So, on post # 98, nothing has been resolved....yet again.
Right leaning conservatives haven't changed their mind and left leaning socialists haven't changed their mind. No surprises there.
Nothing to do with lefty or righty here Dazz, stupidity and intellectual laziness is just plain 'stupidity' regardless of leanings or values or belief or politics...you may have an 'opinion' that it is politically driven (by myself), but I would respectfully suggest you remove your bias goggles, step back and do what you do so well, inspect the real matter and facts at hand.
With Andrew Bolt being on the right wing of politics, it comes as no surprise that those whom view the world with the values system of the right, agree with the thrust of his views in general. Those who subscribe to the values system of the left, disagree with the thrust of his views in general.
Of course, those journalists being on the left wing of politics, and the issues they raise, the opposite is true for both wings.
...and so the wheel turns...
..and at post 101, I respectfully add that it's an insult (generally speaking), to the people (who call themselves right wingers), to hold or support the ridiculous assumptions of Andrew Bolt. To lump all of the relative conservatives into Andrew's stinking pen is generalising and stereotyping.
Y'all remember Andrew's coverage piece on Anders Breivek?
The aftermath of news like that from Oslo leaves only numbness. The injustice of it, the disbelief that this was even possible. Bombs at least kill in a single action. The deliberate persistence involved in attacks like Anders Breivik’s make them all the more distressing.
As reports began to come in, it was the last subject in the world you would have imagined being used for political point-scoring. But if ever someone was going to do just that, it was Andrew Bolt.
First thing last Saturday morning, with news still scant, he was on his blog suggesting that Muslim terrorists were behind the attack. Not an outrageous assumption, by any stretch, but ‘pretty sure’ shouldn’t be enough for such a prominent columnist to proceed without confirmation.
Contradictory news soon came in, and the page was hastily and almost comically corrected. “Already the unconfirmed reports suggest our immediate suspicions are correct (UPDATE: No, they aren’t)…”
Excerpts only:
“Even so,” Bolt went on, “the history of Islamic violence in Scandinavia suggests Muslim immigration there has been a bad deal for the locals.”
Hold up a minute. “Even so”? At what point does a misplaced assumption like that earn the right to an addendum?
In an action replay, it goes: “In latest news, here is some evidence that would definitely prove that I’m right. Oh, wait a minute, that evidence doesn’t exist. Even so, I am actually right, and let’s proceed with that assumption.”
And that was before we even got to the backup evidence. The “history of Islamic violence” that Bolt was able to provide for Norway consisted of three men being arrested (not yet charged or convicted) for possibly planning an attack on either a newspaper or an embassy, no-one is quite sure; and a charge against a man for threatening a politician.
So, two instances of alleged offences that haven’t even gone to court. Not the most weighty habeas corpus ever to land on a judge’s desk.
From:
Errors of the Gospel of St Bolt for his devoted followers...