Foxy:

How do you know I did not read the article? Just because I do not agree with you? Perhaps the article made no points worth considering.

I made a contribution to the discussion. Just because you do not agree with the contribution does not mean it does not qualify as a contribution.

I presented my analysis of what was going on in that theatre just like everyone else has made their own analysis. Why not try and argue with what my analysis is instead of deriding it as a non-contribution.

Dear phanto,

I can only go on what you post.
You appear to be arguing on an
emotional level - not a mature
intelligent one. Perhaps someone
else may find dialogue with you
useful.

Foxy,

In the link you provided the author said "Streep's speech also went a ways to proving that an award show can, in fact, be a reasonable venue for "personal political propaganda"", which is exactly what it was.

That the audience was made up of glitterati multimillionaires who have perennially been democratic party supporters, Streep's serving of politically correct hypocrisy lambasted Trump for mocking a disabled reporter in private.

The hypocrisy being in the implication that this reporter, who has continuously mocked Trump in wildly unflattering terms, is totally immune from criticism because he has a disability.

Those that think that this new fad of identity politics is crap, didn't vote for Hillary, and are unlikely to be converted by this pompous prattle.

"I cant even imagine why a local (Australia) would want to defend the Trump buffoon."

The disruption, regime change, drug and sex trafficking operations, shaking down other governments and extorting them aside...

- Maybe because we don't support the irrational psychotic beliefs and actions of the so-called liberal left...

Ads In Two Dozen Cities Offer Protesters Up To $2,500 To Agitate At Trump Inaugural.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/

So you ruin the middle class, (not had real wage increases in 18years) and make them so desperate and brainwashed they sign up to become political operatives just to put food on the table.
Hmmmm...

Dear Shadow Minister,

Apparently, judging from the applause that Meryl
Streep received and the responses that followed
her speech was considered right and appropriate
by the majority of her audience. Apparently the
truth of what she said seemed to resonate with
them.

As stated in the link I cited they liked Streep's
speech "because she wrote it reasonably well and
delivered it with all the pathos expected of
the greatest living American actress. Her message
was not confrontational except to Trump..."
Which should tell us something.

Foxy:

I don’t agree with you so the only possible conclusion is that I am “arguing on an emotional level - not a mature intelligent one.”

“Perhaps someone else may find dialogue with you useful.”

They would already know what things they find useful or not – they do not need your help to live their lives.

Shadow Minister:

“The hypocrisy being in the implication that this reporter, who has continuously mocked Trump in wildly unflattering terms, is totally immune from criticism because he has a disability.”

It also implies that the reporter needs help to deal with Trump and she and her Hollywood buddies are here to provide that help. Trump is just a human being and you would deal with him like any other human being that mocked you. The presumption of Streep is that because Trump has power in one area that he has power over the reporter. That is patronising to the reporter and a very childish understanding of power.