|
Post by angra on Apr 4, 2013 8:43:01 GMT 10
Well I'm feeling pedantic. It's wet and cold so I'm peevish. SMH has two headlines - "North Korea rhetoric IS..." Then "North Korea ARE..." How can the name of a country be treated as a plural? They wouldn't say "Australia ARE..." Also got me thinking how like Andrew Bolt are Kim Jong-un's rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by angra on May 27, 2013 17:59:53 GMT 10
The SMH has partially made up for its appalling Sheehan article this morning ranting about how Islam is a religion of violence, conveniently forgetting the widespread genocide commanded by God on many occasions in the Old Testament (bashing babies heads against the rocks, and raping all the virgins - book of Numbers), not to mention the final destruction of all unbelievers in Revelation.
I refer to two articles posted this afternoon - one by Randa Adbel Fattah, the other by Mohamad Abdalla. I'd like to see these two in a debate with Bolt, Sheehan and Devine - the latter would be blown out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on May 27, 2013 20:04:04 GMT 10
I read Fattahs response without reading Sheehan. I don't think I will either. If Sheehan is going to use a dodgy website to back his claims ala Blot using WUWT, why bothers?
|
|
|
Post by angra on May 31, 2013 10:27:11 GMT 10
Are you a casual racist? www.smh.com.au/national/are-you-a-casual-racist-20130530-2ndyy.htmlGood question. My wife is black, and she often makes jokes about me being a white man. I do the same back at her. Does this make us racists? On the other hand I have almost resorted to violence when I knew someone was making racist comments about her, just to hurt or offend. Is there 'good racism' v. 'bad racism'? I reserve the right to make mildly amusing comments about her 'blackness' as does she to my 'whiteness.' But to do so merely to hurt or offend crosses a boundary.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on May 31, 2013 10:52:14 GMT 10
I haven't really paid much attention, because I don't really care, but I sort of assumed, when I read what he'd said, that mcguire was just making an ironic reference to the earlier controversy. It was poorly-judged, but sheesh ... who hasn't said something that sounded clever in your head but didn't actually work out all that well in reality?
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Jun 23, 2013 21:51:55 GMT 10
Just watched the fawning Andrew o’keef discussing the ‘benefits’ of multiculturalism with Malcolm Fraser. So sickening.
Was curious about their theory that if you are wealthy you have an obligation to take in poor people who live in dangerous circumstances. I assume this means that they’ll be most happy to take in some of the thousands of homeless Australians (many of whom are children), victims of domestic abuse or pensioners who can’t afford food and heating. Both Andrew and Malcolm are very wealthy so they surely have an obligation, as they have both agreed, to take in these people and house and feed them. I’m sure they won’t mind if their mansions get trashed, their generosity is taken advantage of and they find themselves victims of violence as a result.
Or are they typical hypocrites of the left, happy to attend glitzy charity events, chuck in a token donation then go home to their mansions to plan their next luxury holiday while the rest of us have to deal with the many ‘benefits’ of multiculturalism’.
Sue of Canberra (Reply) Sun 23 Jun 13 (10:00am)
Sue of Canberra may be a neighbor of Matt!!
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jun 24, 2013 9:03:18 GMT 10
"Sue of Canberra may be a neighbor of Matt!!"
None of my close neighbors are called Sue :-)
She could be in my street, though.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Jun 24, 2013 9:31:18 GMT 10
I think I posted this in the wrong spot. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by chookmustard on Jun 24, 2013 21:18:33 GMT 10
|
|