it on me. “As long as no-one get “hurt”, I should be allowed to do as I please” seems to be the moral absolute. Yet, on the other hand,as soon as anyone dares to point out the possible extent of this moral relativism, screech!!!- you can’t say that- you’ve just crossed an absolute line which we have suddenly and arbitrarily imposed. 
All Bernardi did was refer to some “creepy people"who happen to consider bestiality could be morally OK, as long as it is consensual and nobody gets hurt and that as soon as you jettison one moral absolute, why stop there. 
Can’t have it both ways people- either you’re relativist or absolutist. 
But again, like the GAL lobby you want to have it both ways. 
Beware the boiling frog syndrome.
A clear case of selective indignation by the Age. The Age has been running any numbers of articles support same-sex marriage in recent times with none (that I know of) in sympathy with the Christian perspective. An article by the Age's Dick Gross on 10/9/12 titled "Indigenous spirituality and the need for faith" bemoans the fact that the New Atheism "taunts" believers in matters spiritual and the describes the effect it has on Aboriginal spirituality. His thesis is that New Atheism undermines the spiritual structure which helps bind traditional society and communities today. He goes on to say that [quote]Any fair consideration of Aboriginal spirituality makes these assertions look like another form of white cultural imperialism. We all owe the Aboriginal community a duty to try to immerse ourselves in the spirituality that formed their culture and binds their communities to this day[/quote].and [quote]The spirituality is social glue that we must not condemn as New Atheists might be tempted to. Indeed we must facilitate such spiritualism in partial expiation of the past and present sins involved with European settlement.[/quote] I agree with this assertion with respect to aboriginal culture and well as western culture. Yet we see the hypocrisy of the Age in its approach to the same-sex marriage argument. Christianity, which is arguably the foundation and the basis of the Westminister legal system by which our society runs, is under attack. To the majority of Christians, the idea of same-sex marriage is sacrilegious because it attacks the very core of the relationship of Christ and the church. To the Christian, matrimony between heterosexual couples is the "social glue" which we must not condemn as the promoters of same-sex marriage attempt to do. But do we hear arguments of the sort Gross is making in defence of Christian spirituality? No, because it doesn't fit in with the progressive, left dialogue where principals can be skewed and rejected to suit the circumstance. Again the hypocrisy of the self-titled "progressive" media is breath-taking.
The latest Newspoll shows the Abbott's popularity has slipped which shows that the latest bad press (in the ABC and Fairfax) over and alleged (unproven and unsubstantiated) punching of a wall adjacent to a women who beat him in a student election. Two points to be made on this. 1. Labor and the left-wing media (led by Marr) maintain that this 35 yo incident is somehow proof that Abbott is unfit to be PM, yet a disastrous decision by Gillard (17 years ago) allowed the establishment of a union slush fund which was allegedly used to launder extorted monies by union bosses. The "young and naive" excuse is implausible- Gillard was a professional officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria to which she was admitted after meeting legislated competency standards. The reasons for her actions, I contend, were she displayed poor judgement, the similar character flaw which has dogged her premiership. What if Abbott admitted to the alleged incident and said "I was young, testosterone charged and impetuous) which, at 19 is probably correct. Would he have been forgiven? Not on your bloody nelly mate! This is not about Abbott's impetuous and uncontrollable and potentially violent behaviour- he's proven he has mellowed by his behaviour since. Who or what did he punch or abuse when he lost the 2010 election? Maybe a punching bag in the gym- but nothing public- so Abbott has matured over the years, and if he has a temper, he controls it admirably. Gillard on the other hand, hasn't changed-still making the same ill-considered mistakes, only his time its not just the AWU's money she's wasting, its ours. 2. So if its not about Abbott the person, what is it- its what he stands for. He is a social conservative, the very type the "progressives", the greens and the rainbow coalition detest. What Marr has done is mover the front line of the cultural wars to the feet of the contenders for PM. Since 2007, this coalition has successfully removed two social conservatives- Howard and Rudd, and now they're going for the third. And now its apparent (from Mc Kew's zoo to be released memoirs) Gillard was as thick as thieves with the Rudd plotters form the get go. Social conservatives, especially those with a Christian world-view are finding it increasingly difficult to advance their causes because as soon as they mention their "anti-same-sex" marriage and pro family opinions, they're automatically labelled as extreme. They're even cut off from the debate because you can't offend their fragile sensibilities. This anti-social conservative agenda will be at the forefront of debate between now and the next election, because it puts the the background the real policy issues and Labor's miserable record. They can't run on their record, only vague promises to be paid for on the never-never so issues have to be "manufactured". And who better to use as than a compliant ABC and Fairfax media with the whole thing being orchestrated by one who's very experienced in filthy muckraking- Mc Ternan. He' s used to the European theatre of the cultural wars, where EU Commissioners can be rejected out of hand because of their membership of a Christian Church who have an alternative view on homosexuality. This is the kind of cultural war which is now imported to Australia and will be a big part of the up-coming campaign.