Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Christian refugees, Muslim oppressors

Like most people with half a conscience I'm chuffed that the Anti-Wops-in-Boats Bill 2006 was defeated. The sad truth is that the fact that West Papuans are overwhelmingly Christian and Indonesians are overwhelmingly Muslim probably had a lot to do with it. Double their numbers and substitute, say, Muslims from Aceh, and my money would be on the Bill passing.

10 comments:

Daniel said...

An astute observation, Armaniac. The moral of the story is: if you're not like us, you're worthless!

And people who challenge this dangerous stereotyping are surely going to be stoned by the mindless mob.

Splatterbottom said...

Are you seriously saying that that consideration motivated the opponents of the bill?

Armagnac Esq. said...

Read it again and don't bait me by reconstructing what I said.

Splatterbottom said...

"The sad truth is that the fact that West Papuans are overwhelmingly Christian and Indonesians are overwhelmingly Muslim probably had a lot to do with it. Double their numbers and substitute, say, Muslims from Aceh, and my money would be on the Bill passing."

Yep. What you was that persons who now oppose the bill would have voted for it if they thought they were keeping muslims rather than christisns out.

Baiting is a kindness I perform for leftists, especially those white-knuckle wankers whose contorted face at their moment of expression reflects their contorted logic. They need to be reminded that the fruit of their fingerwork which they so readily spray about resembles not so much the liquor of life as the steaming seed of satan. Besides, it's fun.

Ron said...

I am so distrustful of Howard, and so cynical of him and his govt, that I wouldn't be surprised if he set the whole thing up from go to woe.

He had to get the bill into parliament to appease the ever-unappeasable Indonesians. So by having a few pollies with expired use-by dates put up a bit of fuss he was able get the bill squashed but appear to have done his best.

If those dissently Liberals truly had strong, social consciences, there were plenty of other issues in the last ten years to stand up and be counted over.

My paranoid piece for today.

Armagnac Esq. said...

Yep, that's what I said, and what I stand by.

I didn't say 'would have voted for it' or 'motivated' because these are extensions that go beyond my assessment.

I think the difference might only be 2 or 3 people, but probably enough to reverse the situation. At least a couple of the lib dissenters, such as Petro, I think would have opposed the bill in any event.

I may be wrong, and indeed I'd like to hope so!

And I'm sure you weren't just calling me a wanker there Splatts, we do have some boundaries don't we?

Armagnac Esq. said...

And Ron I agree, it's a nice but very small genuflection towards anything resembling true liberalism.

Splatterbottom said...

And I'm sure you weren't just calling me a wanker there Splatts, we do have some boundaries don't we?

We are all wankers, armaniac. The boundaries are imposed by nature. My real regret is that my schlong doesn't reach around to my anus.

Most people are too uptight to be able to admit to their wanking ways, both sexual and intellectual. Although I quite admire your frothing style, I am not likely to be lapping it up any time soon.

Darlene said...

Arm, shouldn't that be "anti towel noggins" or something?

As for baby names, how about Bob and Jane. Good old-fashioned names, not like this fancy new rubbish

Armagnac Esq. said...

Splatts, um, re the last line, that is GOOD to hear.

Darlene, the names we've been fixing on to date are surprisingly traditional, all having their heydays earlier last century according to the baby name wizard (!).

Hopefully still 'normal' enough that young poppet won't feel like a fool. Hmm...