SA Footy

Listening and reading about the Carbon Tax today became pretty unpleasant.

I've got used to the Murdoch media's distortions, but I came across the following today:

Herald Sun (Andrew Bolt's paper) reader's comments: "Julia Gillard should be assassinated".

"She should burn in hell"

Question from anti-carbon tax rally attender about 'taking up arms against this government".

The first comment was eventually deleted after protests. Joe Hockey 'understood the anger" for the call to arms, but said it wasn't the way to go.

After what happened to the Congresswoman in America, I would have thought Alan Jones and his pathetic shock-jock mates would have been a little more careful with their hate messages.

Frightening, as I'm sure all sensible supporters of both sides of politics would agree.

Yes, frightning but just goes to show how much "hate" and "anger" there is out there against this tax.

Violence is not the answer.

Maybe a more appropriate headline would be ...

Bolt to be Euthanised

maybe castrated or something a little less sinister first.

too late ... has already bred

southee wrote:Yes, frightning but just goes to show how much "hate" and "anger" there is out there against this tax.

Violence is not the answer.

No southee, your answer is only worth of a Tea Party follower and you're better than that.

There shouldn't be 'hate' against this tax.

There shouldn't be 'hate' or violence in Australian politics.

As for 'lies', Julia should have just said it was a 'non-core promise'.

PS:

Mate, you complained about fish's ALP ad link, but I like to go into the SANFL Forum without you making anti-Rann statements

Think its becoming a huge problem, people are more than happy to be the keyboard warrior behind their computer and incite it on, I cant remember which of the independents or maybe it has been all of them have been subject to death threats left on their answering machines from people presumably from the loony side of the right wing of political spectrum.

It isn't confined to the right of politics though, when Sahar Peer Israeli tennis player played in New Zealand she was subject to extensive security messages after similar threats were made and was subjected anyway to verbal abuse anyway - all from people supposedly all about peace.

Those comments are supposed to be moderated however though, to allow that to stay up is something that should be looked at as an abuse of the media.

Well said, Sojourner.

redandblack wrote:

southee wrote:Yes, frightning but just goes to show how much "hate" and "anger" there is out there against this tax.

Violence is not the answer.

No southee, your answer is only worth of a Tea Party follower and you're better than that.

There shouldn't be 'hate' against this tax.

There shouldn't be 'hate' or violence in Australian politics.

As for 'lies', Julia should have just said it was a 'non-core promise'.

PS:

Mate, you complained about fish's ALP ad link, but I like to go into the SANFL Forum without you making anti-Rann statements

So you are saying there is no "hate" against this tax??? You would want to listen to talk back radio today to hear what the public are saying about this.....I would call it "hate".

I am sorry for the Rann attacks (joking about pie throwing for all to know) on the SAfooty forum....but as you will find I did not start that. Wont happen again......

I didn't say there was no hate.

I said there shouldn't be hate in Australian politics.

I don't listen to talk-back radio much, too many people who know bugger-all about what they're talking about.

But if you do, I understand

redandblack wrote:I didn't say there was no hate.

I said there shouldn't be hate in Australian politics.

I don't listen to talk-back radio much, too many people who know bugger-all about what they're talking about.

But if you do, I understand

OK....I listen to it now and then but find after a while it "does me head in"!!!!

Think I will just crawl in a corner and hide tonight........

There's hope for you, yet, mate


I'll add that talk-back radio is the preserve of the right-wing and has been for as long as I can remember.

Right-wing hosts, employed by right-wing owners, railing at the dreaded communist Labor traitors.

"We need to take up arms to get rid of them"

"We should have another election because the people got it wrong last time".

I prefer my footy involvement

I seem to remember when Howard brought in the anti-gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre there were threats of violence against him and at least once he wore a bullet proof vest to a public speech...

redandblack wrote:There's hope for you, yet, mate


I'll add that talk-back radio is the preserve of the right-wing and has been for as long as I can remember.

Right-wing hosts, employed by right-wing owners, railing at the dreaded communist Labor traitors.

"We need to take up arms to get rid of them"

"We should have another election because the people got it wrong last time".

I prefer my footy involvement

I agree with you there R&B, yet I would have to say that Amanda Blair seems to upset the right wingers on 5AA and seems to enjoy it a lot at the same time - fill in presenters Lainie Anderson and Amber Petty seem to be not to bad at it either!

fish wrote:I seem to remember when Howard brought in the anti-gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre there were threats of violence against him and at least once he wore a bullet proof vest to a public speech...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 89398.html

Best thing Howard ever did and it was in the first three months of his term. The next decade really dragged after this

redandblack wrote:

southee wrote:Yes, frightning but just goes to show how much "hate" and "anger" there is out there against this tax.

Violence is not the answer.

No southee, your answer is only worth of a Tea Party follower and you're better than that.

There shouldn't be 'hate' against this tax.

There shouldn't be 'hate' or violence in Australian politics.

As for 'lies', Julia should have just said it was a 'non-core promise'.
PS:

Mate, you complained about fish's ALP ad link, but I like to go into the SANFL Forum without you making anti-Rann statements

I keep reading that line from various posters over time. If it is/was an issue, why isn't it an issue now, when a Labor Govt does this?

And as for your line about talk-back radio, it's a much better idea to discuss politics in a forum for footy experts who on average get (complete guess coming, but I reckon it's around the mark) a quarter of their tips wrong?

The rest of what you write isn't too for off the mark though!

smac wrote:

redandblack wrote:
As for 'lies', Julia should have just said it was a 'non-core promise'.

I keep reading that line from various posters over time. If it is/was an issue, why isn't it an issue now, when a Labor Govt does this?

I think what we're saying by making that reference is that it's okay to lie when the policy makes sense

I watched Julia on Q and A tonight. For the life of me, all she could say were clearly reiterations of pre-rehearsed facts and figures. I wanted to hear detail in response to the people, and it was absent.

I'm not against pricing pollution - including carbon pollution - but from what I've seen this mechanism has been structured to meet political ends rather than practical ends.

Case in point - Julia spoke of the equivalent of 45 million cars being taken off the road, as being the impact of this tax until some time like 2020. We have 12 million cars here now. Why use that example when fuel has been overlooked for the carbon tax? She talked about our vast country meaning many people needed cars. Yet 80% live in major cities so why not exclude rural Australia if an exclusion is warranted?

Julia spoke of the price signal forcing companies to do smarter business to avoid the carbon tax. Yet if 90% of the population is to be buffered from the tax, how will demand be reduced? If it is a case of polluters operating smarter, then what measures are in place to ensure that the carbon tax is no longer applied to replacement technologies used for new production?

Julia just couldn't speak in plain english. The principle may be right, but the application looks poor to me as does the sell effort. And if a reincarnation of the tax system such as this doesn't need a mandate from the people, then what on earth ever will?

As for the comments online - it's very poor not to have them moderated from sight. But then again, Media Watch did go to town on the Murdoch Press tonight so maybe they were grumpy

I don't like the idea of censoring reader comments before they are published. It's important to have a clear code of conduct and to employ an effective post-moderation system that centres on addressing specific complaints.

I think it's important to maintain a certain freedom of online speech by not filtering comments.

Quichey wrote:I don't like the idea of censoring reader comments before they are published. It's important to have a clear code of conduct and to employ an effective post-moderation system that centres on addressing specific complaints.

I think it's important to maintain a certain freedom of online speech by not filtering comments.

Better take that STRAIGHT to the SA Footy Moderator's room, Quichey. A few posters would love that approach