Let's expand the list. What did or do the following, in alphabetical order of surname, have in common?

Philip Adams, Osama bin Laden, Tony Blair, Andrew Bolt, George Bush, Adolph Hitler, Julia Gillard, Mao Zedong, Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti (Pius IX), Pat Robertson, Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov (Lenin) and Hendrik Verwoerd.

Answer:

All of them can be characterised by their self-righteousness. They truly believe or believed, that they, and those that think like them, are the sole repositories of virtue. Those that disagree with their points of view are either stupid, brain-washed or evil.

They could never admit that perhaps, just perhaps, their way of thinking could be wrong.

In their own way they are all fundamentalists.

Whether the issue be industrial relation laws, foreign policy, evolution, education, hate-spewing Imams, Medicare or climate change, they know exactly what needs to be done and how to do it.

Their stock-in-trade is whipping up indignation among their followers.

In other words they are very much like many OLO posters.

H.L. Mencken once said:

Explanations exist: they have existed for all times, for there is always an easy solution to every problem — neat, plausible and wrong.

Adams et al, as well as OLO, posters would be well-advised to take Mencken's dictum to heart

You're joking, right?

I thought this was gonna be something like;

They both make dresses look bad.

They both have a hairy snatch.

But to be ACTUALLY and apparently seriously comparing her with BL, Hitler, Lenin and Andrew Bolt?. You need to get outside, my friend.

I can't be bothered. But I hope someone states what they DON'T have in common. Seeing as your view of universe is like that of someone permanently on LSD.

LOL StG,

I understand there are differences between Gillard and Bin Laden. I do NOT equate the two. It's hard to imagine an admirer of Gillard crashing a plane into a building or beheading people because of their sexual practices.

But they, along with others I've mentioned, do have this "I am right and if you don’t agree you're stupid or evil" attitude.

Honestly, I actually haven't picked anything up like that off Gillard. But it's definitely something I'll keep an eye out for and let you know if I do.

I do appreciate ALL politicians are firmly set in the belief that they are right. Watch ANY interview. Especially Costello. *cough cough barf* Ain't a liberal thing. Just him. Yep, it's personal. Smarmy twat.

Ahhhh, left foot taping in the dust, bit embarrassed here, why did I look? don't know!
Julia is not the person you say she is, not my favorite Polly but in the end do you understand the post is about what you think?
Maybe you are wrong?
And just maybe you are as fixed in your opinions right or wrong as the rest of us?, even those on your list?

steven l meyer,

If you are going to waste everyone's time with this rubbish you might as well try to be humourous, aftterall it's impossible to take this seriously.

Hmmm....there must be an awful lot of people out there who have something in common with Bin Laden and Julia Gillard!
Most of us like to think we are right. Those who have a strong commitment to something have more to lose if proven wrong - any wonder then that they get arrogant with it? It's a defensive stance.

LOL Peppy,

Then don't take it seriously.

Communicat,

I also have strong opinions. However I am always ready to admit I could be wrong.

People like Gillard come across to me as uptight to the point where they could never admit, even to themselves, that they may be wrong. Gillard's rhetoric strikes me as being that of a person who regards as stupid or malign someone who disagrees with her point of view.

I don't get that impression about Rudd BTW.

But I could be wrong about both Gillard and Rudd.

Stevenlmeyer makes a good point.These people are all egotists who think that their slant on life fits all our needs.Well they have been proven to be wrong in our experience in decades of democracy.

Socialists like Julia Gillard want to impose their version of enslavement in the name of social equality,yet have no solutions to a Govt bureaucracy that sucks the life out of human motivation in the name of social justice.

Arjay, so what does social justice mean to you?

Rainier asks Arjay what "social justice" means to him.

The issue of social justice is a hard one and nowhere is this better illustrated than in the field of IR laws.

BOTH the following statements are probably true:

(1) Doing away with unfair dismissal laws makes it easier for people to find jobs. Unemployment will probably be lower without unfair dismissal laws. People with poor or no skills will probably find it easier to get that first job if there are no unfair dismissal laws.

(2) Doing away with unfair dismissal laws lessens job security and increases the stress on workers.

Finding the right balance between the sort or labour market flexibility you need in a modern economy and protecting the most vulnerable labour market participants is HARD. There are NO easy solutions. Go too far in one direction and unemployment soars. Go too far in the other and you leave people vulnerable to some pretty vicious exploitation.

The issue is further complicated by the lottery like nature of most tribunals. If you make it too dangerous for employers to hire marginal workers then they won't.

If I had a small business I would prefer to work 24 / 7 than risk having to face some sort of tribunal in order to be able to fire an unsatisfactory employee. Even if I were to win, the cost in terms of time could sink me.

IR laws are a perfect example of the dangers of being too dogmatic about anything; of assuming you know all the answers.

BTW unfair dismissal laws tilt the balance against small businesses and in favour of the big businesses that can afford the IR specialists they need if they want to sack someone.

What I fear is that Gillard strikes me as someone who would be dogmatic, who would assume she knows all the answers and anyone who disagrees with her stupid or evil.

To answer the original question: they both want Kevin to win.

The thread then Steve is rubbish Gillard is part of a team not the instigator of Labors policy on unfair dismissal.
An insight into the re crafting of that policy may show you it is far from a free ride for the sacked person.
In fact it in my view is not going to restore many jobs, and maybe , again in my view that is not a bad idea.
Explanation? old system has at times been miss used just as workchoices version was.
Gillard it seems is no longer Socialist, the elephant in the cupboard is she seems to have switched factions.
And that elephant has company, Gillards IR policy's if they are hers are not the ones she had 12 months ago.
The thread offers chances to defame people but has little substance .
If it was meant to be funny it failed, may I ask in a list of people such as this why did Howard, Costello, Abbott, the three wise monkeys of conservative politics not appear?
Julia however remains not one of my favorites.

"What I fear is that Gillard strikes me as someone who would be dogmatic, who would assume she knows all the answers and anyone who disagrees with her stupid or evil".
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 30 September 2007 11:05:55 PM

Yes, but one could say this of all politicians. Anyone who disagreed with Peter Rieth, Joe Hockey, Kevin Andrews, Peter Costello were all waved aside as stupid or Bolshevik - with lots of help i might ad from the Murdock media and their stable of conservative hacks.

What we need to fear is the ability to dissent being eroded.
Over the last 10 years there has been an increasing retreat from the basic principles of freedom of speech (and no i don't mean the freedom to vilify).

Did someone say unions are there to provide a voice for workers?
Or was that an echo from some long ago era?

Yeah, I've got to say this is exceedingly vague.

You've picked a number of people with strong views and lumped them into a certain category - people who don't take into account opposing views.

Pick any Howard hater or leftist basher. You'll find exactly the same thing. In fact, it's very difficult to get through to most of the population who feel strongly about a certain issue.
Those who are capable of considering any issue dispassionately and without bias are the exception rather than the norm.

Gillard has been singled out as an example, though to be honest I've seen little evidence for it - there are far more obvious examples out there.

Really. This all seems pretty spurious.

Belly,

I'm well aware the Gillard is part of a team headed by the admirably (small "c") conservative Kevin Rudd. That does restrain her. My guess is Labor's IR policy is more Rudd than Gillard.

If you think Howard, Costello and Abbot belong on the list by all means add them. For what it's worth I think Howard and Costello, like Rudd and Swann, are at heart more pragmatists than ideologues. Not so Abbot who I would have put on the list had I thought about him.

In the end who to put on the list is a judgment call and I don’t expect you to agree with mine.

Rainier,

Yes, unbundling a politician's rhetoric from what he really thinks is hard. That being said, in my judgment Gillard is mostly ideologue who believes her own rhetoric. Rudd and Howard both put on convincing shows but are, I suspect, pragmatists at heart.

Poor old Kim Beazley never managed to put on a convincing show. He would feign indignation at the "Howard government's" latest "outrage;" but his body language always said "I know this is all equine fertiliser but I have to pretend."

Were unions ever truly the voice of workers? Or are they businesses run for the benefit of the union bosses?

I STRONGLY agree that freedom of speech is being eroded.

stevelmeyer you do like the odd low blow don't you?
If at some stage unions did not have the support of workers we long ago would not have them.
With some thing like 20 or is it 22% now under workchoices they exist still, remember unions can not do as much now as they could under a fair system.
I have never said here or any place union power should belong to other than share holders the members.
Future unions are challenged to move to wards those members not attempt to drag the members to the water hole.
Now you are entitled to your views, but that dos not make them true.
Gillard is not the person you claim her to be, my deepest concerns about her are the apparent faction change, not possible if she is as you say.
And her abandoning of her IR policy's under Kim.
Am I alone in saying comparing some to Hitler and co is bizarre?
I think not.

Stevenlmyer
I am going to call SM and hope you dont mind.
You have made my day. I have not been posting much but love your thread and your humour.
The really scarey part is your right. The truth is there are several reason I would be scared to vote for Labour.
' We need look no further than our hospitals and plice which they keep putting back on the Federal Government.
They of course only fool the fools with no idea what so ever how this country is run.
' Apart from that I am scared stiff that woman is going to have any say in running this country.
Have you ever watched Parliment? Have you seen her? My God but they cant be fair dinkim. Shes rude arrogant and darn right scarey.
You have done well to point out the same likeness to other nutters.

' They say if Rudd wins it wont be long before she will stab him in the back and try to get herself in the top position.
How horrible would that be.
Labour would do themselves a favour to be rid of her.
All my friends say the same thing. None of us would ever ever vote Labour ever! with her there.

I read the thread again about 3 hours ago, really do not know why, it has become light and frothy, not true debate, my view.
The last post made it fact in my mind, but I have some insight into ALP policy and it got to me, why not tell it like it is?
Julia Gillard, as stated not my favorite Polly, see my early posts here saying she would not be part of the leadership team.
And my rebuttal of the thought she can ever knife Rudd and take over the leadership.
That thought says in shouted words those who make the claim have zero understanding of the ALP.
And those who admire Gillards brain and guts out number those who do not.
In fact much to my annoyance far too many think she can lead, bury it! no left wing faction person can ever lead the ALP.
Rudd is from Labors right, Gillard is a balance.
Time will tell how well each handles office, but surely they both are more likely to be in government than Howard?
Shallow unsupported views, finding faults that are not there are unlikely to change voters minds.
My concerns about Gillard are not as a result of personality or bitchiness.
Not blind to reality, she will in all probability do well, she may change factions yet again.
But her intelligence is unquestioned
I have sat and heard Julia tell an IR conference what amounted to an backdown of ALP policy about workchoices.
She lost me that day, reform by all means but fair go mate has meaning too.

Be nice - I like Julia Gillard.

And I think she is rather a snappy dresser as well.

Periwinkle
Ok point taken I guess.
Umm can you tell us what or why you like her?
Its ok for Belly to say he doesnt think she would challange KR for the top job Should he be elected- but that doesnt give us a lot of comfort and the rumours been around far too long.
For the life of me I can not see why the public would vote ALP with Hospitals the way they are but lets say they are misinformed enough and we did end up with ALP in State and Federal.
How can you assure us she wont do what they always do and what they did to Kym?
Why shouldnt we be worried?
Dear God I couldnt think of ANY worse.
Its scary to the very bone.
I think I would head for NZ. I would not mind that woman running Australia but not Julia.
So ok be nice you like her. Fair enough , fair enough but why please?
Apart from the fact you say shes a snappy dresser.
I have noticed snappy but never noticed the clothes.
She just seems totally arrogant and ill manered to me. Emm even very savage. Well I am trying to be nice but as you see its not happening because I am being honest.
Perhaps you can change my mind by telling us what you like about her.
Perhaps we ARE wrong?

Dont agree People Againt Live Exports- I think she is kind and even tempered and would make a very good leader if in fact she decides to take that path eventually.

So lil buddy we have to agree to disagree.

Periwinkle, how could you!
I have to grit my teeth in order not to scream every time Julia opens her mouth. Same goes for Kevin...
And that phrase "working families" - it is as if the rest of us contribute nothing...for the record Julia (if you happen to be masochistic enough to read this) I did 81 hours in the last 7 days because there were a couple of crisis situations in the international arena. I was paid at about 30c an hour = direct thanks to Paul Keating.

Periwinkle
lil buddy
cute name.
Oh I see now. Well ok if you say shes kind little buddy I will give her a call ah?
Tell you what could be worse than family first Steve Fielding.
Talk about arrogant. Hey Perwiwinkle whos giving preferences to whom this year. Are the good christians Rudd and Julia supporting FF etc?
Fair dinkim we ought to open the athiest party at least we may get some compassion for animals.

Is Julia a bible basher Perriwinkle? She doesnt look it.
I mean that in a nice way.
She looks like at least she would tell you straight without the need to hide behind the churches code of silence regarding such things as animal cruelty.

Mind you she also looks as if she might just be the girl to give old Bin L a touch up too.
At least shes not hiding out like that grub.

Julia rocks my world from the roots of her henna’ed hair right down to her little tippy toes.

What drugs ARE you people on?

Even if this thread was started in jest; it was never a clever joke, comparing bin Laden to George Pell may have drawn more parallels – all that this has become is a pathetic excuse to bag Julia by those with clearly too much time on their hands (and limited grammar).

Has Julia indulged in any mass killing lately? Ever? Is she likely to?

NO, emphatically, NO.

For a start she’s an atheist, so is not about to kill in the name of religious dogma or any other kind of dogma. However, one can imagine George Pell bringing down hell and damnation on all non-christians.

Nor does she hide in caves – tends to be seen in public, unlike bin Laden.

And she is clean shaven and neatly dressed. No resemblance to bin Laden there either.

I have yet to see evidence of the narrow mindedness claimed by Julia’s detractors; clearly they mistake courage and determination for rigidity. Some of the comments here are sounding more like jealousy or sour grapes to me.

I can understand why women would be jealous of her, she’s very attractive and intelligent. Also there is evidence on this thread that insecure women see such intellectual ability as arrogance.

And intelligent women are often feared by men, as we have observed time and again on OLO.

For the not so easily threatened, Julia is a breath of fresh air compared to the helmet-haired Bronwyn (arrogance much) or the scarily peroxided and mascara’ed Helen Coonan – now’s there’s a duo who make a man’s blood run cold.

But not Julia; she is hot, hot, hot – sassy, smart ‘n sexy. Very unlike bin Laden.

You’re all just jealous ;-)

Oh come on Johnny Rotten Julia Gillard is a puppet having her strings pulled by the Party. She will do and say whatever it takes to keep her where she is until she is ready to move on the other puppet for the top job.