Grapeviney

You quoted him for a reason. If you disagree with it, then say so. And no-one on here said that 'all' Germans were implicated; it was you who asserted that the German military wasn't 'by and large' involved in the killing of Jews, even though they killed so often that it became routine and banal. It's OK, because there were good blacks and bad blacks, and good Asians and bad Asians, and good Arabs and bad Arabs...

It is black and white. The Nazis tried to wipe the Jewish people off the face of earth, no ifs, buts or maybes. It's instructive that on the previous page you post swathes of internet links about British genocides without any kind of critical analysis of the material, but the Holocaust is somehow 'not as black and white' as we're led to believe. Wow. Just wow. Don't think I've ever heard anyone victim-blaming the Holocaust before. Hopefully the 6 million Jews who perished were the 'bad Jews'.

Let me get this straight. They killed so much that it became routine and banal, but by and large they weren't involved in killing Jews? Interesting theory. Here's what the US Holocaust Memorial says about German military complicity, and here's an account from Yad Vashem (the Israeli equivalent). Members of the German military murdered or were complicit in the murder of Jews as well as people with disabilities, Roma (Gypsies), Soviet prisoners of war, and eastern European civilians. The German military knowingly supported the Einsatzgruppen, which worked in the rear of the German lines in the east as mobile killing units. Long after the war, a myth persisted claiming the German military (or Wehrmacht) was not involved in the Holocaust and other crimes associated with Nazi genocidal policy. This belief is untrue. The German military participated in many aspects of the Holocaust: in supporting Hitler, in the use of forced labor, and in the mass murder of Jews and other groups targeted by the Nazis. The military’s complicity extended not only to the generals and upper leadership but also to the rank and file. --------------------------------- The Wehrmacht was quite "nazified" by 1938, after Hitler gained the respect and fear of the armed forces by taking over territories, such as Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, without having to resort to war. In addition, by that time, many young soldiers had joined the armed forces straight out of the Hitler Youth movement (Hitlerjugend) and the Reich Labor services. Some officers may have disapproved of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939; however, they kept quiet after Germany vanquished FRANCE in May and June 1940 in a striking display of military strength and might. Members of the Wehrmacht stood by as Einsatzgruppen units attached to the army carried out the mass murder of Jews. Some Wehrmacht units even gave the Einsatzgruppen military support. A very few Wehrmacht officers objected to the extermination of Europe's Jews.

As the old saying goes, 'if you're not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart, if you're not a conservative in your 30's you have no head'. Prager will be pleased to know that the remarkable capacity of ultra-orthodox families to rapidly procreate is changing the demographics of America's Jewish population, and its politics.

It's true that most Jews aren't observant but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. The large majority, both practising and not, are extremely hawkish on Islam, immigration and all related issues. And while many Australian Jews are socially progressive, they're politically conservative. The state MP who represents Caulfield / St Kilda is a Lib and has been forever and a day, and if the Coalition put up a half-decent Jewish candidate who was strong on Israel, the same people would be more than happy to turf Michael Danby from the equivalent federal seat and install a Lib. All other 'Jewish electorates' are and always have been conservative strongholds (Kooyong, Goldstein, Wentworth et al). The bottom line is that most Australian Jews don't trust Labor on Israel (or the economy, foreign policy, and border protection), probably in that order. It's even more pronounced in the UK, where British Jews are talking about leaving England rather than staying under a possible Corbyn Labor Government. Ha! thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm too much of a pragmatist to be an ideologue.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here Pro. How many Jews do you know - practising or non-practising - who are ignorant of Islamism and it's existential threat to Israel and Jewish people generally? We're no.1 on the hit list, before the rest of the infidels. There's a vocal 'left' minority in Israel, but world Jewry is extremely conservative (read right wing) on these issues, and Australian Jews particularly so.

You are right nut. Having said that, I find the decision by Trump to retweet anti-muslim videos posted online by the far-right Britain First party very worrying. Even the mob at InfoWars described it as 'bad optics'. We've gone from targeting the legitimate threat of Islamic extremism to open season on anyone with a middle eastern appearance. Here's Trump acolyte Ann Coulter: Confronted with the suggestion that she was spreading "fake news" by claiming one of the films showed a "migrant" beating up a Dutch man, when in fact both people pictured were citizens of the Netherlands. Coulter said: "Nobody cares about `migrant' against 'child of migrant'. He is not a 10th-generation Dutchman, he is beating up a 10th-generation Dutchman." She added: "Anybody can look at this video and see it is a Middle Easterner. If you would prefer, we'll say 'Middle Easterners born in the Netherlands.' but if you don't accept that, we're going straight back to `Middle Eastern' in another 30 seconds. It could not be more supremely irrelevant - it is a difference without a distinction. "The issue is all these Middle Easterners and Muslims being brought in. To pretend there's no difference between a 10th-generation Dutch person and a migrant or the child of a migrant is preposterous." As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, this language is downright frightening. The references to 10th generation Dutchmen suggest notions of racial purity, while the line about 'anybody can see it is a middle easterner' is beyond belief. Forget wearing yellow stars (or similar) to denote ethnicity / race / religion / origin - anyone who looks middle eastern is fair game. I know I definitely don't look like a 4th-generation Australian, I look much more middle eastern. Will I be spared when I inform the marauding hordes that I'm Jewish and not Muslim?

Ok, here endeth the discussion on saty. All future posts will be deleted. The easiest way to deal with posters you don't like is to put them on ignore. Simple.

They’re not doing anything of the sort, no matter how many times you repeat it. Project Fruit is nothing more than a ‘review’ - there’s not even the vaguest suggestion of a timeline for this to happen. It's called window-dressing. Thats why the AFL announced it at the National Press Club, and that’s why Goyder said “none of this happens quickly”, which is another way of saying “none of this is happening at all”.

The Dortmund-Schalke game was a belter. Dortmund was 4-0 up within 25 minutes, only for Schalke to peg them back in the last 25 minutes and level the scores deep in injury time. Spurs again stumbled at home to weak opposition, while the draw at Anfield just helps City.

1. All political ideologies rest on a set of principals - that's not unique to conservatism. As for who makes up their own mind and who follows like sheep, the left would say exactly the same thing about you. And centrists would claim that the faithful on both sides of the political divide are slaves to ideology and incapable of forming an opinion of their own independently. 2. Yes, conservatives believe in free markets, but who ever said anything about putting restrictions on gay weddings? No conservatives have advocated that, but - in case you've been living on Mars - they are calling for protections on religious freedoms and parental rights. Because that's what conservatives do - they want to maintain, keep, preserve and protect social institutions and values, not change them. 3. This is a major departure from yesterday's claim that conservatism is a driver of social change but you're still a million miles away from base camp. I don't know why you are so desperate to claim 'change' as a tenet of conservatism. Yes, Howard changed gun laws 'for the greater good', but it was in response to a major event, not a policy position or article of faith that they took to an election. And you seem to have forgotten that it nearly tore the Coalition apart, the Nats had to be dragged along kicking and screaming and Howard had to wear a bullet-proof vest in the bush. Here's Abbott again, spelling out that the only change conservatives support are those that which actually stop things from changing: "Conservatives are often eager for change, especially when change is required to preserve a value, an institution or a way of life that they cherish." Anyway, I think we're done here pal, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm curious what you and others think on the impending vote. Should MPs in the House vote according to how their electorates voted? Should the Labor MPs from Sydney's west be voting no, and Abbott, Andrews et al voting yes? I'm inclined to think yes, the parliamentary vote should reflect the electorate.. otherwise what was the point of having the survey, and what's to stop all MPs now voting according to their own consciences / beliefs rather than the will of the people?

Really? With the Macquarie Dictionary by my side, I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my understanding of conservatism. For someone so engaged in political discussion, I'm genuinely surprised at how fundamentally mistaken you are in understanding your own team's ethos. The mental gymnastics required to present conservatism as a driver of social change reminds me of Jumbo Returns theory that Jack Watts is only in his 4th year of football. Anyway, don't take my word for it, here's Abbott in The Australian yesterday: "The most persuasive advocates of same-sex marriage have a point when they characterise it as merely the latest manifestation of the decency and generosity of spirit that has long characterised Western societies. But how long can we slice and dice the ethical understandings on which our civilisation has rested? How far can we accept the redefinition of concepts that have always been taken for granted; assert rights without corresponding responsibilities; allow every opinion to be equally valid; or seek to give what we haven’t actually got? If we don’t want to end up at the bottom of a slippery slope, we have to be careful about starting down in the first place."

Not really. In fact the definition of conservatism is the 'disposition to preserve what is established; opposition to innovation or change; disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions etc'.

Bwahahaha, poor old Wrecker, stuck in the same narrow political silos about which he complains. No wonder you're confused about the high yes vote in conservative electorates and the no vote in Labor seats. I never defended Penny Wong and her (and Labor's) hypocrisy. And I don't hate Tony Abbott, I actually know him quite well. But let's not pretend he's a conviction politician either. Or have you forgotten about the self-confessed 'weathervane' who didn't believe in climate change, but then went and signed the Paris agreement and set the RET as PM, and now tells us warming is good?

I don't think he posts here, but Tony Abbott, if you're reading this: Have fun at your sister's wedding mate

I caught some of the Switzerland - Nth Ireland match in Basel the other night and the pitch there was as bad as the one in Honduras. Hard to fathom in this day and age, especially in Europe. The North London Derby is on this weekend at the very respectable time of 11.30pm Saturday night on SBS. Incredibly, Optus have got yet another free trial going, which means at least half of the season to date has been a give-away. I'm actually weighing up a quick, bucket list soccer trip to Europe in the new year. I figure with Spurs playing at Wembley this season, it will never be so easy to see them live again. Would try to go to matches at San Siro and the Camp Nou while I'm over there. Anyone done such a trip and have any advice?

Fair enough dc, i just don't see the club's behaviour as predatory in the same way you do, although I definitely agree that ht shouldn't have been docked that amount automatically and without notification in a year when it's gone through the roof. But on point 3, that's a consequence of our improvement from no-hopers to maybes. The GFG was basically worthless in the past, effectively making it a donation to the club. Now it's a real product and its value is always going to fluctuate relative to the likelihood of the MFC making the granny. Let's just hope we get to use it in 2018.

It's not about fair or unfair, it's simple market forces. When people are forking out thousands of dollars for limited GF tickets off scalpers and resellers, as Richmond fans were this year, then $299 insurance premium + ticket cost simply becomes the total cost you pay for a ticket. You're paying $300 now to avoid having to pay $1200 in GF week, or the $450-$650 price tag of a premium membership. Whichever way you do it, you've got to pay somewhere along the way. There's no point pricing the GFG at $75 and having 25,000 members subscribe to it if you only have 15,000 tickets. Edit: If we do make a GF and the allocation is undersubscribed then we will know the club has got the price point wrong, but I'd be surprised. If anything, it may go up in the future as the team improves and a GF appearance becomes a real possibility.

I know, but the cost of the ticket is both separate and irrelevant to the GFG, and the price of the former has no bearing on the latter. You're effectively paying insurance against having to scramble for a ticket when we do make it. @Diamond JimDon't know DJ, I have no idea how the allocation thing works at all.

Only the premium memberships, AFAIK. A ballot system gives people the option to avoid the cost f the GFG but still have some chance of getting a ticket. And I'm not saying everyone goes in it, but the if the club gets 15,000 tickets, it could set aside 2500 for a ballot and the remaining 12500 go to the premium members with the GFG. Dunno. Just thinking out loud.

It's a tough one hardtack, because the new cost of it is no doubt much closer to its real value than the cheap add-on it's been the past, when we had absolutely no chance of making finals, let alone the GF. The club could have basically given everyone the GFG for free without any risk at all. But with clubs allocated so few GF tickets, it's a matter of supply and demand and this is the only way to control demand. An alternative might be for the club to use part of its GF allocation in a ballot system, where members pay a smaller fee to go in the ballot rather than the high cost of the GFG?

You can add money, which is probably at the top of the list. Not sure about other categories, but my membership has gone up $50 - pretty steep (more than 8 per cent) in a single year. As a result, I haven't (yet) bought the 2 additional memberships I usually do for my niece and nephew, who live in Qld and support Brisbane. Also, one of the consequences of relatively low GA ticket prices, and the ease with which you can rock up to a game at the 'G at siren time, is that people feel comfortable taking a wait-and-see approach on on buying membership. Would be interested to hear if the price rise is an across-the-board thing or just in certain categories?

Would love to see them play PSG in the Champions League at some stage, goals galore.

Thought we were probably the better team on the day but there were few chances at either end, and they were able to capitalise on what was really our only defensive lapse of the game. The riddle of replacing Kane continues to plague Poch - Llorente has failed to fire so far, much like Janssen last year. Son is quality but not an outright striker.

It's pathetic Macca, bloody frustrating - I think I'm going to write to them and complain and see if it can't be rectified. I've tried through TuneIn too. As you say, it's amateurish from arguably the number 1 comp in the world. You'd think that if the local rights-holder (in this case EON) falls over, there'd be some provision for it to revert to TalkSport as the principal rights holder. Did you watch our Cup tie earlier in the week? Not all that dissimilar to the PL fixture a few weeks back, except this time the Hammers were able to complete the comeback. The shift in momentum was huge after the break. Probably helped Bilic earn a stay of execution, although I see you dropped 2 points in the dying seconds last night against Palace. Was a good night on the telly last night, with the Man U v Spurs game followed by Milan v Juve and then Bayern v Leipzig.