Just started in the Eastern States...

No worm in sight on the ABC...

If you want to see the worm, go to channel 7 or 9. It seems the females go with Julia, and the guys with Tony.

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 6:35pm:

Just started in the Eastern States...

And pretty lacklustre, so far
From BOTH camps

According to the worm, over the last 5 mins or so, the blokes have flatlined - they are either: bored, asleep, dead and/or fixed in their approval/disapproval of the 2 leaders...

Well we seemed to be bogged down on the lowest common denominator.
Boat people...................Hello western Sydney

Aha - apparently, the mention of Nairu and East Timor woke some of them from their slumber...

Either that, or it was a case of 1/2 time, change hands!?

Why are they even running a debate between the ex-leader and the current leader of the Labor Party????

It'd make more sense for a debate between Gillard and ABBOTT....

I see you abandonded the tax debate with me, nemesis! probably the best result for you!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

Why are they even running a debate between the ex-leader and the current leader of the Labor Party???? It'd make more sense for a debate between Gillard and ABBOTT....

LOL...Freudian slip!?

My bad - fixed now!

(I'd started the thread just before I ran out to put the lid back on the hydrotherapy-swimspa thingy)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:07pm:

I see you abandonded the tax debate with me, nemesis! probably the best result for you!

LOL...notwithstanding that it is all-but pointless debating in circles with dogmatists like you - on matters of socio-economic equity and long-term environmental and fiscal responsibility - you are not on Eastern Standard Time and (as you are aware) the National Leadership Debate is on here...

Well so far, as it stands the choice is between beige and cream.
Both weak as ........ :(

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:02pm: Why are they even running a debate between the ex-leader and the current leader of the Labor Party???? It'd make more sense for a debate between Gillard and ABBOTT.... LOL...Freudian slip!? My bad - fixed now! (I'd started the thread just before I ran out to put the lid back on the hydrotherapy-swimspa thingy)

Ahh so it's Gillard vs Abbott??

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

Well so far, as it stands the choice is between beige and cream. Both weak as ........ :(

LOL...at least the Libs won't be able to piss or crap all over the worm this time - they might even wear it with pride!?

Some interesting reading for those looking for some serious political opinion during this sleep inducing run in to master chef
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/latham-monsters-them-all-for-their-vacuousness-20100724-10pgo.html

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:07pm: I see you abandonded the tax debate with me, nemesis! probably the best result for you! LOL...notwithstanding that it is all-but pointless debating in circles with dogmatists like you - on matters of socio-economic equity and long-term environmental and fiscal responsibility - you are not on Eastern Standard Time and (as you are aware) the National Leadership Debate is on here...

well when you maintain that 47<30 there is never any scope for RATIONAL debate! Just remember to 'maintain the rage'! it's all you've got!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

Some interesting reading for those looking for some serious political opinion during this sleep inducing run in to master chef http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/latham-monsters-them-all-for-their-vacuousness-20100724-10pgo.html

It's an excellent article. Maybe Latham has actually found a job he is good at! interesting notion for those silly posters who seem to think labor are centre and liberal are extreme right. Latham cant tell them apart. on policies, neither can I

Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!?

WTF, is this guy for real!?

PMSL I thought Tony was going to give her a kiss at the end.
You could see he wanted to ;D

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:33pm:

Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!?

Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:37pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever?

Only for the .05% of hardcore feminists out there
Anyhow they've both already lost half of them, the Dykes on Bikes wanted same sex marriage ;)

The women voted for gillard.

I also noticed, the longer gillard spoke for, the more her worm declined.
The more Abbott spoke for, the more his worm turned up.

No wonder she only wants one debate.

Aw! We're doomed, one of these people will be running the country. I think I'll catch one of those boats to Nauru. It was all about fair dinkum, boats and fair dinkum moving forward. Lots of spin from both sides, I give it nil all.
Vote 1 Bob Brown, and on that subject, it was nice of Julia to take the credit for some of the greens policies.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:37pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever?

Surely, what is more relevant, is the fact that a wannabe PM saw fit to make such an immature and petty statement!? In the first instance - and at the risk of cementing the negative impression in the minds of the majority of females who already thought he was unfit to govern!?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:37pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever? Only for the .05% of hardcore feminists out there Anyhow they've both already lost half of them, the Dykes on Bikes wanted same sex marriage ;)

I don't think even you believe that. Yo only have to look at commentary on the ABC Drum and the like for female commentators saying they were raising their fist in the air for women everywhere as well as comments on Australia having their first female PM (unelected). If you think that it has no influence (or 0.05%) then I say you are either sadly mistaken or ignorant

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:51pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:37pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever? Surely, what is more relevant, is the fact that a wannabe PM saw fit to make such an immature and petty statement!?

If it is a factor, then how can it be immature and petty?

Probably the worst debate I have seen, I do not think either of them was the winner.

They both wasted my time.

No passion. No verve. Very lack luster. Indeed the commentary has more life than did those two leaders. This thread has more life than those two leaders.

I am left feeling that neither of them really want to be leaders of vision... that they... like a process worker... are just doing the time until retirement.

Heck, corporate meetings that I attend have more passion and verve that that public exercise in the art of being boring.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:51pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:37pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever? Surely, what is more relevant, is the fact that a wannabe PM saw fit to make such an immature and petty statement!? If it is a factor, then how can it be immature and petty?

I'll type slowly and try to explain it one more time: he was having an immature and petty dig at a significant portion of the e-l-e-c-t-o-r-a-t-e!

And I will repeat myself for the slow and dim witted
If it is a factor, then how can it be immature and petty?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

Probably the worst debate I have seen, I do not think either of them was the winner. They both wasted my time.

Ditto!


Sappho wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

No passion. No verve. Very lack luster. Indeed the commentary has more life than did those two leaders. This thread has more life than those two leaders. I am left feeling that neither of them really want to be leaders of vision... that they... like a process worker... are just doing the time until retirement. Heck, corporate meetings that I attend have more passion and verve that that public exercise in the art of being boring.

Agreed!

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:02pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:52pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:51pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:37pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever? Surely, what is more relevant, is the fact that a wannabe PM saw fit to make such an immature and petty statement!? If it is a factor, then how can it be immature and petty? I'll type slowly and try to explain it one more time: he was having an immature and petty dig at a significant portion of the e-l-e-c-t-o-r-a-t-e!

There is so much you just dont get about what happens in politics that I am truly astounded. it has been polled repeatedly that Gillard being female has raised labor's stakes. labor know it, liberals know it, the public knows it.... but nemesis doesnt nor does she accept it. You are starting to sound like the person who accepts ONLY their own beliefs and nothing else. you are wrong on almost every topic - and this is the reason why.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:51pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:44pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:37pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:33pm: Crikey, did Abbott really stoop so low as to throw in a comment about voting based on the GENDER of the PM!? WTF, is this guy for real!? Do you not think that that could be a factor whatsoever? Only for the .05% of hardcore feminists out there Anyhow they've both already lost half of them, the Dykes on Bikes wanted same sex marriage ;) I don't think even you believe that. Yo only have to look at commentary on the ABC Drum and the like for female commentators saying they were raising their fist in the air for women everywhere as well as comments on Australia having their first female PM (unelected). If you think that it has no influence (or 0.05%) then I say you are either sadly mistaken or ignorant

A few female commentars on the drum are even less than the figure I quoted.
Sorry I just dont think the gender argument carries any weight with the electorate.
Most know you vote for a party and policies not a person(as I argued when Julia took the leadership)

You are wrong

Quote:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:12pm: Most know you vote for a party and policies not a person(as I argued when Julia took the leadership) You are wrong

We vote for the vision that captures our imagination. We vote for the determination they show in that vision. We vote on their track record. Some of us... many of us... tho not me... will vote on their likability.

FFS, some of you guys seem to have serious comprehension issues...

Why did you assume that I was talking about 'relevance' - rather than political maturity and savvy - in the first instance!?

Abbott wants to be PM.
He is trailing badly in the polls.
Women in particular don't much like him.
They think he's immature, petty, divisive &/or erratic.
Some call him a chauvanist.
Others reckon he's a mysoginist.
So, what does he do on national TV!?
He denigrates women in a pre-election debate!?
Great way to win them back over - NOT!!!
Get it!? Got it!? Good!?


(BTW, not referring to you on this, Smithy!)

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

You are wrong

LOL, in your esteemed opinion :D

For what it's worth, the Seven Network's 'worm' (courtesy of AC Nielsen) called it a 53% win to Gillard

This pretty much reflects the recent opinion polls

Whether EITHER leader made no ground - or whether the audience stuck with pre-conceptions - we don't seem to have achieved a lot

I SHOULD have bought some wine for dinner
It might have all been slightly compelling
(The debate, not the dinner)

Well I was left with the feeling that we have got the politicians that we deserve.
I fear that with the age of instant media that we now have, all pollies are just focused on the quick grab, and using it to hold, or gain power.

I think we must consider five year terms, as the current system leaves our leaders paralysed with fear of taking any tough decisions, and merely seeking to placate the electorate into accepting borderline mediocrity as the most we should hope for.

Tonight's effort saw Gillard hold her own against Abbott, and she came across as more informed and confident, but still far too timid for my liking.

I agree with having a 5 year term of govt. It's how business operates. It's how most people plan their personal lives.  

Considering the 'worm' has never been kind to Liberals, then 53% should be hailed as a decisive victory

mozzaok wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:22pm:

Well I was left with the feeling that we have got the politicians that we deserve. I fear that with the age of instant media that we now have, all pollies are just focused on the quick grab, and using it to hold, or gain power. I think we must consider five year terms, as the current system leaves our leaders paralysed with fear of taking any tough decisions, and merely seeking to placate the electorate into accepting borderline mediocrity as the most we should hope for. Tonight's effort saw Gillard hold her own against Abbott, and she came across as more informed and confident, but still far too timid for my liking.

Yup, I basically agree - except that I reckon the fixed 4 year election cycle (with maximum 2 terms for PMs) would be the way to go...

As for your comment that Gillard was too 'timid' - I mused over one of the voters on the ABC coverage (at Penrith I think) was put off by her condescending attitude towards Abbott.

Just goes to show that an assertive woman is still perceived by many to be aggressive, eh!?

thy


Quote:

Abbott wants to be PM. He is trailing badly in the polls. Women in particular don't much like him. They think he's immature, petty, divisive &/or erratic. Some call him a chauvanist. Others reckon he's a mysoginist. So, what does he do on national TV!? He denigrates women in a pre-election debate!? Great way to win them back over - NOT!!! Get it!? Got it!? Good!?

wadda load of leftard crap.

abbott sploe the truth and answered questions.
the gaunt mare did not and was pulled into line about it OFTEN.

women vote for her, no matter what she says.

Sappho wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

Heck, corporate meetings that I attend have more passion and verve that that public exercise in the art of being boring.

u work at centrelink shithead, u dont go to meetings with normal people

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:

Considering the 'worm' has never been kind to Liberals, then 53% should be hailed as a decisive victory

Is it me, or was the worm's scale different to previous ones!?

Did it ever reach the very top or the very bottom of the scale shown!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:19pm:

FFS, some of you guys seem to have serious comprehension issues... Why did you assume that I was talking about 'relevance' - rather than political maturity and savvy - in the first instance!? Abbott wants to be PM. He is trailing badly in the polls. Women in particular don't much like him. They think he's immature, petty, divisive &/or erratic. Some call him a chauvanist. Others reckon he's a mysoginist. So, what does he do on national TV!? He denigrates women in a pre-election debate!? Great way to win them back over - NOT!!! Get it!? Got it!? Good!? (BTW, not referring to you on this, Smithy!)

Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?"

Your bias is clouding your judgement

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:32pm:

thy Quote: Abbott wants to be PM. He is trailing badly in the polls. Women in particular don't much like him. They think he's immature, petty, divisive &/or erratic. Some call him a chauvanist. Others reckon he's a mysoginist. So, what does he do on national TV!? He denigrates women in a pre-election debate!? Great way to win them back over - NOT!!! Get it!? Got it!? Good!? wadda load of leftard crap. abbott sploe the truth and answered questions. the gaunt mare did not and was pulled into line about it OFTEN. women vote for her, no matter what she says.

LOL...'gaunt mare' - perhaps we should have got with the gender program and called him a 'dick with ears' from the outset!?

::)

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:38pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:19pm: FFS, some of you guys seem to have serious comprehension issues... Why did you assume that I was talking about 'relevance' - rather than political maturity and savvy - in the first instance!? Abbott wants to be PM. He is trailing badly in the polls. Women in particular don't much like him. They think he's immature, petty, divisive &/or erratic. Some call him a chauvanist. Others reckon he's a mysoginist. So, what does he do on national TV!? He denigrates women in a pre-election debate!? Great way to win them back over - NOT!!! Get it!? Got it!? Good!? (BTW, not referring to you on this, Smithy!) Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?" Your bias is clouding your judgement

LOL...short memory too!?

Go back to my rhetorical statement at 7:33pm, which was the apparent trigger of this gender tangent...

I prefer that you answer the question

Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?"

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:44pm:

I prefer that you answer the question Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?"

I suggest that we all defer to the transcript for the exact quote - but in his closing statement he made a comment that suggested to the effect that choosing who to vote for should not be based on "gender".

It was an immature and unsavvy comment and he should not have gone there - period!

Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:47pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:44pm: I prefer that you answer the question Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?" I suggest that we all defer to the transcript for the exact quote - but in his closing statement he made a comment that suggested to the effect that choosing who to vote for should not be based on "gender". It was an immature and unsavvy comment and he should not have gone there - period!

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, it is relevant. Your choice of words such as 'immature' and 'unsavvy' only display your ineptitude or ignorance at the understanding that a female PM will resonate with female voters

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:

Considering the 'worm' has never been kind to Liberals, then 53% should be hailed as a decisive victory

To be MORE accurate, it TRADITIONALLY favours the Opposition of the day
They have the much easier task - having only to criticise - and not defend

Crikey, I just popped over to the ABC web-site and saw this: -


Quote:

@AndrewRobbMP: I'm told from the worm watchers, JG has a problem with men

WTF!?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:54pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:25pm: Considering the 'worm' has never been kind to Liberals, then 53% should be hailed as a decisive victory To be MORE accurate, it TRADITIONALLY favours the Opposition of the day They have the much easier task - having only to criticise - and not defend

What a coincidence that TRADITIONALLY the opposition has been Labor.  ;D

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:54pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:47pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:44pm: I prefer that you answer the question Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?" I suggest that we all defer to the transcript for the exact quote - but in his closing statement he made a comment that suggested to the effect that choosing who to vote for should not be based on "gender". It was an immature and unsavvy comment and he should not have gone there - period! And as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, it is relevant. Your choice of words such as 'immature' and 'unsavvy' only display your ineptitude or ignorance at the understanding that a female PM will resonate with female voters

LOL...how many times do I have to tell you that I never suggested otherwise!?

Go back through this thread, and you will see that I was misrepresented by several posters...

Still, some of you guys don't get it, that: Abbott (he who wants to pretend he is a suitable choice for PM) should have been more careful what he said - and that it was politically stupid, dumb, immatue and foolish for him to specifically attack voters on the basis of gender at the end of an otherwise relatively tame debate...

Quote:

and that it was politically stupid, dumb, immatue and foolish for him to specifically attack voters on the basis of gender

And once again, I ask you to point out where he "specifically attacks voters on the basis of gender"

There was nothing in that debate for me.
Julia promised some solar power stations but why
didn't Labor do something in the last 3 years?

You could see that both were putting on a fake act.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:57pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:54pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:25pm: Considering the 'worm' has never been kind to Liberals, then 53% should be hailed as a decisive victory To be MORE accurate, it TRADITIONALLY favours the Opposition of the day They have the much easier task - having only to criticise - and not defend What a coincidence that TRADITIONALLY the opposition has been Labor.  ;D

EXACTLY - and in those debates (where Labor was in Opposition) Labor fared better 'wormwise' as a result

I thought it would have reacted more sympathetically to the CURRENT Leader of the Opposition

Gillard wins in tight debate
July 25, 2010

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has won the leaders' debate by a narrow margin, according to the Seven Network's ''Polliegraph'' monitoring the audience's reaction.

The ALP won 53 per cent of the vote ahead of the coalition during the one-hour debate, which mostly swung on gender lines.

For the first time, viewers were able to see what men and women thought, with separate graphs judging reaction from both sexes.

A white line reflected the average.

Ms Gillard clearly performed better among women, while Opposition Leader Tony Abbott performed better among men.

When either leader was critical of their opponent, the polliegraph responded negatively.

Ms Gillard sent the men's graph tumbling when she turned negative, while Mr Abbott appeared to offend women during his sledging of the government's policies.

If the Nine Network's debate worms were any guide to his election chances, Mr Abbott better get a wriggle on, especially with women.

But Ms Gillard has work to do on climate change and her move against former Labor leader Kevin Rudd.

Nine's worms put Ms Gillard well ahead of Mr Abbott in the final analysis of Sunday night's leaders' debate, with 63 per cent to 37.

Women scored Ms Gillard more highly, giving her a 66-34 win over the opposition leader


http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/gillard-wins-in-tight-debate-20100725-10qfv.html?rand=1280052711324

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Quote: and that it was politically stupid, dumb, immatue and foolish for him to specifically attack voters on the basis of gender And once again, I ask you to point out where he "specifically attacks voters on the basis of gender"

Here, I've highlighted it for you in red: -


Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:54pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:47pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:44pm: I prefer that you answer the question Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?" I suggest that we all defer to the transcript for the exact quote - but in his closing statement he made a comment that suggested to the effect that choosing who to vote for should not be based on "gender". It was an immature and unsavvy comment and he should not have gone there - period! And as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, it is relevant. Your choice of words such as 'immature' and 'unsavvy' only display your ineptitude or ignorance at the understanding that a female PM will resonate with female voters LOL...how many times do I have to tell you that I never suggested otherwise!? Go back through this thread, and you will see that I was misrepresented by several posters... Still, some of you guys don't get it, that: Abbott (he who wants to pretend he is a suitable choice for PM) should have been more careful what he said - and that it was politically stupid, dumb, immatue and foolish for him to specifically attack voters on the basis of gender at the end of an otherwise relatively tame debate...

In case you're colour blind, I've also highlighted it for you in blue: -


Equitist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:54pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:47pm: Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:44pm: I prefer that you answer the question Where did he "denigrate women in a pre-election debate!?" I suggest that we all defer to the transcript for the exact quote - but in his closing statement he made a comment that suggested to the effect that choosing who to vote for should not be based on "gender". It was an immature and unsavvy comment and he should not have gone there - period! And as has been pointed out to you numerous times now, it is relevant. Your choice of words such as 'immature' and 'unsavvy' only display your ineptitude or ignorance at the understanding that a female PM will resonate with female voters LOL...how many times do I have to tell you that I never suggested otherwise!? Go back through this thread, and you will see that I was misrepresented by several posters... Still, some of you guys don't get it, that: Abbott (he who wants to pretend he is a suitable choice for PM) should have been more careful what he said - and that it was politically stupid, dumb, immatue and foolish for him to specifically attack voters on the basis of gender at the end of an otherwise relatively tame debate...

Come on Equitist,
You are pulling a long bow.
Gender is not part of this election.

Apparently, the 60 Minutes transcript will be up tomorrow - I shall check it out when it comes up...

bobby - yes, gillard being a female is THE biggest interest of the election.

she'll get the female vote.

Quote:

Here, I've highlighted it for you in red: -

You can highlight all you want but the only thing you are highlighting is the deficiency in your argument that Abbott "attacked" or "denigrated" voters.

Once again, you fail to deliver. This is getting to be a habit.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:40pm:

bobby - yes, gillard being a female is THE biggest interest of the election. she'll get the female vote.

Sounds as if the excuses for defeat are already being tried out.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

Come on Equitist, You are pulling a long bow. Gender is not part of this election.

LOL, Bobby - he (Abbott) brought it up as an election issue, not me!

At 7:33pm, I made a comment on this thread, implying that Abbott shouldn't have mentioned gender in his concluding statements - I made that post just after he actually said the word "gender"....

He was obviously having a dig at female voters - and presumably because it has been all over the news over the past couple of days, that the polls show that women prefer Gillard over him...

I posted about it because I was shocked that he would be so stupid and immature to bring the issue up in that way and in that context...

Once again...

If the polls showed it, it has shown to be relevant, then how is it 'stupid' or 'immature'.

What do you find so hard about defining your statements that you do everything that you can to avoid answering the question?

Equitist

Quote:

I posted about it because I was shocked that he would be so stupid and immature to bring the issue up in that way and in that context...

Gender is a diversion.
We need to talk about installing solar power stations
& other practical things instead of looking for a consensus in
one years time.

idiotic leftys.

abbott says gillard is a woman, so you all jump up and down saying he discriminates.

so stupid, you make canetoads look like geniuses.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 9:54pm:

Once again... If the polls showed it, it has shown to be relevant, then how is it 'stupid' or 'immature'. What do you find so hard about defining your statements that you do everything that you can to avoid answering the question?

OK, after nearly 2 1/2 hours of trying to explain, I give up!

Clearly, you are not paying attention to what I am typing and are instead stubbornly sticking to your first false impression...

Perhaps somebody else is willing and able to interpret my posts for your benefit!?

Meantime, I suggest that you go back to the beginning of this thread and read each post - be sure to pay attention to the usual meaning of the actual words you read...

Try not to think in terms of 'relevance' - and instead focus on 'political savvy'...

Try not to stress too much, if you still don't get it...

Still nothing?

I am not surprised. It seems to be your calling card to make statements and not be able to back them up.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

Still nothing? I am not surprised. It seems to be your calling card to make statements and not be able to back them up.

LOL...did you see my post immediately before this one of yours!?

thy the nothyinker

Yes...that one didn't back your statements either  ::)

It is not a false impression. You have continually spoken of 'attacked' and 'denigrated' voters.

All I ask is where did Abbott do this? Something you have consistently refused to address other than" oh look at my previous post'. Mentioning a pertinent point in a debate is not 'denigrating' or 'attacking' voters.

Now you need to show where this occurred or back slowly out of the thread and hope no one notices that you have embarrassed yourself

Well , I would give that as a win to Abbott, not because he put better points, but because my expectations of him making a fopar or making an ass of himself were quite high and he didn't.

Therefore, he exceeded my expectations and is tonights winner.

That said, he clearly seems to be on the nose with female voters and that will present Abbott & the Libs with a lot of ground to make up, in quite a short period of time.

I think I will stay with my previous assessment, a Labor win, but close!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

thy the nothyinker

LOL...would you believe that: only minutes ago, I was considering dropping the 'Thy' off my ID!?

How can I do that, when my nemeses seem to have so much fun toying with it!?

:-)  true.

have a good night mate

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:19pm:

Yes...that one didn't back your statements either  ::) It is not a false impression. You have continually spoken of 'attacked' and 'denigrated' voters. All I ask is where did Abbott do this? Something you have consistently refused to address other than" oh look at my previous post'. Mentioning a pertinent point in a debate is not 'denigrating' or 'attacking' voters. Now you need to show where this occurred or back slowly out of the thread and hope no one notices that you have embarrassed yourself

*bump* for Meekest

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:36pm:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 10:19pm: Yes...that one didn't back your statements either  ::) It is not a false impression. You have continually spoken of 'attacked' and 'denigrated' voters. All I ask is where did Abbott do this? Something you have consistently refused to address other than" oh look at my previous post'. Mentioning a pertinent point in a debate is not 'denigrating' or 'attacking' voters. Now you need to show where this occurred or back slowly out of the thread and hope no one notices that you have embarrassed yourself *bump* for Meekest

NOTICE FOR CYBERMAN ET AL

**** THE DEBATE IS CURRENTLY REPLAYING ON ABC24 ****

Watch around midnight for Abbott's closing statements

Pay attention and you will hear him mention the word "gender" -
then decide whether he was wise to make that statement!

Why do I have to repeat myself?

I watched the debate and I heard what Abbott said. It is up to you you to prove that he 'attacked' and 'denigrated' voters as you have suggested.

You have avoided doing this all night and I suggest it is because you are not only deficient in defending your arguments, you are also deficient in logical thinking...but you seem to have the hang of highlighting text.

I suggest you stick to text that doesn't highlight your ignorance.

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:29pm:

Why do I have to repeat myself? I watched the debate and I heard what Abbott said. It is up to you you to prove that he 'attacked' and 'denigrated' voters as you have suggested. You have avoided doing this all night and I suggest it is because you are not only deficient in defending your arguments, you are also deficient in logical thinking...but you seem to have the hang of highlighting text. I suggest you stick to text that doesn't highlight your ignorance.

LOL...you're sounding remarkably like a former Yahooligan Shitzu...

Meantime, what matters is not how ye and me interpret what he said, rather it is how the broader electorate responds to what he said...

Yet another non-specific post against a specific question.

If all I gain is your ability to think before you post, then I will have educated you. I hope the eduction sinks in

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:42pm:

Yet another non-specific post against a specific question. If all I gain is your ability to think before you post, then I will have educated you. I hope the eduction sinks in

LOL...the arrogance of the yappy Shitzu is showing through too...  ::)

Hmnnn...I wonder...which portrait most suits you: -

http://www.pups4sale.com.au/shih_tzu_03a.jpg  

http://yevrah.blogsome.com/wp-admin/images/shi%20tzu.jpg

The arrogant 'Sad sack' with the blue ribbon or the cute 'Excitable Sam' with the yellow ones!?

Yet another left trait comes to the fore.

I am not this Shitzu, just like I am not this IQ... what is it with you leftys. Do you have no self introspection that when multiple people show you that you're incorrect, the only defence you have is to accuse your adversary that they are someone else that saw through your bullsh!t?

Cyberman wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:55pm:

Yet another left trait comes to the fore. I am not this Shitzu, just like I am not this IQ... what is it with you leftys. Do you have no self introspection that when multiple people show you that you're incorrect, the only defence you have is to accuse your adversary that they are someone else that saw through your bullsh!t?

LOL...I was just testing to see if you were Macca in disguise - you can't be, as she can take a joke!  ::)

OK, this time around I recorded the relevant Abbott comment from his concluding statement...

His exact words were as follows: -


Quote:

...whether Prime Ministers are to be chosen on the basis of the job they've done, or gender."

You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

Where has he attacked or denigrated the voter? Are you dim, don't get the question or just plain smacking stupid (I'm guessing the latter considering your continual inability to address the actual question)

Here's a link to a transcript: -

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/transcript-of-2010-federal-election-debate/story-fn5ko0pw-1225896808486

Here is the relevant extract in context: -


Quote:

Re-elect this Government and there’ll be six years of pink batt disasters and school hall rip-offs.  There’ll be more spending, more backflips, more debt, more taxes.  It will just get worse. There will be more hits on your standard of living.  We’ll get a mining tax if Labor is elected.  We’ll get a carbon tax if Labor is elected – thanks to the preference deal with the Greens that not even Bob Brown likes. So this election will determine whether the Prime Minister is to be elected by the people or by the powerbrokers, whether Prime Ministers are to be chosen on the basis of the job they’ve done or gender and whether the national government should be run as a mates machine like the Labor Governments in New South Wales and Queensland.  It’s about whether the public can trust the Labor Party when not even Kevin Rudd could.

Petty, negative, divisive and juvenile - that's just what his rusted-on supporters love. That's the attitude that Tony Abbott brings to the poor job that he is doing in connecting with the broader electorate!

Clearly, he has a lot of chips on his shoulders and he lacks the vision and maturity to constructively govern our nation!

thy- of course it is relevant and obvious to mention julia gender.

she's a female. she's the 1st female we have ever had to stand for pm.
many woman will vote for her becaiuse she is a woman.

Surely, you are not that naieve that you thynk it is irrelevant ??
did you see the worms for the female being strongly for jooolya

Yes but Abbotts obsessed with Gillards gender, and the fact she's single, the  muncher opened his speeech with " Margie and I know what its like to raise a family" he also knows what its like to gobble priests but he never mentioned that.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 8:44am:

thy- of course it is relevant and obvious to mention julia gender. she's a female. she's the 1st female we have ever had to stand for pm. many woman will vote for her becaiuse she is a woman. Surely, you are not that naieve that you thynk it is irrelevant ?? did you see the worms for the female being strongly for jooolya

LOL...why do you right whingers assume that I don't think it is relevant!? Where did I say or even suggest that!?

It is precisely because it IS relevant, that Tony Abbott should have had the maturity and political savvy NOT to have such a petty double-edged dig at both her and her supporters!

He has done exactly what he shouldn't have done, if he wanted to win over some of the those people in the electorate (especially women) who were already thinking that he is too juvenile, petty, negative, dogmatic, divisive, erratic and out-of-touch, to be trusted to lead our nation...

His overwhelmingly-negative concluding comments were a great example of how to lose support and alienate people...

Get it!?

get it ??
I thynk I get it.
the deceptive leftys are saying abbott should have lied by ommission and never noticed jooolya is a woman and that that has a HUGE bearing on the outcome.

sorry, us rightys tend to say what is what.

skippy - yes, Margie and abbott have raised a family, yooolya hasn't
it's a fact, get it ??


leftys score - 2/10

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

get it ?? I thynk I get it. the deceptive leftys are saying abbott should have lied by ommission and never noticed jooolya is a woman and that that has a HUGE bearing on the outcome. sorry, us rightys tend to say what is what. skippy - yes, Margie and abbott have raised a family, yooolya hasn't it's a fact, get it ?? leftys score - 2/10

LOL...like I said: out-of-touch...

Of course, you probably can't help it...I suspect that it has something to do with the simple black/white and linear thinking of the Conseravtive mind - it fundamentally lacks the capacity for intuition, empathy and lateral thought...

(Athough, you are nowhere near as dogmatic or badly incapacitated, as some of your fellow right whingers - there's hope for you!  ;))

didn't bother watching ... yet looks like I should of


17% are saying Bob Brown won the debate !


http://www.smh.com.au/polls/federal-election/leaders-debate/20100726-10quc.html#poll

Quote:

Of course, you probably can't help it...I suspect that it has something to do with the simple black/white and linear thinking of the Conseravtive mind - it fundamentally lacks the capacity for intuition, empathy and lateral thought

Thy, sprints a Kiwi, nuf said.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:00am:

skippy - yes, Margie and abbott have raised a family, yooolya hasn't it's a fact, get it ?? leftys score - 2/10

This is being played on by the Libs and it isn't a good argument. What I actually think is disgraceful about the lives of many politicians is that they sacrifice their families for their job. The spouses are left to raise their children singlehandedly.

We know that Julia Gillard is a dedicated person who has put her ambition before the selfish act of having children and then neglecting them.

She deserves an accolade for that.

skippy - I wondered if you had the moral to keep my dirty little secret quiet.
Guess not   :-)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:35am:

skippy - I wondered if you had the moral to keep my dirty little secret quiet. Guess not   :-)

LOL I'm just trying to justify your stance for you.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:35am:

skippy - I wondered if you had the moral to keep my dirty little secret quiet. Guess not   :-)

It was a pathetic debate and Gillard is a far worse debater than I expected. Abbott is never good in this format yet he held his own. and I not that newpolls has labor at 52/48. that pretty much confirms that the last polls at 55/45 was wrong. no way the margin changed that fast ina  week where no party made any significant policies or performance.

Quote:

that pretty much confirms that the last polls at 55/45 was wrong. no way the margin changed that fast ina  week

Not really, the Neilson poll had Labor at 55/45 as well, the 52/48 could well be wrong.
But, what we do know is that the worst Labor have done since Gillard became PM is 52/48, in fact its 52.7% .1% more than Labor won the last election with.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:48am:

Quote: that pretty much confirms that the last polls at 55/45 was wrong. no way the margin changed that fast ina  week Not really, the Neilson poll had Labor at 55/45 as well, the 52/48 could well be wrong. But, what we do know is that the worst Labor have done since Gillard became PM is 52/48, in fact its 52.7% .1% more than Labor won the last election with.

Another way of looking at it is that Labor has dropped 5% from its primary vote at last election and is well behind the Coalition. Only the green preferences are keeping them in the hunt. If we had first past the post voting (which I am not suggesting), labor would be slaughtered. There is little joy to be had for labor other than the probability of a win with little changes in seats. The wildcard however is QLD where labor trails 48/52 and will loose a number of seats. It could still end up an election where labor wins the 2PP and loses the number of seats and therefore govt.

mantra wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 9:00am: skippy - yes, Margie and abbott have raised a family, yooolya hasn't it's a fact, get it ?? leftys score - 2/10 This is being played on by the Libs and it isn't a good argument. What I actually think is disgraceful about the lives of many politicians is that they sacrifice their families for their job. The spouses are left to raise their children singlehandedly. We know that Julia Gillard is a dedicated person who has put her ambition before the selfish act of having children and then neglecting them. She deserves an accolade for that.

an accolade for selfish ambition? Not from me - or from most!

What we do know is, the coalition do better on election day than they do in preceding polls.

And tony flogged jooolya easily.
She was repeatedly asked to answer the question after her waffling mothercomments.

Someone said every time either of them opened their mouths t was guaranteed voted for the greens  :o

that "Someone" was prob a greenie

is that the greens policy ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ?

The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear.

Didn't hear one single question about the way the Liberals destroyed the ETS yet is Such an important issue. And to me Abbott utterly failed to establish his own party as the alternative.


He and his party are showing far to much destruction of  negative spin since becoming leader and   that Im afraid may be  damaging  good governance and democracy.

I feel Abbott is 'desperate for the job' but I think his intention for that postion , is wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 10:20am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:16am: that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ? The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear.

LOL, Bates...show us your stats!

I agree that lefties would probably be more inclinded to opt out than right whingers, however, I'd like to know how in hell you drew that conclusion about Greens supporters in particular...

I reckon that the voting demographics would suggest otherwise - but I am prepared to both review the data you might present and listen to your POV...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 10:20am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:16am: that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ? The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear.

That'll be the day..... and it's sad, because we really did need a more neutral smaller party to keep both Labor and Liberal honest.

This opposed to preference whores.


:-/..Poor Bob, I think either he's a very good liar (I don't believe he is)...or he's very disappointed with his own party's decision to run with preferences...given he opposes preference voting full stop.


On this matter, he has my support, even if he is a coward.

::)

I watched the debate this morning on APAC and it was a bit of a nothing debate.

More spin from Gillard and nothing really of any substance.

You are right Verge, it was more like taking turns to spout political BS, rather than a proper debate, which is what the people all want, but what the pollies are way to frightened to do anymore.
Keating was the last PM with the guts to debate anyone properly.

Equitist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:20am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:16am: that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ? The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear. LOL, Bates...show us your stats! I agree that lefties would probably be more inclinded to opt out than right whingers, however, I'd like to know how in hell you drew that conclusion about Greens supporters in particular... I reckon that the voting demographics would suggest otherwise - but I am prepared to both review the data you might present and listen to your POV...

You are an odd one to ask anyone for stats since you refuse to ever give them yourself!

Yeah, statistics are totally meaningless, 53.6% of people know that.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Keating was the last PM with the guts to debate anyone properly.

Yeah, and he is STILL debating him....

http://www.news.com.au/national/paul-keating-unleashes-on-bob-hawke-i-carried-you-through-years-of-malaise/story-e6frfkvr-1225891904317

Soren wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:57pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 2:57pm: Keating was the last PM with the guts to debate anyone properly. Yeah, and he is STILL debating him.... http://www.news.com.au/national/paul-keating-unleashes-on-bob-hawke-i-carried-you-through-years-of-malaise/story-e6frfkvr-1225891904317

Keating is still suffering from Relevance Deprivation Syndrome (RDS). that and the fact that everyone hates him

Verge wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

I watched the debate this morning on APAC and it was a bit of a nothing debate. More spin from Gillard and nothing really of any substance.

Ploooooise define 'spin'........

You can't, oh well! "Bye Bye Libs!"

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D >:( ;D :D ;) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ::) :-? 8-) :o :-X  :-X  :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-[ ;D :D 8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 3:31pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 2:54pm: I watched the debate this morning on APAC and it was a bit of a nothing debate. More spin from Gillard and nothing really of any substance. Ploooooise define 'spin'........ You can't, oh well! "Bye Bye Libs!"  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D >:( ;D :D ;) :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ::) :-? 8-) :o :-X  :-X  :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-[ ;D :D 8-)

Looks like 'junior' has been on daddies laptop. Grow up moron.

;D

what's with all the faces. Are you a labor voter or something?
I see, if you can't say it, draw it, right?

gillards scared to face abbott again.

it's a face-off.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 3:31pm:

Ploooooise define 'spin'........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JWvAZOkYNc

I want to know who this Mervin Ford is who Gillard keeps talking about.  Is he the one driving the campaign?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 2:59pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 2:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:20am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:16am: that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ? The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear. LOL, Bates...show us your stats! I agree that lefties would probably be more inclinded to opt out than right whingers, however, I'd like to know how in hell you drew that conclusion about Greens supporters in particular... I reckon that the voting demographics would suggest otherwise - but I am prepared to both review the data you might present and listen to your POV... You are an odd one to ask anyone for stats since you refuse to ever give them yourself!

You cheeky lying dogmatic sod - I'm sure that your doG has some kind of command meant for that scornful sin!?

Beware of impending hellfire and damnation, Bates!

Failing that, you'd better watch out for Mozza's Karma...





(PS Most puns mostly intended!)

Oh you provide stats. Just not the ones that prove your outlandish statements.

"Oh they disappeared from the Yahoo board" is probably the most pissweak excuse for failing to provide evidence that I have ever come across.

Even skippy is smart enough to know when to shut up after he has posted some bullshit. He disappears until the thread dies down. You just keep digging.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

Some interesting reading for those looking for some serious political opinion during this sleep inducing run in to master chef http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/latham-monsters-them-all-for-their-vacuousness-20100724-10pgo.html

Gillard opposed parental leave: report
MARK METHERELL
July 27, 2010 - 8:51PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard's election campaign has been hit by yet another apparent leak with the revelation tonight that she resisted proposals for a parental leave scheme and voiced reservations about a big rise in the pension increase.

The report, by veteran journalist Laurie Oakes, comes after his earlier explosive question to her at the National Press Club about suggestions that she had reneged on a pact to support former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remaining in power.

The latest disclosure has fuelled speculation that somebody in the inner circle of the Labor leadership sympathetic to Rudd is bent on destabilising Ms Gillard's leadership - a lethal move in the middle of an election campaign.

Mr Rudd himself for the first time during the election campaign, has referred to Julia Gillard by name giving his support to the Prime Minister's campaign.

Oakes said on Channel Nine he had leaked information from government sources supporting the suggestion that as Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, in cabinet had resisted the 18-week paid parental leave scheme set at the minimum wage.

"The idea that paid parental leave would be a political winner was misconstrued," Ms Gillard was quoted as telling cabinet.

"People beyond child-bearing age would resent it as would stay-at-home mothers."

Ms Gillard reportedly questioned the $30 a week increase for single pensioners, billed as the biggest rise in a century since the pension was introduced.

Government sources quoted in the report said that while Ms Gillard was not opposed to the pension increase, she questioned the $14 billion cost on the grounds "elderly voters did not support Labor".

Mr Oakes said the leaks did not come from the Liberal Party and hinted that the source was someone closer to home.

The Labor Party campaign office has issued a response on behalf of Ms Gillard.

"Cabinet discussions are confidential. I have always respected cabinet confidentiality and I will continue to do so," it said in a statement.

"In any case, I would not respond to anonymous allegations.

"If the Liberal Party have allegations to make, they should put their names to them."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/gillard-opposed-parental-leave-report-20100727-10u6f.html

Quote Latham Sky news
"He's a serial leaker, it's like herion for him"
LOL Hello Kevin :D

Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 2:59pm: Equitist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 2:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:20am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 10:16am: that "Someone" was prob a greenie is that the greens policy ? The Greens can get excited when they get votes based on THEIR policies rather than people who just dislike labor and liberal. If compulsory voting was dumped 3/4 of the green vote woudl instantly disappear. LOL, Bates...show us your stats! I agree that lefties would probably be more inclinded to opt out than right whingers, however, I'd like to know how in hell you drew that conclusion about Greens supporters in particular... I reckon that the voting demographics would suggest otherwise - but I am prepared to both review the data you might present and listen to your POV... You are an odd one to ask anyone for stats since you refuse to ever give them yourself! You cheeky lying dogmatic sod - I'm sure that your doG has some kind of command meant for that scornful sin!? Beware of impending hellfire and damnation, Bates! Failing that, you'd better watch out for Mozza's Karma... (PS Most puns mostly intended!)

we spent 24 hours with you demanding the return of the 60% tax rate and when asked to justify it all you could come up with is a ideological imperative to make the 'bastards pay more'.

you dont deserve a better response than the one I gave.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 25th, 2010 at 7:18pm: Some interesting reading for those looking for some serious political opinion during this sleep inducing run in to master chef http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/latham-monsters-them-all-for-their-vacuousness-20100724-10pgo.html Gillard opposed parental leave: report MARK METHERELL July 27, 2010 - 8:51PM Prime Minister Julia Gillard's election campaign has been hit by yet another apparent leak with the revelation tonight that she resisted proposals for a parental leave scheme and voiced reservations about a big rise in the pension increase. The report, by veteran journalist Laurie Oakes, comes after his earlier explosive question to her at the National Press Club about suggestions that she had reneged on a pact to support former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remaining in power. The latest disclosure has fuelled speculation that somebody in the inner circle of the Labor leadership sympathetic to Rudd is bent on destabilising Ms Gillard's leadership - a lethal move in the middle of an election campaign. Mr Rudd himself for the first time during the election campaign, has referred to Julia Gillard by name giving his support to the Prime Minister's campaign. Oakes said on Channel Nine he had leaked information from government sources supporting the suggestion that as Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, in cabinet had resisted the 18-week paid parental leave scheme set at the minimum wage. "The idea that paid parental leave would be a political winner was misconstrued," Ms Gillard was quoted as telling cabinet. "People beyond child-bearing age would resent it as would stay-at-home mothers." Ms Gillard reportedly questioned the $30 a week increase for single pensioners, billed as the biggest rise in a century since the pension was introduced. Government sources quoted in the report said that while Ms Gillard was not opposed to the pension increase, she questioned the $14 billion cost on the grounds "elderly voters did not support Labor". Mr Oakes said the leaks did not come from the Liberal Party and hinted that the source was someone closer to home. The Labor Party campaign office has issued a response on behalf of Ms Gillard. "Cabinet discussions are confidential. I have always respected cabinet confidentiality and I will continue to do so," it said in a statement. "In any case, I would not respond to anonymous allegations. "If the Liberal Party have allegations to make, they should put their names to them." http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/gillard-opposed-parental-leave-report-20100727-10u6f.html Quote Latham Sky news "He's a serial leaker, it's like herion for him" LOL Hello Kevin :D

I smelt Kev all over that one too. I wonder if he is going to do this all thru the campaign. i hope he gets some good stuff out tho. this tiddly news is damaging but not enough. unless of course he is clever enough to try and weaken her credibility but not lose the election. that would presume his ego is subservient to his intelligence.  not convinced of that tho!

Cyberman wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:16pm:

Oh you provide stats. Just not the ones that prove your outlandish statements. "Oh they disappeared from the Yahoo board" is probably the most pissweak excuse for failing to provide evidence that I have ever come across. Even skippy is smart enough to know when to shut up after he has posted some bullshit. He disappears until the thread dies down. You just keep digging.

LOL, who can hide from you troll,IQSRLOW? you follow me around to every forum I sign up at.

Soren wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 3:31pm: Ploooooise define 'spin'........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JWvAZOkYNc

So does the media impart 'spin'?!!?

Come on..... answer the question!  :o :o ::) :-? :P ;)  :D :D :D

Gillard as the Grinch who stole Labor

;)

I'm trying to find the comical image that I'm told used to be up on google images, but for some reason, I cant seem to be able to find it.

Anyone know where it's gone?

Apparently it's hilarious.

8-)

skippy. wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 8:34am:

Cyberman wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:16pm: Oh you provide stats. Just not the ones that prove your outlandish statements. "Oh they disappeared from the Yahoo board" is probably the most pissweak excuse for failing to provide evidence that I have ever come across. Even skippy is smart enough to know when to shut up after he has posted some bullshit. He disappears until the thread dies down. You just keep digging. LOL, who can hide from you troll,IQSRLOW? you follow me around to every forum I sign up at.

Skippy, what's going on?

Every time I read one of your posts, you appear to be being rather unfriendly to someone or other,  is it our deodorant?

Does this forums colour scheme excite rage or something?

Try the cool blue colour scheme,(go into your profile options)  it works for me.

.....You're like a bull with a red flag....a hate-machine on crack!@

:-/