<< HISTORY IN PICTURES VII ~ MAIN ~ ABC "SAFE FROM HARSH REALITIES" >>
SUGGESTION SUGGESTED
Scroll back to the April 7 edition of SBS News, and call up this amused exchange:
MARY KOSTAKIDIS: What are the challenges now for the Howard Government? Is the deputy sheriff tag still a problem for the PM?
KAREN MIDDLETON: I’m afraid it is still a bit of a problem. He’ll be regretting that he ever suggested that, I think.
Howard never did. Over to you, Media Watch.
(Via reader Cuckoo)
No it was proposed by I think Fred Brenchley.
Howard had plenty of time to speak against it.
He didn’t.
Indeed he said nothing with regard to the statment until several days later when all hell broke loose because of that statment.If Howard had have said that statement was not what he would say nothing would have been heard of it.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 08 at 06:34 PM • permalinkDon’t confuse them with facts, Tim.
But even if it were true, I really don’t see the problem. Deputy Sheriff describes Australia’s role in world affairs pretty well. It’s a demanding role and an honorable one, and we fill it pretty well.
Oh yeah. That’s the problem.
Oh, and Homer? You are a very very silly person.
I have emailed media watch. I wait for their quick action lol!
Posted by Astonished on 2005 04 08 at 09:23 PM • permalinkThat was a rather convoluted way of saying “fake, but accurate” wasn’t it, Homer?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 04 08 at 10:55 PM • permalinkObviously few people here read the interview which was in the Bulletin.
Howard could have merely said no.He didn’t disagree at all and hence most people think he made the statement.
Timbo is being highly misleading in implying Howard did not say it.
Neither he nor his office disagreed with the statement until their foreign affairs inexperience was shown up indeed in off the record statments they weere quite chuffed at it.This is Timbo at his Adamsque best!
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 09 at 12:04 AM • permalinkTimbo is being highly misleading in implying Howard did not say it.
Did Howard say it? No. He merely failed to deny saying it.
So, I vote that the rest of this comment thread be devoted to saying things about Homebo so that he has to deny EVERY SINGLE ONE. Failure to do so will mean that you actually did say whatever you haven’t explicitly denied. Sound fair? Because that’s exactly what you expect Howard to waste his time on…
Oh, and to make it fair, let’s keep Homebo from even reading 99% of what is posted, in order to properly simulate the free time Howard has available to spend reading insulting drivel from journalists that hate him and everything he stands for.
Irony is delicious.
Another who obviously has never read the interview.He was being interviewed by the Jouno. He could have corrected there and then.
He didn’t indeed he and his staff were chuffed by the image it gave Howard until the repercussions hit them later.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 09 at 12:22 AM • permalinkHe didn’t disagree at all and hence most people think he made the statement.
Do they? Do they, Homer? I wonder why that might be so. Do you think it might have anything to do with idiots on SBS telling people that he did say that?
Timbo is being highly misleading in implying Howard did not say it.
Homer, you pathetic clown, Howard DIDN’T SAY IT! Therefore Timbo is being 100% perfectly honest and factually precise, and you’re making up fairy tales. Boring fairy tales.
He didn’t indeed he and his staff were chuffed by the image it gave Howard until the repercussions hit them later.
What repercussions? People like you who believe that not saying something is the same as saying it? Homer, you have your head on backwards. And stuff up your arse. That’s gotta be awkward.
No, I didn’t read the interview. I have no desire to; it’s beside the point. Tim is completely accurate with what he’s posted. You, however, keep trying to spin it so as to make Tim look bad.
It seems Pixy’s started it off. Until you say otherwise, I have no choice but to believe that your head is literally on backwards, and undefined “stuff” is up your ass. Let’s continue: Homer Paxton eats small children for breakfast, has sexual relations with goats, and developed AIDS in order to destroy the human race. And he’s a zombie.
Homer, you pathetic clown, Howard DIDN’T SAY IT!
D’oh.
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 04 09 at 12:50 AM • permalinkAh you are very good pharisees.
Timbbo is strongly implying howard disagreed with the sentiment.
howard didn’t. He lapped it up.That is why he is being highly misleading.
Why can’t you all admit Howard made a mistake on this.
Howard follows the media like a bloodhound. If he thought he was being presented in a misleading wat he would have been in there like lightning.
He wasn’t.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 09 at 01:06 AM • permalinkTimbbo is strongly implying howard disagreed with the sentiment.
howard didn’t. He lapped it up.Bull-fucking-shit. If you don’t immediatly leap on every little thing said about you does that mean you agree with it?
Fuck you are a retard.
Why can’t you all admit Howard made a mistake on this.
Because you’re fucking making shit up.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 09 at 01:22 AM • permalinkHomer Paxton eats small children for breakfast, has sexual relations with goats, and developed AIDS in order to destroy the human race. And he’s a zombie.
Homer has refused to deny this statement.
Since he follows this thread “like a bloodhound”, if he thought he was being presented in a misleading way he “would have been in there like lightning”.
Hoo-fucking-ray!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 09 at 01:24 AM • permalinkTherefore, we must only conclude he agrees with it.
Q-E-Fucking-D
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 09 at 01:25 AM • permalinkTimbbo is strongly implying howard disagreed with the sentiment.
Homer, you are a moron. No one cares if Howard disagreed or not, we are discussing the repeated insistence of prominent media figures, both in the US and Australia, claiming the PM made a statement HE DID NOT MAKE.
You’re now both the Boston Strangler and Jack the Ripper. And the guy that brainwashed Lee Harvey Oswald into assassinating JFK.
If Homer doesn’t deny it, then he is George Bush. Which means he’s also Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Evil Pundit on 2005 04 09 at 01:28 AM • permalinkI think “Homer” is just Treacher or Lileks messing with my brain :(
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 04 09 at 01:34 AM • permalinkFor Homer-Satan’s benefit:
It is surprising that, nearly four years after the event, some diplomats and foreign commentators still believe that Howard announced, in September 1999, that Australia would be “deputy sheriff” to the United States in the Asian region. It is true Brenchley interpreted the Prime Minister’s view as necessitating that Australia would be a deputy to the US. It’s just that Howard never used this term. Nor did he utter the word “sheriff” - this was dropped into the story by a subeditor in search of a memorable subheading.Ah, you see? It was dropped in by a subeditor and Howard did NOTHING TO REFUTE IT!!!@!!!@?!?
Satan was RITe!!! Go HOMA! SPAKE TOUF!!!
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 04 09 at 02:55 AM • permalinkWhat sparkling wit and repartee we have had here.
howard was boasting that he wished he thought of the expression’ off the record’.
He fully agreed with it and others in his office said so too.
He gave an inteview to AFR on friday.
He agreed with a number of things the journalist said.
He didn’t say it however.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 09 at 06:05 AM • permalinkSortelli - Yeah, that should have read “stuffed up your arse”. Oh well, he hasn’t refuted it either way.
Homer, you great steaming baby-eating (well, you haven’t denied it) pillock -
howard was boasting that he wished he thought of the expression’ off the record’.
And of course you have documented evidence of this?
He agreed with a number of things the journalist said.
Yah. So?
The journalist didn’t use the term Deputy Sheriff either.
He didn’t say it however.
Thanks for agreeing with us.
Now go away, silly person, or I shall taunt you a second time.
I realise I am a dwarf amongst intellectual giants whose use of the english language is simply breathtaking.
I am so intimidated and exhausted by the whle effort that I am going to be.P.S.
Pixy Misa read the article.
It was at a time when the Bulletin was worth readingPosted by Homer Paxton on 2005 04 09 at 06:20 AM • permalinkHomer, I read the article at the time, and the subsequent coverage very closely because (a) I knew the MSM would go feral at the statement as soon as I saw it; and (b) I couldn’t believe Howard would be so lapse as to let the journo get away with it. i remember it quite well.
It seemed to me at the time that Howard wasn’t game to respond to the journo’s little joke as no matter how he responded it would have led to trouble. Think about the possible options. If the PM had said “No, we are not”, it would have led to endless cries of “Are too! nah! nah!” and if he joked, “Sure thing, pardner!” it would have led to endless cries of ‘There you are! lap dog! Bush’s poodle! nah! nah!”
As to the accusations that he and his staff were chuffed at the analogy, this would be the first I have heard of it. Beyond what an amusing joke it was. Perhaps you could link to some evidence that does not come from the pen of the likes of Phat Phil or the Door Matt. This is a classic example of feral political enemies taking off with a story and embellishing it to improve the tale as time goes by.
Both left and right are good at this, but the left have made it an art form in recent times. Perhaps if the left were in the ascendent the right would be just as reprehensible. What the protagonists have lost sight of in the meantime is those that wish Australia ill also use it to play their games.Hey, I never denied Pamela Anderson was stalking me…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 04 09 at 10:58 AM • permalinkHomer, I usually don’t like commenting to persons who have been established as being Satan, Bush, Hitler (all synonyms), zombie, a person with something up his arse, and so forth. But as a practice, world leaders (which I certainly would argue to include John Howard, but maybe not the Canadian PM, Martin?) do not reply to unflattering or controversial names or descriptions applied to them by others. It simply legitimizes what is not legitimate. Even if a question about it is raised during an interview.
Not refuting it does not necesssarily mean what you think it means.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 04 09 at 11:00 AM • permalinkIt’s pretty pathetic, really. Homer doesn’t even try to argue on whether or not Australia and the US should work towards the same foreign policy goals, he just keeps harping on this poor turn of phrase that makes Australia sound subordinate to the United States.
I get that the reason the deputy thing caused a stir is because many of those who support working with the US understandably don’t want to do it from the position of a lackey, and Homer likes to ride that for all it is worth because he can’t get any traction out of attacking Howard’s actual positions. Just a silly characterization of his positions. Even if it means looking like a doped-up and ridiculous liar trying to defend a term cooked up by the media and then pinned on Howard by the same media, Homer’s got the ball and he’s gonna run with it like a less lovable version of Forrest Gump.
If anything, Australia’s fantastic response to the tsunami should have put to rest any notion that the Howard government is second to ours. But, you know, it’s not like Homer would ever let context OR fact interfere with his unusual perspective.
Let’s at least praise his persistence in trying to argue that “Howard said it, even though he didn’t”. Homer may not have a strong grasp of the written word but he sure knows how to shovel it.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Come on girls!
Find a problem for the PM, or you are out on your ... own.
News Flash: Fair and fearless commentators all over Australia are seeking problem areas for the PM this term. All suggestions gratefully accepted.
So far we have tried the lack of a third term agendum ... make that a fourth term agendum? Not with the senate the way it is!
Yikes, the bastard has control of the senate! OK. Don’t Panic.
The control of the senate is a problem because ... (a) he has to be really, really careful about how he uses it, and (b) if we can beat up on a senator or two to defect or resign we might just change that to NOT controlling the senate. Phew!
We fair and fearless commentators might save the day yet. Australia is indeed lucky to have us in the media as guardians of democracy when it votes the wrong way.