The Australian Greens party

[cynic]

Well, the Greens concept of leadership would probably serve very well for migratory lemmings.

 

[Knobby22]

Well, the Greens concept of leadership would probably serve very well for migratory lemmings.

Unlike Labor and Liberal.
Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Abbott,Turnbull,Scomo.

At least the Nationals, oh wait,[emoji16]
(by the way, those lemmings were pushed by Disney Corp for the film, check it out).

 

[cynic]

...
(by the way, those lemmings were pushed by Disney Corp for the film, check it out).

Aha!!

So those reluctant lemmings (obviously deniers) had to be forced to comply with the will of a governing power!

Doubtless this oppressive action will be justified by the joy, it will undoubtedly bring, to so many grandchildren (present and future), from all corners of the globe, in the years to come.

It would seem that Green ideology is by no means unique to the Greens.

 

[rederob]

You sure you want to decipher the "context" of anymore speeches?

Given that you and others are prone to create a narrative from thin air to realise what you prefer to believe, I will continue to stick with what was actually stated.
In a previous case of yours it was necessary for you to use not what was stated in the film, but what was an actor's personal preference, so that you could make a point. That's called a straw man argument and does not wash with me.

You seem to have no argument other that cast inaccurate aspersions, you are a bitter, nasty POS, so not interested in interacting with you.

You say on one hand you are "Happy to start [an argument] from scratch", but when twice asked to elaborate on your claim of "racism" you take the cowards path.
So here's the real point:
Had you appreciated the context of Jordan's speech you would have worked out that it is people like you who cannot show they have a reasoned case that are truly the peddlers of racism. When called out you do a Pauline Hanson on us - and convince yourselves that in fact it is not you who are the problem. As per usual your credibility is in tatters.

 

[rederob]

Jordan's speech can be found at this link.
Jordan's specific references to racism and hate speech can be located at 47:50 and 50:25.
And here is the verbatim record of Jordan's speech which immediately led to Wayne's claim of "racism":

"And until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job. We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us."
​

 

[cynic]

Racism,sexism, nondisableism and ageism - all encapsulated within a single speech!

Could someone please explain, how such divisive sentiments, are rationally reconcilable with policies that purport to promote love,compassion, tolerance and inclusivity?

 

[moXJO]

Given that you and others are prone to create a narrative from thin air to realise what you prefer to believe, I will continue to stick with what was actually stated.
In a previous case of yours it was necessary for you to use not what was stated in the film, but what was an actor's personal preference, so that you could make a point. That's called a straw man argument and does not wash with me.

Na... He directly quoted his question and Gandhis answer in his speech. He was a known pacifist.

But keep telling yourself you ain't grasping at air. Jesus, you brought what to the table again? Hot air?

At least the stuff I posted is verifiable as apposed to "I thinks it is, cause its a war movie".

 

[wayneL]

Are you actually Titania McGrath, Rederob? Its the only explanation.

 

[rederob]

At least the stuff I posted is verifiable as apposed to "I thinks it is, cause its a war movie".

Why not read what I said again and stop it with your pathetic straw man arguments - just another outright lie from you because you never liked "being told".

 

[rederob]

Are you actually Titania McGrath, Rederob? Its the only explanation.

You could have attempted what was asked of you, Wayne, seeing you believe you made a valid point.
But it seems that each time you are challenged you limp away.
We are getting used to that here, so you are at least consistent..

 

[moXJO]

Why not read what I said again and stop it with your pathetic straw man arguments - just another outright lie from you because you never liked "being told".

Why would I need to. Scratch the surface on your posts and its a wayneL insult backed up with nothing.

 

[rederob]

Why would I need to. Scratch the surface on your posts and its a wayneL insult backed up with nothing.

I can and do back up what I post.
Your claim that Chaplin being a pacifist meant he could not say what he did in a movie role is a bit like saying that Rock Hudson could not play it straight in a movie role.
Meanwhile Wayne has had to dip into repeated adhominems while he tries (or perhaps does not) to work out his next meaningful post.

 

[moXJO]

I can and do back up what I post.
Your claim that Chaplin being a pacifist meant he could not say what he did in a movie role is a bit like saying that Rock Hudson could not play it straight in a movie role.

He directly quoted Gandhi from his meeting.
You misunderstood the context of the speech. Possibly the point of the character he played as well.
He spent months writing and rewriting that speech to get the message right. Thats not a throwaway movie speech.

So no, you are on flimsy ground.

 

[rederob]

He directly quoted Gandhi from his meeting.
You misunderstood the context of the speech. Possibly the point of the character he played as well.
He spent months writing and rewriting that speech to get the message right. Thats not a throwaway movie speech.
So no, you are on flimsy ground.

You persist in straw man arguments.
At least you will win those.

 

[moXJO]

You persist in straw man arguments.
At least you will win those.

And your arguments are routinely backed up by nothing.

 

[wayneL]

No I don't limp anywhere Red. Its just think it's futile argueing with monodimensional, "woke", ideologues.

I'm here primarily for the entertainment

 

[moXJO]

You persist in straw man arguments.
.

Pointing out you are wrong isn't a strawman argument either.

My "soldiers are the ones who fought for freedom" hook post was.
Yes I do love a good strawman to bring someone in.

Lets talk about Jordans speech. But lets also get something clear.I support his support on a lot of issues. The #aabill being one of them.

"The era of white able bodied men is over"

Using white in a derogatory dig (even if regarding over representation in parliament) comes across wrong. And sends the wrong message to their idiot extreme supporters that its ok to do.

Out of that speech this is what was tweeted in this instance.

“The era of white able bodied men is over,” he said."

How about "the era of under representation is over"?
Instead of racist dribbling to "woke" up a speech by including color.

 

[rederob]

No I don't limp anywhere Red. Its just think it's futile argueing with monodimensional, "woke", ideologues.
I'm here primarily for the entertainment

Where is your argument?
You have been asked many times now.
That aside, you appear to be the entertainment, so well done.

 

[rederob]

Lets talk about Jordans speech. But lets also get something clear.I support his support on a lot of issues. The #aabill being one of them.
"The era of white able bodied men is over"
Using white in a derogatory dig (even if regarding over representation in parliament) comes across wrong. And sends the wrong message to their idiot extreme supporters that its ok to do.

Please describe how Jordan's comment is derogatory, and also place your explanation in the context of his speech, overall.

 

[moXJO]

Please describe how Jordan's comment is derogatory, and also place your explanation in the context of his speech, overall.

Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community.
The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech.
Being "white" was included, instead of using "we need greater representation".

Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community.

I agree with needing greater representation so long as it is indeed made to serve the community and not niche groups.
I also agree that politicians are out of step on many levels.
But there is no need to include "white" in the way it was used in the argument.
It would have been perfectly fine and got the message across without setting a division.

As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor.