> On Jul 11, 10:57 am, "Clubsprint"
nospam.com> wrote:>> It's funny that you guys say "educated lefty" like it's some sort of insult.
>> So would that make you "uneducated righties" as you guys seem to like to
>> define the world as "black and white", "wrong and right" etc.
>
> Universities and public schools brainwash students with left wing
> propaganda
I guess left wing propaganda must be showing students that there are at
least two sides to every story.
> because the lecturers / teachers are all dependent on the
> government for their source of income and are seldom held accountable
> for their performance like you would be in the private sector.
You don't know much about how performance is measured in the academic
world, do you? The most successful academics have to be the most
self-centred, self-promoting intellectual capitalists the world has ever
seen. Your vision is at least forty years out of date, which is funny
because you can't possibly have made it to forty yourself. You think and
write like an adolescent, though you are older, which means you have
less excuse for your naivety.
> So
> educated lefty is an accurate description of academic with no real
> world experience.
Like who? Give an example. This phenomenon you are describing is a
figment of your rather flaccid imagination.
>Think you'll find the average liberal party
> supporter has higher education levels than labor supporters.
Ah then, they don't seem to have been tainted by association with all
these left academics trying desperately to convince them to let other
people work to provide them their living. Your head is empty of
everything except out of date stereotypes.
>> I've generally found that the more you are willing to question and analyse
>> politics and the media the more that your views will move left.
>
> There is a famous saying from a French philospher that he would
> disinherit his son if he was 20 and not a socialist for not having a
> heart, but would disinherit him if he was 40 and not a capitalist for
> not having a brain. Think you'll find your comments merely reflect
> your personal bias not fact, as people get older they tend to be more
> conservative.
Your forgot the last part of his statement - that if by 60 he had not
gained enough compassion for his fellow human beings to want nothing
more than to serve those less fortunate than himself, his life would
have been worth nothing.
>> I think you will find that Liberals generally have a selfish and self
>> centred attitude. > It's the "I'm alright Jack" mentality.
>
> Not at all true, it is the leftest that is more selfish, they want
> someone else to support them with social welfare instead of working
> hard to get ahead and supporting themselves.
If you seriously believe that, then whatever education you have had has
been entirely worthless.
>
> Hence the "I don't watch the ABC so I
>> don't want
>> my tax dollars spent on it" statements. Do you want your tax dollars spent
>> on
>> public Health, Education, Old Age Pensions, Human Resources? Probably not
>> because it
>> doesn't benefit you. What about then arts? Coservation?
>
> Oh spare us the rhetoric, the ABC is not an essential service lik
> public health or education.
If you seriously believe that, then you have not the faintest idea how
information is bought and sold.
>
>> Are you happy for your tax dollars to be spent on private schools to the
>> exclusion of
>> public schools to help guarantee the next round priviledged bigots?
>
> You are showing more ignorance. Private schools receive less funding
> per student than public schools which means taxpayer parents must pay
> more for the right to send their children to a better school. Why
> shouldn't private schools receive the same funding as public schools
> if you really want fairness?
Why should not each child with the same abilities as another have the
same opportunity at an equal quality of education in a country rolling
in surplus capital?
>> Tell us what else you don't want your tax dollars spent on?
>
> Social welfare for able bodied people. The dole should be cutoff for
> those physically able to work.
And if they cannot find a job, in spite of their best endeavours? What
then, little fella?
>> Better yet tell us how they should be used?
>> Obviously aususa likes his media to be delivered corporately sanitised for
>> his digestion.
>
> You want left wing biased media like the ABC, fine, you pay for it
> like I pay for my foxtel.
You should certainly have to pay for something as useless and elitist as
Foxtel. All have the right to access a free and independent broadcasting
service, paid for by the state. Unfortunately, the ABC feels obliged to
kowtow constantly to the politicians who hold the purse strings, so I
use the words 'free and independent' loosely. Hardly surprising when you
see what they've done to its budget in the past ten years.
>> Tell me do you like your tax dollars being spent on supporting an illegal
>> military action
>> to guarantee future oil supplies for the US and it's allies? Brendan
>> verified.
>> I suppose you have swallowed the "lie" about "programs of weapons of mass
>> destruction".
>
> I oppose the Iraq war, but the Australian people had a chance to voice
> their opinon in the last election and reelected Howard despite his
> support for the Iraq war which says it is not a significant issue to
> the Australian public.
Rubbish. It says that the electorate had other priorities that were more
important to them, like being frightened witless by lies that they
couldn't pay their mortgage under Labor. And at that stage people really
thought there was some morality about that war. They were deluded by
Foxtel I guess... :)
>> Actually saw a debate about Iraq on Channel 9's Sunday program years before
>> 9/11 where a
>> weapons inspector confirmed the was no WOMD in Iraq and a sociologist
>> specialised in
>> Middle East culture stated that if you remove Sadam you will have years of
>> civil war and
>> millions of deaths. Funny that. Someone didn't want to listen eh?
>
> Yet Bill Clinton and the leaders of Europe all believed Saddam had WMD
> which could not be verified. Of course people like you could give a
> rats arse that Saddam over 1 million people during his ruthless rule
> as long as you can live a relaxed and comfortable lifestyle in the
> land of Oz.
Only a fool raises the spectre of Saddam's misdeeds when ignoring the
same sorts of misdeeds of several other dictators around the world at
the same time. You are kidding yourself. One word, three letters... OIL
- got it? Right now the US supports or ignores dictators who do just as
much evil as Saddam, so get that one out of the equation. It's a moral
sop for simpletons. Right now, Iraq is far, far worse off than it ever
was under Saddam, and the worst is yet to come for them, thanks entirely
to US miscalculations, arrogance and ignorance.
>> That's your lovely USA and we bend over for them whenevr asked.
>
> Australia only has a token force in Iraq and have only themselves to
> blame, not the USA for having troops in Iraq. Now tell me if Rudd is
> elected when do you think he will bring the troops home from Iraq and
> Afganistan?
Of course he will bring them home as soon as he can get them out of
there without upsetting the Americans too much. That won't be hard, as
Bush is now a lame-duck president, with support for the war melting away
in his own ranks.
>> Liberals - selfish ostriches
>
> Lefties - selfish bludgers.
Love the stereotypes. How far do you seriously think you can get using
such infantile terminology? You need a genuine education.
Rifty
--
riftynet - put a dot after rifty
