A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
So we should all vote for Bush?
Published on October 26, 2004 By Champas Socialist In Democrat
I think it was Draginol who was saying that although Kerry had won the debates, that he finds the Republican arguments more convincing. Fair enough, but what I don’t understand about the Republicans at the moment is, why on Earth would they choose such an idiot for their leadership? There are smarter people in the Republican party. There are more likeable people in their Party. Wouldn’t they be better off choosing someone else? Wouldn’t it be better for their own cause to have someone who actually understands why they’re doing what they’re doing?

Bush makes the Republican case look even stupider than it actually is. He flip flops about because he doesn’t think for himself. He just does whatever he’s told to do by Cheney, Powell and co. But when he’s actually asked to think on the spot, to explain his position, he just doesn’t know why he’s doing it. We’ve all seen the footage of him being left flabbergasted at press conferences, even when he’s not been asked particularly hard-hitting questions. The press are giving him an opportunity to make his case, but he doesn’t know how to do it.

I can just picture Bush in Government meetings, sitting on the edge of his seat, like an eager little stupid child, watching as these really smart men talk about the issues of the world, using big words that he would like to emulate (or is that emulatate?). I bet Bush sits there thinking “Wow! My Dad must have been really smart to mix with these dudes. They know so much stuff. One day, I wanna be just like them and blow up Iraqis too. They sound like a bad people, cos Dad never seemed to like them. I know how I’ll impress Mr Powell, I’ll say that we should invade Iraq. That made Dad really popular.”. Of course, I may be wrong in assuming that Dubya was sober when he made the decision.

Even if you believe in Republicanism, surely you want somebody who knows what they’re doing to be running the country? It’s dangerous for you to have such a moron having such control.

For an example, look at Australia. The racists didn’t vote for Pauline Hanson to be PM. They voted for John Howard to implement her policies for her because he has half a brain. Howard showed during the debates that he doesn’t completely understand the issues he’s facing or know how to solve them either, but he comes across as having slight intelligence at least.

Who knows what Bush will do next, because he doesn’t even know. But given his track record, it’s not likely to be a good or justified action. If the Republicans lose, at least they can pick a new leader who knows what he’s doing, who knows how to deal with a crisis. The job of US President is an important one that shouldn’t just be left in the hands of any stupid joker with an opinion. You wouldn’t employ someone as the head of a company just because they believe that making a profit is a good goal to have.

Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 01, 2004
Pictoratus, he says I shouldn't have the RIGHT to say this. That's pretty darn close to censorship.


I don't see how MY saying ANYTHING will deprive you of anythingby any government. You can say what you please just as I can say what I want!


Its not what you said but the implications of what you said that is the point. If he didn't have the RIGHT to make fun of your president that would censorship.

As for what you said about "values" before. It seems your values are: if your president does something wrong we shouldn't speak against him, because he's your president. Wow, so much reason and logic there...I don't even know where to begin!
on Nov 01, 2004
Pictoratus, if we want to get as nit picky as you have, you might note that BlueDev's accusation was not actually an accusation of censorship, but an accusation of attempts at censorship. I have noticed many of the Right forgetting these sorts of little details when attempting to characterise the "Left". Just as the Australian Government rabbited on about Latham trying to get the troops home by Christmas ON THE CONDITION THE JOB WAS DONE.
Arguing in favour of my not having the right to criticise the President is an attempt at censorship in the same way that my blog is an attempt to get Kerry elected or in the same way that someone participating in any public debate is trying to convince others that their point of view should be the one taken on by Government and the majority.
Drmiler, your name might not be Kerry, but you flip flop as much as Bush, which is as much as Kerry. I just love how the Right never notice when they flip flop or when they throw names at other people or cry "censorship". Why? Because it's the Right's right. They are born to rule, Right? The Democrats and Republicans are very much equal on these fronts and you both should have the decency to admit it rather than being blinded by your own allegiances. There is more to the world than joeuser.
Pictoratus, it is relevant to call the President stupid if the shoe fits because this is a highly important job that takes intelligence to do well.
on Nov 01, 2004

Reply #47 By: Champas Socialist - 11/1/2004 2:46:38 AM
Pictoratus, if we want to get as nit picky as you have, you might note that BlueDev's accusation was not actually an accusation of censorship, but an accusation of attempts at censorship. I have noticed many of the Right forgetting these sorts of little details when attempting to characterise the "Left". Just as the Australian Government rabbited on about Latham trying to get the troops home by Christmas ON THE CONDITION THE JOB WAS DONE.
Arguing in favour of my not having the right to criticise the President is an attempt at censorship in the same way that my blog is an attempt to get Kerry elected or in the same way that someone participating in any public debate is trying to convince others that their point of view should be the one taken on by Government and the majority.
Drmiler, your name might not be Kerry, but you flip flop as much as Bush, which is as much as Kerry. I just love how the Right never notice when they flip flop or when they throw names at other people or cry "censorship". Why? Because it's the Right's right. They are born to rule, Right? The Democrats and Republicans are very much equal on these fronts and you both should have the decency to admit it rather than being blinded by your own allegiances. There is more to the world than joeuser.
Pictoratus, it is relevant to call the President stupid if the shoe fits because this is a highly important job that takes intelligence to do well.


Could this all be because Austrailia does not have freedom of speech?



Research Note Index 2001-02

Research Note no. 42 2001-02
Free Speech and the Constitution
Roy Jordan
Law and Bills Digest Group
4 June 2002


International Background
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech:

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1)

Members of the Commonwealth Parliament reaffirmed the principles of the Declaration during a sitting on 10 December 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of the UDHR and pledged to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the Declaration.(2)

Article 19 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ... (3)

Australia is a signatory to this treaty(4) and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981,(5) no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts.

Freedom of Speech and the Constitution
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns.(7) This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'. Issues arising from these decisions include defining when communication is 'political' and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.(8)

In 1942 a Constitutional Convention held in Canberra recommended that the Constitution be amended to include a new section 116A preventing the Commonwealth or a State passing laws which curtailed freedom of speech or of the press.(9) The government did not accept this proposal and it was not included in the referendum on 19 August 1944, when other constitutional amendments were proposed.

The advantage of having such rights written into the Constitution is that they are 'entrenched' and cannot be amended or removed by any government without the overwhelming approval of the people voting at a referendum to amend the Constitution.(10) Rights contained in other legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, are not entrenched. They may be amended or repealed by any government with the consent of Parliament.

Freedom of Speech and a Bill of Rights
Proposals for legislating for freedom of speech have been made mainly in the context of legislating for a Bill of Rights. Since 1973 at the Commonwealth level there have been attempts to legislate for a Bill of Rights which would incorporate provisions of the ICCPR, including Article 19, into Australian law. Various governments, parliamentary parties and individual members of parliament have introduced legislation to establish a statutory Bill of Rights, which would include the right to freedom of speech.(11) While lacking constitutional force, such an Act of Parliament would list various rights which could be enforced in the courts in many situations. The less complicated option of legislation, rather than amending the Constitution, has been preferred by proponents of a Bill of Rights.

More recently at the State level Parliamentary Committees in Queensland(12) and New South Wales(13) have considered a Bill of Rights but neither has recommended such a proposal. In 2002 the Australian Capital Territory government established a non-parliamentary committee to inquire into a Bill of Rights for the ACT.(14) Professor George Williams has summarised the arguments for and against the introduction of a Bill of Rights:(15)

FOR

Australian law does not protect fundamental freedoms

A Bill of Rights would give power of action to Australians who are otherwise powerless

A Bill of Rights would bring Australia into line with the rest of the world

A Bill of Rights would enhance Australian democracy by protecting the rights of minorities

A Bill of Rights would put rights above politics and arbitrary governmental action

A Bill of Rights would improve government policy making and administrative decision making

A Bill of Rights would serve an important educative function

A Bill of Rights would promote tolerance and understanding in the community



AGAINST

Rights are already well protected in Australia

The High Court is already protecting rights through its interpretation of the Constitution and the common law

Rights listed in the Constitution or Acts actually make little or no difference in protecting rights

The political system itself is the best protection of rights in Australia

A Bill of Rights would actually restrict rights, that is, to define a right is to limit it

A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic by giving unelected judges the power to override the judgment of Parliament

A Bill of Rights would politicise the judiciary

A Bill of Rights would be very expensive given the amount of litigation it would generate

A Bill of Rights would be alien to our tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty

A Bill of Rights would protect rights (e.g. the right to bear arms) which might not be so important to future generations


It is interesting to note that not only is there no legislation providing for freedom of speech either in the Constitution or in other legislation, but Governments have passed legislation to prevent free speech in certain circumstances. Examples include the various State and Territory defamation laws,(16) and racial vilification laws. Censorship laws may also be used to prevent freedom of speech by restricting distribution of certain films and publications, although these laws now serve mainly to classify publications according to the age groups which can see them, rather than preventing their publication.

Overseas Comparisons
The United States incorporated a Bill of Rights into its Constitution in 1789.(17) Other countries have legislated more recently for freedom of speech, mainly in legislation which is separate from their constitutions: Ireland in 1937, Canada in 1982, New Zealand in 1990, South Africa in 1996, and the United Kingdom in 1998.(18) The European Union has included freedom of expression and information in its Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights for possible adoption by member states. This makes Australia alone among like-minded countries not to provide for freedom of speech in legislation or the national constitution.

on Nov 01, 2004
Well boy thanks for informing me about my own country drmiler. I was unaware that we have had a debate about whether Australia needs a Bill of Rights or not to officially enshrine free speech.

It is generally acknowledged that other laws in Australia give us a fairly good chance of keeping some level of free speech (not even the US has full free speech) and all Governments who have opposed a Bill of Rights have simply said that it is unnecessary because Australians would not allow any Government to impinge these rights. I personally disagree, but your accusations against Australia show a clear lack of being informed about our local issuescurrently we have free speech, as acknowledged by member of the Coalition of the Killing, John Howard.
Pictoratus, the Right seems to simply like to resort to calling us traitors or people who shouldn't have the right to free speech. This article has received the most comments of any I have written, and barely any have bothered to engage with my comments about Bush. Instead we have wound up with a silly debate about whether or not I have the right to make this assessment of Bush. I would be much more interested in people expanding upon why they think my assessment of Bush is so pompous and misguided, but the Right is too arrogant to explain for the most part.
on Nov 01, 2004
What drmiler said was that he didn't "...like someone ... making fun of the President of the USA in that fashion". That is freedom of speech. You say something I don't like, I say I don't like it. I say something you don't like, you say you don't like it. That's not censorship of any form.


Perhaps you should have actually read everything rather than jumping on a few lines here and there that fit your agenda.

drmiler said:

And as somone who's not even from the USA, I personally don't feel he has the right to talk about my president in that fashion.


So, no, it wasn't an attempt to censor him, you are correct there and I was wrong. It was only a desire to do so. That sits nearly as bad with me.

I've heard accusations of censorship many times from the left in response to a negative reaction to their words.


If this is just a general comment and not directed at me, then I apologize. However, since it is in the post quoting me and appears to be directed, at least in part, to me, let me just say what a ridiculous statement this is. Not only am I not a liberal (have been a registered Republican ever since I was old enough too register and in many ways am more conservative than many here) but I also mentioned I voted for Bush 4 years ago. I don't regret that vote, but also don't agree with many of the things he has done in the past few years, and so am now registered as Unaffiliated, and am still weighing my choices for when I go to vote tomorrow as I am striving to determine who I believe is the lesser of the two evils presented us. Oh, but that's right, you don't know the first thing about me, and just decided to use my comments to fit some type of stereotype you have constructed. Good show.

on Nov 01, 2004
BlueDev:

No, my statements were not aimed at you, but rather at the left in general and their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response. From what I gather, even suggesting they shouldn't have the right to critisize the president is close enough to censorship to them.

I think it is used as a red herring to attempt to discredit those disagreeing with them. The left is known for pulling the -insert politically sensitive topic here- card as a poor substitution for a well reasoned argument.

I believe in free speech for everyone. Trying to shame your opponent with derogatory terms is an attempt to stifle free speech with public humiliation as the tool.
on Nov 01, 2004
Champas Socialist:
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid. That's the way I was taught by my parents and the way I teach my children.
on Nov 01, 2004
BlueDev:

No, my statements were not aimed at you, but rather at the left in general and their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response. From what I gather, even suggesting they shouldn't have the right to critisize the president is close enough to censorship to them.

I think it is used as a red herring to attempt to discredit those disagreeing with them. The left is known for pulling the -insert politically sensitive topic here- card as a poor substitution for a well reasoned argument.

I believe in free speech for everyone. Trying to shame your opponent with derogatory terms is an attempt to stifle free speech with public humiliation as the tool.


Thanks for the clarification. I rescind my comments and apologize then. Won't delete them so as to not screw up the flow of the discussion.

To be honest, I agree completely. I think we should all be able to stick up for what comes, good and bad. Thanks again.
on Nov 01, 2004
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid.


Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?

You said:
It's both intellectually weak and dishonest

That's not a bad alternative, but personally I prefer the hamster one. And I would've said "It's stupid and shifty".

on Nov 01, 2004
It is generally acknowledged that other laws in Australia give us a fairly good chance of keeping some level of free speech (not even the US has full free speech)


Last time I checked Porn is a big industry here and we export over half the World's supply of porn, so you might want to rethink your free speech idea or how about a movie that was nothing more than opinion based? The only time free speech is not free is when it is slander or libel...the rare case is when it is a matter of National Security, so what about Free speech is blocked here in America?

What makes you think George Bush's cousin John Kerry is any better? You do know both are members of the elitest secret society the "Skulls", right?

I bet you can't call John Howard a cunt to his face; you can do that to George Bush in America, even though it is only right and proper to respect the office of President even if you do not respect the man (in my case Clinton/Gore).

Porno Plinko!!
on Nov 01, 2004
Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?


He's a few fries short of a Happy Meal. He's two cans short of a six pack!

Idiot Savant or Political Pundit.

Ignoramus Plinko!!
on Nov 01, 2004

Reply #54 By: Joey Joe Joe (Anonymous) - 11/1/2004 5:51:09 PM
It may be relevant, but in my opinion it is rude to publically call anyone stupid.


Oh please don't let's go down this road. What would you prefer? Mentally challenged? A few cards short of a deck? A few stubbies short of a six pack?

The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead? The gates are down and the lights are flashing but there's no train coming?


No in other words, don't do it at all.
on Nov 01, 2004
bet you can't call John Howard a cunt to his face; you can do that to George Bush in America, even though it is only right and proper to respect the office of President even if you do not respect the man (in my case Clinton/Gore).


Sure you can call John Howard that if you want. Chances are you'll be escorted from the room, just like anyone who called Bush one would be, but you could say it without real problems. Remember a political comedian shoved his tongue down an unsuspecting Immigration Minister's ear on national television last election; there's nothing to stop you swearing or doing anything short of assualt against a politician. Police officers are a different matter, but no true Australian cares about the sensibilities of a politician.
on Nov 01, 2004
No in other words, don't do it at all.

*sigh*
And again, people shouldn't have the right to criticise.
on Nov 01, 2004
> their trend toward crying censorship at a negative response.

And what of the Right's trend to simply cry "terrorist sympathiser" or start up an argument about whether or not people have the right to criticise politicians?

As I said, I'm rather tiring of this ridiculous censorship debate. I have made a lot of criticisms of Bush and explained why I think he should be replaced. How about somebody telling me why they think Bush is actually intelligent or providing some of that "new information" Dr Guy spoke of. I doubt it would be that new actually, I read a fair bit of Right wing stuff, I just think most of it is fairly flawed.


Regarding calling Howard a cunt, I simply digress for a second to recount the lyrics of one of my favourite GUD songs, to the tune of the M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E song: J-O-H-N-H-O-W-A-R-D He's a c**t he's a c**t A great big walloping dirty f**ckin c**t I f**ked your mum I f**ked your wife and I f**ked your son If I could go back in time I'd give a condom to your Mum!
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5