Stuart Rees (of the War and Jew Affairs Department of Sydney University) has attacked Malcolm Turnbull for not being Abbott or Prime Minister or something and absolutely committed to the Green/Far Left agenda like Stuart.
Turnbull has no vision, you understand. Unlike Stuart Rees who is stuffed full of vision. He has vision coming out of every orifice.
You have to make allowances for Stuart. He's a "left" wing academic. He has written off Tony Abbott but he knows a fresh enemy on the horizon from the scent alone. Turnbull once worked for Goldman Sachs. Enough said. For Johan Galtung, guru of Rees' creed, Malcolm may as well be a Jew. He's already an instrument of the Protocols.
This is the academic "left". What dark and scary places the inside of their heads must be. Full of cobwebs, cockroaches and conspiracies.
Here is the article:
ABC Television’s Monday night Q&A program provides a stage for politicians, plus other, usually more erudite commentators, to give headline-worthy opinions on current economic and social issues.
When appearing on ABC’s Q&A programme on February 16t, and given the turmoil surrounding Prime Minister Abbott, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull must have known that he would have to pretend that he did not want to displace his leader.
That dilemma is not entirely his fault. Numerous pollsters and journalists have created a myth that Malcolm is obviously leadership material, but his performance on that Q&A program suggests the supposed leadership qualities are, at best, exaggerated.
Following the last question from a member of that Q&A audience - concerning the panel members’ visions for Australia’s future – presenter Tony Jones did not immediately turn to Malcolm, so he had more than enough time to craft his answer.
When his time came, Malcolm’s vision amounted to a hoary old set of platitudes plus the familiar jousting about the budget with the representative of the Labor Party. Vision ? We waited.
If he had given a thought about a more socially just Australia, Malcolm would have removed his Goldman Sachs glasses and talked about raising revenue through economic re-distribution. ‘I’d abolish negative gearing, I’d stop taxing Trusts as companies, I’d reduce the discount on capital gains and I might even consider broadening the base of the GST. Despite my advancing age,’- self deprecating humour always at hand in the Malcolm lexicon – ‘I’d reduce the over-generous tax concessions on superannuation, currently estimated to cost over $50 billion by 2016-2017.’ [ my emphasis ]
.....................................................................................................
Goldman Sachs glasses? What a very odd way of describing a political outlook. Very odd. Who would think of it?
I suggest someone with a long memory for names of a certain type and a taste for Nordic conspiracy. There must be hundreds of investment/merchant banks in the world. Many of them are huge. But only one has a name like Goldman Sachs.
Geez
The stuff you see when you haven't got a can of spray paint.
A long wail about why a professional politician has to tread carefully about "vision" (read "policy") when he hasn't yet got the job and then an even longer wail about why he didn't take the opportunity to parrot the policies of the academic green far left.
Malcolm Turnbull had a brilliant and varied career before politics. . Barrister, journalist, media corporate lawyer, founded a law firm, founded an investment bank (with Nicholas Whitlam and Neville Wran) and ... and
Here's a hint.
If he had given a thought about a more socially just Australia, Malcolm would have removed his Goldman Sachs glasses and talked about raising revenue through economic re-distribution.
Goldman Sachs?
Yep. Over fifteen years ago, Turnbull was a partner and director of the local unit of Goldman Sachs. The things that stick in the mind
What the hell has Goldman Sachs got to do with the price of carbon and human rights?
Nothing at all of course in the real world. But this is not the real world. This is a world where academics are capable of saying muck like this.
I wonder how many of the people who have such strong opinions about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, actually have read it? It is impossible to do it today without thinking of Goldman-Sachs. And here I am in line with Erik Rudström [a well known conspirationalist)]: it’s hard to believe that the Russian secret police were able to write such an analysis. But that proves nothing, either for or against, moving to the details,I have not “recommend” the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I have recommended to read it, so you know what you are talking about.
It is extraordinary what sticks in the minds of some people.
I've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is impossible to do it today without thinking of Johan Galtung.
