"But, SM, the title of this thread is "Alan Jones comment".

It's not "Alan Jones' and the abhorrent left's comments."

Poirot, double standards seem to be to be very relevant to the discussion.

I wonder how many of those highly outraged by Jones comments have told a joke that went to far in a setting they believed was private.

How many who are outraged at his tactics to whip up support for causes have been Ok with exaggeration or even outright lies in support of causes they think are important? I'm reminded of a comment by ChazP after being pressured over misrepresentation of family violence "C’mon Robert stop trying to be so naive and innocent. The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255&page=0#212833

How many of Jones critics on this site expressed their disgust at ChazP for those tactics?

I don't know if you saw wobbles now deleted post on the opening page. There may be debate over the wording but it inferred the uni group Jones was speaking to was basically the same as a group of men masturbating together at a public toilet. wobbles later went on to state

"The old political maxim has never been more true -

"If you don't have the facts, argue the law.
If you don't have the law, argue the facts.
If you don't have the facts or the law, call the other person names." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5402#147098

And for reference wobbles later asked SM for examples of worse things being said about Howard.

Jones comments were tasteless but not intended for a public audience and as far as I'm aware not intended to be heard by the PM or her family. They did not insult Gillard's father although there is no reason to believe that he actually felt shame at his daughters actions. Rather the focus was on the mantra of the PM's lies. In reality no worse although more direct than the continued mantra of Abbot's problem with women and implications about the women in Abbots life and those comments are clearly for a public audience.

R0bert

Well, yes, RObert...but I'm wondering how 'private' one anticipates things will be if one is a high-profile public figure, up on a stage in front of a sizable group of people - even if those people are seen to part of one's fan club?

It's not really the same as gossiping or going too far with a joke with a group of friends is it?

A personality like Jones would always anticipate that at functions like that, there would be a possibility that his words would not remain "between friends".

Nope, he just overestimated his grandeur and underestimated his vulnerability to public censure.

I just heard that too Poirot. He's insane!

I really think this is the second time he has been given benefit of the doubt for being ridiculously sly and cheeky.

Do you remember “Are you suggesting to me that when it comes from Julia, ‘No’ doesn’t mean ‘No’?”

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/hey-tony-baby-i-suppose-a-debates-out-of-the-question/

I find this absolutely fascinating. It's like he somehow becomes untouchable for small instances, and it's as if nobody hears it.

Maybe people are just so gobsmacked that they cant believe her really did say it. Maybe it's like when you come up with an excuse for something that is so ridiculously implausible nobody questions it.

"Nope, he just overestimated his grandeur and underestimated his vulnerability to public censure."

Can't argue with that but I still think a lot of his most outraged critics are running some pretty glaring double standards.

It's all Ok when they do it or it's in support of one of their causes but when it's the other side then it's utterly and completely wrong.

On the other hand after seeing a little of Abbott talking about Slippers text messages I wonder if the response will be the same if a text message from a key supporter turns up that's used those terms. Somehow I doubt it.

Both sides play a dirty game of point scoring against anything they can find against the other side and lot's of excusing and turning of blind eyes for their own side.

R0bert

SM fat too fragile bloke, you too put your self out there with comments few agree with.
You would be better served by distancing your self from Jones/Abbott and clearing the decks for the impending return to LIBERALISM /Turnbull.
I want to ask a question.
Given the similarity's between AJ/and Abbott,s words, who writes the speech,s for the other?
A split hair of difference can not be found between they in this area.
International media has the bloke in it sights and so too Liberal back bencher,s.

Poirot,

The issue of AJ's comment cannot be discussed without including the rank hypocrisy and actions bordering criminal that AJ's opponents have deployed. I would draw parallels with a battle in Beirut where Israel's response to some sniper/mortar fire was a 14 hr aerial bombing and artillery barrage.

Juliar's shameful defense of Slipper after the revelation of hundreds of disgusting sexist and misogynist texts blew up in her face when Slipper fell on his sword.

Abbott's claim that this ethically challenged government should have died of shame from supporting Slipper was a touch optimistic considering the crime and corruption that is a regular part of the Labor party.