Essential Reading

 
Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t written one word about the ABC’s failed multi-million persecution of George Pell – which was the most grievously intolerant example of media corruption in Australian history.

This entry was posted in Fake News, Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Essential Reading

  1. cuckoo

    If Emmo has read it, then I guess he’s found his lost contact lenses.

  2. Louis Litt

    Modern Labor – the party of the unskilled, useless “I am highly intelligent” crowd who are too frightened to work and crap on about things that are or no relatedness to anyone.
    “Mmmm Betty- Opps Malcom” your not a Scorpio – your a Marxist eunich.
    Emerson – was he not involved with um Julia?
    You’ve just been Litt up

  3. nfw

    Well if Craig Emerson says it, it must be so. Just another loudmouth ex-politician with a taxpayer funded pension. Would love to see his receipts for all the charitable contributions he makes. Would love to see him in his surf lifesaving gear and bush fire fighting clothing and when he’s working in aboriginal communities. Rudd, Turnbull and he do those community based activities don’t they? I expect we taxpayers will be funding Turnbull’s ego as all the good lefties (now there’s an oxymoron) in schools and libraries around the country buy his “work”.

  4. The left always claim they are the underdog, even when they have already won.

    We have for all intents and purposes a UBI and policed speech.

    Murdoch’s outlets are moving to the left.

    Establishment left: Murdoch lurching to the hard right and spreading hate.

    By gum they are full of shit.

  5. NoFixedAddress

    Would somebody please send the man a violin!

    MT is the worst Prime Minister that Australia has ever had the misfortune to be inflicted with and is reason alone to seek and obtain the de-registration of The Liberal Party of NSW.

  6. bollux

    He should stick to singing. He was marginally better at that than intelligent debate. Idiot.

  7. Robbo

    I wouldn’t have expected anything else from a total tool like Craig Emerson. He says he believes every word in the vindictive fake story penned by the Turd. What a fuckwit.

  8. Entropy

    cuckoo
    #3418542, posted on April 19, 2020 at 9:37 am
    If Emmo has read it, then I guess he’s found his lost contact lenses.

    Absolutely everything you need to know about a) his judgement, and b) his moral fibre.

  9. Texas Jack

    It will be a whole lot smarter to hold-off and wait for a string of readable counters to A Bigger Picture arriving at your favourite Kindle store. Peta Credlin takes him apart in about four paragraphs in the Tele today. It can’t be that hard.

  10. candy

    Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull said something nice about Julia Gillard and Craig is impressed, because he is still in love with her and would like to be back with her?

    I mean the book is about gossip and sexual innuendo, grudges, Bold and the Beautiful type stuff, so we can all feel free to submit our own gossip.

  11. DaveR

    I believe Emerson with all his political experience and what he says. His agreement with the content of the Turnbull tome just proves that Turnbull did not have the character needed to be PM and he certainly was not a Liberal of any complexion. The Liberal party (all of them, not just the right) must learn from this fiasco otherwise it will happen again. But not with Morrison.

  12. I was confusing him with Roy Emerson, someone who actually did do something and who is entirely worthy of respect and admiration. Not so much Craig.

  13. Iampeter

    Malcolm Turnbull hasn’t written one word about the ABC’s failed multi-million persecution of George Pell – which was the most grievously intolerant example of media corruption in Australian history.

    Probably because this isn’t a thing.

  14. And Another Thing

    The ABC perversely wants more and more taxpayer funding while it loses more and more viewers. It flatters itself as a trusted news organisation as it continues to lose the right to Australians’ trust. And, while it’s sports people refuse to use the stadium names that sponsors are entitled to, it never hesitates to use its huge resources to plug books written by its friends and employees.
    And another thind. Why are politicians so scared of it. It’s women and beta males would run a mile if they were properly confronted.

  15. I Am Peter is so loopy now he’s an unintentional parody of the left.

    A life well lived.

  16. Peter Finch

    Can we put a moratorium on anything to do with Turnbull, say until year end? Please I beg you I can’t take him anymore.

  17. miltonf

    Just another deadshit who’s never had a real job.

  18. Gyro Cadiz

    A screaming cluster of a miserable failure agrees with another screaming cluster of a miserable failure.

    Quélle surprise!

  19. Colonel Bunty Golightly

    A beclowned Emmerson commenting on the rancid musings of a beclowned, failed politician! Let’s face it Turnbull was really never, ever a real prime minister!

  20. Turnbull was really never, ever a real prime minister!

    Was he ever anything but a rancid human being?

  21. win

    If NewsCorp is an unfunded Political Party of Rupert Murdock ,it is interesting that his and Paul Keating’s need for ultra security for their their week long lock down on Hamilton Island when entertaining the soon to be UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and presumably shadow ministers which would indicate they are firmly embedded with Labour UK and Labor Australian. Just who else were present for that week on Hamilton Island ? Perhaps Richo or Mark Latham could enlighten us.

  22. Cynic of Ayr

    Lol! The first crawling, suck up endowment out of the blocks is a labor man!
    Whoda thunk it?
    Watch them all compete. Labor and the ABC and Nine.
    “I’m crawling harder than you are, so there!”
    Morons!

  23. Tim Neilson

    I Am Peter is so loopy now he’s an unintentional parody of the left.

    I’ve occasionally wondered why Iamashiteater doesn’t identify overtly as “progressive” like nearly every other hopelessly unemployable failure in life.

    I think I’ve worked it out.

    Like overt “progressives” Iamashiteater is basically using “politics” as a subconscious rationalisation of his own manifest inadequacies.
    “Progressivism”is great if you’re a female or “minority group” dismal failure, because it gives you a ready made excuse for underachievement. It’s not so straightforward for middle class white heterosexual males, but they can still delude themselves into thinking that their abject track record is caused by their devotion to “activism” ahead of self-advancement, or oppression by people scared of their radical brilliance, or both, or no doubt others.

    But “progressivism” is a crowded market, and its emphasis on group classification rather than individual identity makes it an unsuitable vehicle for Iamshiteater to feel like a Very Special Boy.

    The Ayn Rand cult is better for him. He can pose to himself as the heroic rugged individual who, like John Galt, has CHOSEN to be a dismally underperforming loser and nonentity. The more he fails, the higher his deluded self-esteem. All he has to do to sustain his self-evaluation is strut and preen on this site, sneering at others and spouting his stupid facile absolutist dogmatic generalisations. Being too stupid to understand the refutations of his nonsense, he sees all critiques as evidence supporting his self-image as the heroic rebel.

    It’s harmless enough to others, though immensely irritating. The real problem is that it’s just a pathway leading him further and further away from any chance of real contentment. He needs to snap out of it.

  24. iamok

    I wish the likes of Rudd, Gillard and Turdball would just fuck right off forever. No-one, not one, sane and balanced person gives one shit about what they think they did, what they think now or what they plan to do. Piss off now.

  25. He can pose to himself as the heroic rugged individual who, like John Galt, has CHOSEN to be a dismally underperforming loser and nonentity.

    You’re also describing Turdball.

  26. Tim Neilson

    You’re also describing Turdball.

    And he’s absolutely aced it.

  27. Iampeter

    I Am Peter is so loopy now he’s an unintentional parody of the left.

    But I’m one of the few posters here that can’t be described this way.

  28. Mother Lode

    I’ve been in & around politics since 1984

    Shouldn’t that be:

    I’ve been in & around politics modelled on 1984

  29. Rayvic

    Enjoy Malcolm at his fanciful best.

    Of course, he does not have a cross word for the ABC, as he concurs with its green-left ideology.

  30. cuckoo

    The ABC perversely wants more and more taxpayer funding while it loses more and more viewers.

    You must be joking. Why, only yesterday morning on RN Geraldine Doogue assured us all that ABC ratings were “through the roof” thanks to COVID seclusion. Then she amusingly talked herself into a corner intro’ing a piece on falling advertising revenues for media, when she had to stammeringly remind us that, er, of course the, er, ABC doesn’t..depend on, er, advertising revenue. Do tell.

  31. And Another Thing

    That must be why they throw all those resources into advertising themselves and the books written by them and their mates. Who else could get a special 7.30 just to promote their book on the day it’s published?

  32. Chris

    1 amp eta…
    Hmmm. Actually he is very helpful to me. I don’t watch the ABC at all. Byoccasionally reading a phrase from 1 amp eta’s posts I know I am missing nothing.

  33. Iampeter

    @Chris – conservatives don’t watch the ABC because it caters to millennial leftists, not the boomer leftists of the conservative movement.

  34. Des Deskperson

    ‘You must be joking. Why, only yesterday morning on RN Geraldine Doogue assured us all that ABC ratings were “through the roof” thanks to COVID seclusion.’

    Well the ABC’s main channel had a splendid night last night, with 19.6 % of the FTA audience, according too TV tonight.

    Friday was a mediocre 14.1% and Thursday was back to the -typical – 11.3%

    Maybe it’s ‘Death in Paradise’ and then ‘Van der Valk’ that gets the punters, although the latter is slick and nasty compared to what I remember of the Barry Foster series some decades ago.

  35. Clam Chowdah

    The Left and their obsession with Murdoch. What a bunch of tools.

  36. Hay Stockard

    I actively campaigned for Peter King when Turnbull first ran. Despite this we got on well socially. I would still be amiable to him if our paths ever crossed, even though he is a ratbag.
    Emerson I would treat like a barkers egg on my shoe.
    Morrison is the one who makes my blood boil.
    I won’t be reading his book. I might buy it to give to someone I don’t like.

  37. Sean

    As per the chaser ‘the book fell apart after it was released without a spine’

  38. John A

    cuckoo #3418542, posted on April 19, 2020 at 9:37 am

    If Emmo has read it, then I guess he’s found his lost contact lenses.

    Or maybe he got the Large Print or Picture Book edition? 🙂

  39. cohenite

    Didn’t emmo root the slapper? He wouldn’t know his arse from a funnel web burrow.

  40. cohenite

    Iampeter
    #3418922, posted on April 19, 2020 at 1:16 pm

    Do you support the 2nd Amendment?

  41. Iampeter

    @cohenite, what does that have to do with my post #3418922?

  42. JC

    Cronkite’s asking you a straight forward question. Stop the girly attempt at avoiding it and answer directly.

    Yes or no?

  43. Crossie

    Turnbull has a point about ScoMo who conspired with him to oust Abbott and the conspired with others to oust Turnbull. Mirror images those two.

  44. Iampeter

    Cronkite’s asking you a straight forward question. Stop the girly attempt at avoiding it and answer directly.
    Yes or no?

    Random tangents are the girly attempts at avoiding what was being said.
    Keeping someone on point is what the honest person does.

    Here’s a question for you JC, since you barged in, what sort of government does the Constitution establish?
    If you can answer that, then the next question is, do you think the Bill of Rights is a good idea or a bad idea and why?

  45. Iampeter…..
    #3418922, posted on April 19, 2020 at 1:16 pm
    Do you support the 2nd Amendment?

    Well, do ya, punk?

  46. Iampeter

    @Legalise – you certainly don’t.
    I mean the right to bear arms is an “individual right” and you’ve just described concepts like that as, “patently, absurdly dishonest and anti-liberal & downright regressive to the point of being misanthropic.”

  47. H B Bear

    The Legover Man is back.

    Murdoch conspiracies are great subjects for Lefty dinner parties. Ever since he brought down The Great Man in 1975.

    Naturally,Waffleworth is just looking for someone else to blame for his failure.

  48. Iampeter

    Answer the fucking question you c**t.

    Uh-oh. Raving nut job getting angry!
    OK, OK, I’ll tell you before you hurt yourself. I support the right to bear arms. I’m curious how this ties into the fact that conservatives are boomer leftists?

    In any case, you don’t support the second amendment or the constitution which you don’t even understand. You are a far-left authoritarian who doesn’t even realize it.

    Also, just an FYI, children who don’t know anything about politics are the ones who spend time on a playground asking each other if they support the second amendment because they are imitating what they think adults discussing politics sounds like.

  49. I don’t understand the US constitution?

    Great. Explain to me how a US citizen ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY protests to the Orange Man Bad motorcade driving past his house, how he is violating anyone at all’s right to free speech and private property?

    You absolute lunatic.

  50. Iampeter

    I don’t understand the US constitution?

    Great. Explain to me how a US citizen ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY protests to the Orange Man Bad motorcade driving past his house, how he is violating anyone at all’s right to free speech and private property?

    You absolute lunatic.

    That’s not how it works, nut job.
    If you want to prove that you understand the Constitution then YOU need to be doing the answering.
    Although, the utterly bizarre question you chose to ask is an answer in and of itself.
    You are a Lunatic indeed. A raving lunatic.

    What are people like JC supposed to do?

  51. So you prove a drug addled assertion by asking someone who disagrees with it to answer their own hypothetical, based on your bogus ideas?

    The answer is it doesn’t, now shut up.

  52. Tim Neilson

    Iamashiteater!

    You’re not John Galt.

    John Galt achieved things before embarking on a path of obscure underachievement. He didn’t launch straight into that from day 1 like you have with your life.

    Go away and try to achieve something. When you’ve succeeded, then if you choose to revert to being a dismal failure your pose as some great insightful critic of others’ views may have some hope of credibility.

  53. Iampeter

    @Legalise Sedition – if you actually wanted to shut me up you would’ve just explained what the Constitution does. But you don’t know.
    What a thorough beclowning.

    @Tim – you’ve got a new friend joining you on the short bus. He’s going to fit right in with you lot!

  54. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3416954, posted on April 18, 2020 at 11:00 am
    ….
    Protesting is a violation of peoples speech and property rights. It should not be legal.
    But nobody today understands how rights work.

    Legalise Sedition
    #3419192, posted on April 19, 2020 at 3:28 pm
    I don’t understand the US constitution?

    ….Explain to me how a US citizen ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY protests to the Orange Man Bad motorcade driving past his house, how he is violating anyone at all’s right to free speech and private property?

    Iampeter
    #3419203, posted on April 19, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    That’s not how it works, nut job.
    If you want to prove that you understand the Constitution then YOU need to be doing the answering.
    Although, the utterly bizarre question you chose to ask is an answer in and of itself.

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    Sweepstake on his response to this:
    (a) doubling down on utter imbecility;
    (b) toddler tantrum;
    (c ) scurrying off for some comfort masturbation.

  55. cohenite

    I’ll take that as a no you slippery bastard. And that makes you a fucking leftie. No conservative opposes the 2nd and the right of any citizen to defend themselves.

  56. Iampeter

    I’ll take that as a no you slippery bastard. And that makes you a fucking leftie.

    Except I literally answered yes in #3419183. Not that it would prove anything and the connection you’re trying to make here just demonstrates that you don’t know anything about politics, not even how to determine if someone is right wing or left wing.

    I’ll explain it to you, to be right wing is to support individual rights, rights-protecting government and capitalism. Since you don’t understand any of these concepts, in fact likely oppose individual rights completely, like most posters here, it is therefore YOU that is the actual “fucking leftie.”

    Now I’ll let you get back to imitating children who are imitating adults discussing politics.

  57. Tim Neilson

    Tim Neilson
    #3419230, posted on April 19, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    Sweepstake on his response to this:
    (a) doubling down on utter imbecility;
    (b) toddler tantrum;
    (c ) scurrying off for some comfort masturbation.

    Iampeter
    #3419334, posted on April 19, 2020 at 5:06 pm

    Looks like Sportsbet has to pay out on (c ).

  58. cohenite

    Except I literally answered yes in #3419183.

    So you did; carry on.

  59. Iampeter

    So you did; carry on.

    Carry on? Don’t mind if I do:
    What was the point of asking me if I support he 2nd Amendment on the back of the comment you quoted in this thread?
    What do you think the Constitution does that you need to ask this kind of question anyway?

    @Tim – unless you can explain what kind of government the American Constitution establishes we’re kinda done pretending you have any business on a politics blog. Better get Googling, clown.

  60. Craig

    What is this, Twitter? Facebook? Fascist state Germany 1935? What the fuck is wrong with the muppet who took out my comment? You know Malcom is a useless [scoundrel – ed.]!

  61. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater, experiencing an achingly rigid boner in anticipation of a “gotcha”, instead setting himself up to reveal once again his utter inability to think except in cartoon-like absolutist simplistic labels.

    How one describes the US government depends on what issue is being discussed.
    One could describe it as “Federal”, or as a “constitutional republic” (though that term is so vague as to be nearly meaningless), or by reference to its similarities to, and differences from, a Westminster system of government, and so on.

    The one thing that’s certain is that identifying it by a simplistic label will merely reveal the intellectual deficiencies of the labeller.

  62. Tim Neilson

    PS how about answering Legalise Sedition’s question now that it’s been revealed to be a perfectly valid enquiry about your own previous pronouncement about “protest”.

  63. Lee

    Poor old Iamashiteater, experiencing an achingly rigid boner in anticipation of a “gotcha”, instead setting himself up to reveal once again his utter inability to think except in cartoon-like absolutist simplistic labels.

    As I said on another thread he sees everything in black and white, no shades of grey at all.
    He also sees every single thing through his extremely warped political ideology.

  64. cohenite

    What was the point of asking me if I support he 2nd Amendment on the back of the comment you quoted in this thread?

    I didn’t read the other comment. I just wanted to know where you stood on the 2nd since only conservatives support it. You tend to rabbit on and I wanted to clarify it.

  65. Nob

    You should all pull your heads in.

    Peter is an entrepreneur creating value and adding to Australia’s wealth.

    Anytime now .

  66. Iampeter

    How one describes the US government depends on what issue is being discussed.
    One could describe it as “Federal”, or as a “constitutional republic” (though that term is so vague as to be nearly meaningless), or by reference to its similarities to, and differences from, a Westminster system of government, and so on.

    Um…no. There’s only one correct way to describe it but you just threw in whatever political sounding words you could think of.
    Also, this wasn’t what I was asking. You didn’t even understand the question.

    No wonder you are so desperate to go down random tangents and bring up whatever non-sequiturs you can think of.

    Anything to avoid facing the fact you don’t know anything.

  67. Peter O'Brien

    During the time he was a Minister in the Rudd/Gillard years, Emerson had a regular column (probably weekly) in the Weekend Australian.

  68. Tim Neilson

    Um…no. There’s only one correct way to describe it but you just threw in whatever political sounding words you could think of.

    Which is…?

    And why don’t you answer Legalise Sedition’s question now it’s been proved to be a valid enquiry about your previous assertion about “protests”?

  69. Iampeter

    Which is…?

    That’s what I’m asking you. I asked YOU what sort of government the American Constitution establishes.
    You don’t know. You have no business on a political blog, taking the kind of tone that you take, hurling abuse at people you disagree with, because you don’t even know the basics. What a thorough beclowning.

  70. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3420218, posted on April 20, 2020 at 9:24 am

    That is the most contemptible childish sub-performance in human history.

    I’ve explained patiently to you that cartoon-like labels are inadequate. You’re too stupid, conceited and ignorant to understand that.
    But if you wish to argue the contrary the onus now falls on you to justify your assertion.

    But you can’t. Because there isn’t one simple description that encompasses all aspects of the US government as established under their Constitution.
    You’re just straight out lying.

    OK, prove me wrong.

    Iamashiteater, I know it must be galling for you to be a contemptible pathetic loser, failure and nonentity in life.
    But strutting onto this site and telling whopping lies like you’ve just told doesn’t solve or even mitigate your problems – it just entrenches them.

    Seriously, log onto Centrelink and try to get a job. It’s for your own good.

    And why won’t you answer Legalise Sedition’s question now it’s been proved to be a valid enquiry about your previous assertion about “protests”?

  71. Iampeter

    That is the most contemptible childish sub-performance in human history.

    Well, that’s a perfect description of your behavior. Although I strongly suspect you are on the spectrum, so it’s more than just being childish.

    I’ve explained patiently to you that cartoon-like labels are inadequate. You’re too stupid, conceited and ignorant to understand that.

    You “patiently explaining” that you don’t know what you’re talking about does not make me “stupid, conceited and ignorant.” You are again just describing yourself.

    Because there isn’t one simple description that encompasses all aspects of the US government as established under their Constitution.

    That’s because you don’t know anything.

    We’re done, clown.

  72. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #3420284, posted on April 20, 2020 at 9:51 am

    Talk about revealing yourself to be a liar.

    Your bluff has been called and you’ve had to fold.

    Enjoy the humiliation.

  73. Iampeter

    Um, nope.

    You can’t answer a simple political question put to you. It’s all just too complex with so many variables!
    Yet you spend time on a blog about politics, spouting clueless nonsense with a pretentious tone, while hurling abuse and personal attacks at those you disagree with.

    The only liar facing constant humiliation here is you.
    You are thoroughly beclowned and there is no coming back from it.

  74. Tim Neilson

    You can’t answer a simple political question put to you.

    I did answer it.
    And I answered it correctly.

    You made the big statement about [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”, and when your bluff was called to state what that way was, you folded, thus revealing yourself to be a total unmitigated liar.

  75. Iampeter

    I did answer it.
    And I answered it correctly.

    No you didn’t. You attempted to answer it by throwing a word salad of political sounding words and then conceded that you don’t know how to answer it because it’s too big a question for you. To be able to answer it would be a “cartoon-like label.” In other words, you don’t know.
    This is pretty far from “I answered it correctly.”

    You then tried to throw it back onto me in the classic Cat attempt to turn your lack of knowledge into an argument. The lack of self awareness to routinely attempt slimy stunts like this and then call anyone else a liar is pretty epic.

    In any case, someone who knows what they are talking about can describe the American form of government in one short sentence.

    Hint: I’ve already mentioned it in this thread. I mention it in most threads. You can’t actually discuss right wing politics without knowing basics like this.

    There’s no recovering for you.
    All you can do is keep digging.

  76. Tim Neilson

    FFS is that all you’ve got?

    You now know that your bluff has been called.

    You’ve been proved to be a liar because you’ve got nothing to back up your stupid lie that [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”.

    Pro tip: the mere fact that you personally choose to describe the form of the US government in a particular way doesn’t prove that that description is adequate or even accurate. Secretly you realise that. That’s why you’re gutlessing out of backing up your own falsehood, in a cowardly display of pure gutlessness and dishonesty.

  77. Iampeter

    FFS is that all you’ve got?

    Pointing out you have no clue is not “all you’ve got,” it’s all I need.

    Pro tip: the mere fact that you personally choose to describe the form of the US government in a particular way doesn’t prove that that description is adequate or even accurate.

    You don’t know either way so there’s no point in you getting so worked up about it.

    That’s why you’re gutlessing out of backing up your own falsehood, in a cowardly display of pure gutlessness and dishonesty.

    This is more of your tiresome projection.
    Something you wouldn’t need to engage in if I was in any way wrong about anything.

  78. Tim Neilson

    You have said that [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it” and that “someone who knows what they are talking about can describe the American form of government in one short sentence”.

    Then your bluff has been called.

    You’ve been asked for that short sentence, and you’ve folded.

    You can’t do it.

    You were lying.

  79. Iampeter

    You have said that [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it” and that “someone who knows what they are talking about can describe the American form of government in one short sentence”.
    Then your bluff has been called.

    That’s not a bluff, that’s a fact. I’ve also mentioned the answer in this thread, but you have no idea.

    You’ve been asked for that short sentence, and you’ve folded.

    No, YOU were asked this question and YOU can’t answer it, which means YOU are the one folding.

    Obviously.

    Wonder what new angle you’ll take next as you keep digging. I couldn’t even make this shit up.

  80. Tim Neilson

    No, YOU were asked this question and YOU can’t answer it, which means YOU are the one folding.

    Poor old imbecilic logic fail.

    I never said that [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it” or that “someone who knows what they are talking about can describe the American form of government in one short sentence”. In fact I said the opposite.

    So my not producing such a sentence isn’t “folding” at all.

    You’ve made the BIG statements – your bluff has been called and you’ve dweebed out because you know you were lying.

    So, come on, just spell out that sentence so there’ll be no gutlessing out when I eviscerate you for your conceit, stupidity and ignorance in pretending that that sentence validates your bullshit.

    But you won’t. You’re too gutless and dishonest to even try to back up your lies.

  81. Iampeter

    In fact I said the opposite.

    The means you’re conceding you don’t know how to describe it.

    Dig, dig.

  82. Tim Neilson

    I said it couldn’t accurately be described in a short sentence. And that’s just a simple statement of fact.
    Of course I could describe it if I were to write at length about it. But why would I? Anyone who wants to know about it can read the Federalist Papers.

    Poor old gutless dweeb, desperately twisting and turning to disguise the fact that you’ve been caught out in a stupid conceited lie.

  83. Iampeter

    I said it couldn’t accurately be described in a short sentence. And that’s just a simple statement of fact.

    Which means you don’t know.

    Of course I could describe it if I were to write at length about it.

    Yea, so could a thousand monkeys at a thousand type writers. This also concedes you don’t know. Obviously. I can’t believe you even typed this out.

    Poor old gutless dweeb, desperately twisting and turning to disguise the fact that you’ve been caught out in a stupid conceited lie.

    Nope. I just asked if you knew what kind of government the Constitution established in America and you’ve conceded that you don’t know.

    So you’re describing yourself again.

  84. Tim Neilson

    As I said way back, how you describe the government of the US depends on what issue you’re focussing on. You sneered and said [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”.

    In Federalist 14 James Madison described the Constitution as establishing a “republic” rather than a “democracy”.

    In Federalist 39 Madison described the Constitution as establishing a “federal” government rather than a “national” one.

    This alone should be sufficient to disprove your assertion that [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”.

    Unless you regard yourself as a superior authority on the US Constitution than Madison.

    Now, having utterly destroyed one of your contentions, leaving you totally humiliatingly exposed as a conceited stupid ignoramus…

    Put up your “short sentence” for demolition, or remain proved to be a wilful liar and gutless coward.

  85. Iampeter

    As I said way back, how you describe the government of the US depends on what issue you’re focussing on. You sneered and said [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”.

    Because that doesn’t answer the question I asked.
    It demonstrates that you didn’t even understand the question.

    Also, why are you now trying to answer it?
    You’ve gone from saying you’ve “answered it correctly,” to it’s it’s too complicated to answer here, you need to write an essay or something.
    Now you’re back to trying to answer it by randomly quoting the Federalist Papers, probably because you did some Googling and the bit included the word “Constitution.”

    HAhahahahahahaahah.

    This thread is bookmark gold!

    Dig, dig.

  86. Tim Neilson

    Here’s your original question to me:

    Tim – unless you can explain what kind of government the American Constitution establishes we’re kinda done pretending you have any business on a politics blog.

    Here’s your later comment:

    [T]”here’s only one correct way to describe it”.

    So now you’re saying James Madison was incorrect to describe the government as a “republic”? Or was he incorrect to describe it as “federal”? Or both?

    How are they not both descriptions of the “kind of government” established by the Constitution?

    Answer: they are – Iamashiteater is a stupid conceited ignoramus who’s tragically beclowning himself with his continued lies.

  87. Iampeter

    So now you’re saying James Madison was incorrect to describe the government as a “republic”? Or was he incorrect to describe it as “federal”? Or both?

    Hang on.
    You said you’ve previously answered my question correctly.
    Then you said you couldn’t answer the question because it was too big.
    Now you’re quoting something James Madison said? To try and answer the question?

    What even is this?

    Like I said, you don’t even understand the question. But you have bigger problems than not knowing anything about politics.

    Dig, dig.

  88. Tim Neilson

    You said you’ve previously answered my question correctly.

    I did. I said it couldn’t be satisfactorily answered simplistically. That was a correct answer.

    Then you said you couldn’t answer the question because it was too big.

    No I didn’t. I said it couldn’t be satisfactorily answered simplistically.

    Poor old logic fail – unable to understand simple factually and logically correct statements.

    Now you’re quoting something James Madison said? To try and answer the question?

    No, as an example of why my previous answer was correct and your statement that there’s only one correct way of describing it was bullshit.

    Poor old logic fail – it’s just so desperately sad.

    Like I said, you don’t even understand the question.

    Let’s repeat the question: Tim – unless you can explain what kind of government the American Constitution establishes we’re kinda done pretending you have any business on a politics blog.

    Correct answers include “republic” and “federal”.

    Your sneering just indicates either your total failure to articulate the question properly or your dishonesty in persisting in your “one correct answer” lie which you’ve consistently refused to validate (which is because you’re too embarrassed to humiliate yourself).

  89. Iampeter

    I did. I said it couldn’t be satisfactorily answered simplistically. That was a correct answer.

    Which means you don’t know the answer.

    What a fool.

    Dig, dig.

  90. Tim Neilson

    Which means you don’t know the answer.

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant logic fail.

    Still unable to answer his own question.

    Or unwilling actually.

    Too embarrassed to give the answer he originally thought he would give because he now realises how appallingly he’d beclown himself if he actually said it.

    Just say it. Get it over with.

    Oh all right, since I can’t get you to admit it, I’ll say it – You’ve been tugging your peen for the last day or so about “rights protecting governments”, which is the most stupid facile idiotic imbecilic thing you could possibly say is a description of the “kind of government” the US Constitution establishes.

    Now do your backflip.

  91. Tim Neilson

    PS how can you possibly be stupid and conceited enough to claim that that’s “the one correct way”to describe the kind of government the US constitution establishes?

    Why isn’t “republic” or “federal” a “kind of government”?

  92. Iampeter

    “rights protecting governments”, which is the most stupid facile idiotic imbecilic thing you could possibly say is a description of the “kind of government” the US Constitution establishes.

    Bookmarked and thank you. You have now conceded that you are a politically illiterate leftist who has spent years on a right wing blog because you simply don’t understand anything.

    Before it’s really my word against yours, not that there was ever much doubt given your blatherings, but after this there is no slipping away.

    There is no recovering from this you clueless leftard.

    PS how can you possibly be stupid and conceited enough to claim that that’s “the one correct way”to describe the kind of government the US constitution establishes?

    Why isn’t “republic” or “federal” a “kind of government”?

    BAhahahahaahahahaha *facepalm*

    Hahahahahahaahah

  93. Tim Neilson

    Why isn’t “republic” or “federal” a “kind of government”?

    BAhahahahaahahahaha *facepalm*

    Hahahahahahaahah

    I.e I’m right and you’ve got no answer.

    Just because you’re too conceited and stupid to understand what the plain words “kind of government” mean.

  94. Iampeter

    Tim, you’ve written that “rights protecting governments, which is the most stupid facile idiotic imbecilic thing you could possibly say is a description of the “kind of government” the US Constitution establishes.”

    You wrote this. You actually wrote this.
    You are a far left authoritarian with zero grasp of politics.

    I can’t imagine what you’ve spent years doing on a right wing blog.

    There’s no recovering from this. Every time you try to pretend to be fighting whoever you refer to as “leftists” all I have to do is link back to what you’ve written here.

    Even the most clueless Marxist isn’t this clueless. The jig is up.

  95. Tim Neilson

    There’s no recovering from this. Every time you try to pretend to be fighting whoever you refer to as “leftists” all I have to do is link back to what you’ve written here.

    Poor old macro-logic fail imbecile.

    Here’s what I said: “rights protecting governments, which is the most stupid facile idiotic imbecilic thing you could possibly say is a description of the “kind of government” the US Constitution establishes.”

    How do you infer from that anything about my views as to whether protecting rights is a good thing?

    Answer, you can’t! Because the statement has nothing to do with that. The statement is solely about whether “rights protecting government” is remotely adequate as a description of the government established under the US Constitution.

    For an analogous lesson in logic, go and read David Hume on “is” and “ought”.

    Poor old failure. You really do make the universe more stupid by your mere existence.

    Poor old intellectual failure. You really are a pathetically sad case.

  96. Iampeter

    How do you infer from that anything about my views as to whether protecting rights is a good thing?

    I infer you don’t know anything about politics from this.
    But if you thought protecting rights was a good thing you’d be advocating for it all the time. In reality you don’t even what rights are and always advocate for their violation.
    You not understanding that American government is the worlds first rights-protecting government, just vindicates what I’ve always thought about you.

    You are a politically illiterate leftist.

    The statement is solely about whether “rights protecting government” is remotely adequate as a description of the government established under the US Constitution.

    I know you’d prefer to describe it as a word salad of political sounding words, because you don’t know how to describe it, or what those words even mean, but that would be incorrect.

    Also, you can barely string two thoughts together, routinely make arbitrary assertions or tangents and engage in a pretense of lecturing people on topics you know nothing about. For you to then criticize anyone’s logic makes about as much sense as you calling anyone else a liar.

    You’re biggest problem isn’t your total ignorance per se, it’s your complete lack of self awareness.

Comments are closed.