Gator

Out and proud conservative, Stu.

I've read a fair bit, but decided to do more research, as I'd made a declaration on here. Upon further reading there was enough doubt for me to question long-held beliefs. My views mirror Bolt on most things, but I don't share his angst at Goodes' dance, or him equating it to Sheedy's throat slit to White or the "shotgun". The analogies are as silly as people complaining about being vilified for red hair. Anyway, you can please yourself what you think of me. I'm not invested in you.

I've read a fair bit, but it doesn't qualify my opinion to be "expert" and I recognise that, hence the retraction, but I still have an opinion. Take it or leave it. One thing I know for certain, and it involves you.

In my opinion he's a certainty, subject to playing 20 games, or close to it.

I suspect it won't shock you to know that I have zero interest in your vapid opinions of me. Child abuse is a serious problem today in some remote Aboriginal communities. Unfortunately this sad state of affairs is virtually never mentioned by those that want to paint Australia as an extremely racist country. It's a problem today, as it was 100 years ago. It makes utter sense to me that some children over the decades have been spared more abuse by removing them from dangerous situations. But being able to identify all child removal as racist government policy versus some child removal for protection purposes would blur the lines, in my opinion. Naturally, there are bellicose bloviators like you, who want to scream that everything is either black or white.

Gets the best defender every single week and right now would be top 3 in our B&F, even having missed a game. A far smarter footballer than Neitz and much more physical than Schwarz. Will become an AFL superstar. Btw, I'm not denigrating Neitz or Schwarz as they're rightly club icons and were great players.

I'd like to withdraw my comment re the Stolen Generations "myth". Facts are I'm nowhere near well read or qualified to make those assertions. I do fear that there was in fact government policy in parts of Australia to remove half castes from their families and I suspect it was sometimes under the guise that they were protecting children, when this may not always have been the case. I also suspect there are exaggerations made as to the level of these atrocities and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.

You're welcome to explain what part of what I quoted was wrong. Here's an imaginary gold embossed invitation for you. I find it exceptionally amusing that someone so familiar with Bolt's views would be critical of others for quoting him and court reported commentary. I get it, it's OK to read him, just not agree with him. Not that you have your own deep seated political bias though. No, not at all.

As you've asked nicely I will. Especially as sleep and then work beckons, so I'll leave you and the other Lefties to continue your ill-placed indignation and rewriting of history.

The word is "argument". It's a bit like truely is actually "truly". And yes, I'm very serious. Besides, what I quoted was court reported, nong.

I don't doubt they claim it, but I doubt it happened. There was certainly no government policy to "steal children". Children have been saved from terrible environments in some Aboriginal communities for decades. Perhaps they were from one of those.

Yes, his Mother, like many others, have claimed to be "stolen". But let's hear from Goffy's favourite reporter... She came from South Australia, which the state’s Supreme Court found in 2007 never had a policy of removing children just because they were Aboriginal. Brian Bennett worked for the Aborigines Department when Goodes’s mother was a girl, and told the court: “I don’t believe that I, at any time during my career as a welfare officer, had the power to remove an Aboriginal child from its parents.” The judge also cited a letter written in 1958 by the Secretary of the Aborigines Protection Board: “Our legislation does not provide that neglected children can be removed from their parents, except by transfer to the Children’s Welfare and Public Relief Board who in any case, will not accept them.” In South Australia, Aboriginal children could only be adopted “with the authority of the parents” but too few got that chance — as Goodes’s mother apparently did. “Unfortunately, there is a considerable amount of undernourishment, malnutrition and neglect,” the secretary mourned. Our history is not as simple as Goodes claims. Nor is our guilt.

There's no doubt that the Left is alive and well on Demonland... Pt 1. You say it’s “public record” and you may be right, but please provide evidence. as I don’t remember there being any record of her saying she was parroting family members, or other supporters. I do remember however her saying she didn’t even know Goodes was Aboriginal and was merely referring to his appearance. Link me to your evidence. P2. You talk of a “community gravy train” ? Half of the country is on welfare. Half of Australians families pay no net income tax. Australians have to rid themselves of the mentality that governments owe them a living. You then speak of discrimination against Aboriginals. What discrimination are you referring to ? And when will this country be mature enough to end the racial divide so that all Australians embrace being Australian. You say indigenous Australians are “massively excluded”. In what way ? Where is this deliberate “exclusion” you refer to ? Pt 3. The “stolen generations” are a myth perpetuated by politically motivated historians. Have a read of Keith Windschuttle's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Here’s an excerpt: Yet recent historians and commentators have persisted in describing this proposal as "a massive exercise of social engineering" and an instrument of genocide. Robert Manne, professor of politics at La Trobe University, described it as commonwealth policy: "The officials in Canberra and the minister, J. A. Perkins, gave support to Cook's proposal for an extension of the Territory policy to Australia as a whole." This is false. The truth is that Perkins, minister for the interior in the Joseph Lyons government, in a carefully worded statement to the House of Representatives on August 2, 1934, denounced the proposal. He said: "It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter." None of the historians of the Stolen Generations have ever reproduced Perkins's statement. Nor have they reported any of the other critical reactions made by Lyons to the press. On June 23, 1933, the Darwin newspaper, the Northern Standard, quoted Lyons government sources saying: "It is all a lot of rot." But you won't find that quoted in any of the academic literature on this topic. Manne is not the only offender here but, as a professor of politics, he had the greater public duty to tell the full story. Seeing as you find Bolt an anathema, let’s also read his exchange with Stolen Generations Alliance co-patron Lowitja O’Donoghue in 2001, (My father) didn’t want to be straddled with five kids,” the former Australian of the Year said, sobbing. “I haven’t forgiven him… “I don’t like the word ‘stolen’ and it’s perhaps true that I’ve used the word loosely at times… I would see myself as a removed child, and not necessarily stolen.” Asked whether it would be better to state clearly that she wasn’t a member of the stolen generation, Dr O’Donoghue said: “I am prepared to make that concession.” I note you’re from Canberra Goffy. A great haven of the Left. I doubt you’d like our border protection policy either. Here’s a link to Keith Windschuttle's The Fabrication of Aboriginal History http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/flawed-history-keeps-myth-alive-about-the-stolen-generations/story-e6frg6z6-1225824632357 Pt 4. My ancestors lived on their land in a young settled country. Settlement took place 60 odd years before their journey. I accept that you have personal guilt, but that’s your choice. I have none. I don’t have an ounce of guilt for something that had nothing to do with me. And I feel no guilt on behalf of my ancestors. Explorers discovered a new land on the other side of the world and established new lives. I’m bloody glad they did. You ? Not so much. My ancestors have nothing to feel ashamed about. I have no doubt Aborigines were treated appalling in many cases, but I take no ownership over that. Many indigenes also wish their brethren would leave their animosity behind, as it holds their community back. People, such as you, don’t help their cause and nor do you help enrich their future. But rest assured fellow lefties will rejoice in slapping your back. For seeming is always far better than doing.

So you even know why she called Goodes an ape ? It was because of the racists around her ? Wow, incredible insight, especially as you weren't even there. People, such as myself, dislike Goodes because he's racially divisive. Rather than make a speech that espoused unity and togetherness, especially as the honour given to Goodes highlighted how far this country has come with regards to bridging the gap, Goodes used the platform to further divide. Goodes seems to think that this country was utopia prior to European settlement. Does he need a history lesson ? Does he realise that children are now left in dire circumstances, including incest and rape, because authorities are too scared to intervene due to the "stolen generations" myth ? Does he deny he himself is a beneficiary of European settlement ? I'm 5th or 6th generation on all 4 sides (depending on how you calculate it), but none of my ancestors were guilty of any atrocities. None came here as convicts. It's one thing to recognise the mistakes of our settlement, but the constant finger pointing does zero to improve the lot of present-day underprivileged indigenous people. Goodes doesn't improve relations, he merely fosters division.

Yes, of course you're right. The USA has the Ku Klux Klan as the face of racism and we have a 13 year old girl who denies she was aware of Goodes' Aboriginality. Brilliant.

It's definitely got to do with race. But it's because HE'S racially divisive.

I wouldn't boo Goodes, because it's not my thing, but I don't like him, because he's racially divisive. Launching into commentary on "our very dark past" and other divisive remarks designed to colour our history as poorly as possible, while being feted as Australian of the year was self-serving, horribly opportunistic and ill-considered. It was all designed to taint our past. Rather than uniting Australians and embracing togetherness, he used his role to continue the divide. I also loathed how he publicly humiliated a 13 year old girl. The girl saw a huge man with a beard running towards her and called him an "ape". Later she said she didn't even know who he was or that he was aboriginal. She just reacted to his appearance. Why are people so quick to condemn a 13 year old girl or eagerly dismiss her protestations of innocence ? I find it quite plausible that she wasn't making a racist remark. And who am I to disbelieve her ? And when Goodes made his public "stand" against the girl he knew exactly how old she was - "Racism has a face - and it was a 13 year-old girl". Disgraceful.

Yep. Not saying I agree, but they get a go due to their pace and roles. Although Bail is hardly "express".

When does McCarthy cop the opposition's best key defender ? Answer, never. Not once. The opposition put the most work into Cameron. Hogan isn't a foil for anyone. He's the man. I like McCarthy and don't begrudge him the nod, but Hogan beats McCarthy in just about every relevant stat except goals per game. Hogan has more disposals, more marks, more contested marks, and the same average marks inside 50. All while copping the best defender and playing for the team with the least inside 50's in the league. Even on the weekend it was 21 disposals to 12, 9 marks to 6 and 3 goals to 4. Not to mention he splits packs and creates goals for teammates. One is a power forward, the other isn't. It's no major issue, but there's a flaw in the award when the best 20 year old and under in the competition hasn't been recognised.

Matthews is the best player I've seen along with Carey. Was he a thug ? Sure, but he'd be the first player I picked. His comments on Hogan are pure ignorance and guesswork. Hogan is excellent on the ground and a very good decision maker and handballer. His field kicking is also very good. Matthews was guessing because he sees Hogan as the prototype hard running power forward who excels as a pack splitter. He can do that too and in time Matthews will recognise the other strings to his bow.

Bookmarked.

Won't go, Bet ?

The bump was fair. Jones had a terrible lack of awareness in the situation.

Of course it's important when you're planning/developing a premiership model, but it's an irrelevant consideration in 2015, unless, of course, you don't understand our list.

I don't care about our average age. Not yet anyway. Our older players are ordinary. They're the ones that effect your average age. This shouldn't be news to you. If you care about 'average age' then you have no clue about our club or its journey. Clearly, our future success relies on youth. Youth, by nature, is inconsistent. I back our core youth against any of the clubs you mention save GWS, Gold Coast and maybe the Dogs. Your argument smacks of that ridiculous question that is often pondered in the media, "Who's closest to a flag". It's the silliest question you'll ever be asked.