My did she get touchy when it was suggested her acceptance speech for the leadership was being drafted by her staff 2 weeks before the Kevvie knifing. She has always maintained she knew nothing untill the morning of the challenge.

She couldn't lie straight in bed.

She was out maneuvered by Rudd

Apparently she agreed to the interview because he agreed to the interview

But her's was done before his and he pulled out.

Now whether he planned and deliberately pulled out is a matter of speculation but it does not make her look good

The other point to make is Rudd is the ultimate Teflon-man nothing sticks to him and he comes out looking clean. But this working against Labor rather for Labor

No wonder Gillard said at the ALP conference that members did not join the Labor party to help the Liberals  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 7:46am:

She was out maneuvered by Rudd Apparently she agreed to the interview because he agreed to the interview But her's was done before his and he pulled out. Now whether he planned and deliberately pulled out is a matter of speculation but it does not make her look good The other point to make is Rudd is the ultimate Teflon-man nothing sticks to him and he comes out looking clean. But this working against Labor rather for Labor No wonder Gillard said at the ALP conference that members did not join the Labor party to help the Liberals  ;D

I thought their was a media blackout maqqa?
Did Rudd have a permission slip from Gillard?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 8:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 7:46am: She was out maneuvered by Rudd Apparently she agreed to the interview because he agreed to the interview But her's was done before his and he pulled out. Now whether he planned and deliberately pulled out is a matter of speculation but it does not make her look good The other point to make is Rudd is the ultimate Teflon-man nothing sticks to him and he comes out looking clean. But this working against Labor rather for Labor No wonder Gillard said at the ALP conference that members did not join the Labor party to help the Liberals  ;D I thought their was a media blackout maqqa? Did Rudd have a permission slip from Gillard?

Interesting point

We learned that Gillard has put a gag order on everyone hoping it will stop the hemorrhaging

Chances are Rudd may have asked her permission to do the interview and she agreed only if she can do one as well

Then he dogged her at the last moment. As Bruce MacAvaney would say - DELICIOUS

In typical Gillard labor fashion, she screws up what she was trying to fix.

The lying rodette done it again.

So one could say it would only truth telling to call Gillard a mole....

Maybe she should have gagged herself.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/cloud/polls/popup/605faa61-0c74-36f9-bb16-ab7175149efd/

Do you believe the PM's claims that she first planned to challenge Kevin Rudd only on the day of the challenge?

Yes (81)5%
No (1428)95%

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 8:49am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 8:07am: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 7:46am: She was out maneuvered by Rudd Apparently she agreed to the interview because he agreed to the interview But her's was done before his and he pulled out. Now whether he planned and deliberately pulled out is a matter of speculation but it does not make her look good The other point to make is Rudd is the ultimate Teflon-man nothing sticks to him and he comes out looking clean. But this working against Labor rather for Labor No wonder Gillard said at the ALP conference that members did not join the Labor party to help the Liberals  ;D I thought their was a media blackout maqqa? Did Rudd have a permission slip from Gillard? Interesting point We learned that Gillard has put a gag order on everyone hoping it will stop the hemorrhaging Chances are Rudd may have asked her permission to do the interview and she agreed only if she can do one as well Then he dogged her at the last moment. As Bruce MacAvaney would say - DELICIOUS

Rudd may have felt that cleaning out his sock drawer took priority over appearing on the program. :)
If he did dodge the interview at the last moment, I can imagine the sparks flying today in Canberra.
He certainly hung her out to dry. ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 8:49am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 8:07am: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 7:46am: She was out maneuvered by Rudd Apparently she agreed to the interview because he agreed to the interview But her's was done before his and he pulled out. Now whether he planned and deliberately pulled out is a matter of speculation but it does not make her look good The other point to make is Rudd is the ultimate Teflon-man nothing sticks to him and he comes out looking clean. But this working against Labor rather for Labor No wonder Gillard said at the ALP conference that members did not join the Labor party to help the Liberals  ;D I thought their was a media blackout maqqa? Did Rudd have a permission slip from Gillard? Interesting point We learned that Gillard has put a gag order on everyone hoping it will stop the hemorrhaging Chances are Rudd may have asked her permission to do the interview and she agreed only if she can do one as well Then he dogged her at the last moment. As Bruce MacAvaney would say - DELICIOUS Rudd may have felt that cleaning out his sock drawer took priority over appearing on the program. :) If he did dodge the interview at the last moment, I can imagine the sparks flying today in Canberra. He certainly hung her out to dry. ;D

Perhaps he felt the need was possibly more pressing to put together his own draft of an acceptance/reacceptance speech.  ;)

Perhaps she gave Rudd permission, then withdrew it after her own experience.

Still, all politicians lie. Is anybody really surprised? That's the sad thing - dishonesty in politics is the norm and the public are very rarely outraged by it. 

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

Perhaps she gave Rudd permission, then withdrew it after her own experience. Still, all politicians lie. Is anybody really surprised? That's the sad thing - dishonesty in politics is the norm and the public are very rarely outraged by it.

When you lie to the electorate and then get elected, no matter if you are Gillard or anyone else, you can hardly claim the you are a representative of the public or that the process was truely democratic.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

Perhaps she gave Rudd permission, then withdrew it after her own experience. Still, all politicians lie. Is anybody really surprised? That's the sad thing - dishonesty in politics is the norm and the public are very rarely outraged by it.

Hand in glove with the LABOR PARTY  AND THIS LYING SLAG PRIMEMINSTER    >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!!

After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:29am: What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!! After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Policies will dictate who will be the next Prime Minister and nothing else.....That is not to say Abbott will not provide good policies before the next election.....He will have to dump his paid maternity leave scheme and come up with more than slogans to convince people to vote for him!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

FRED. wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:45am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:29am: What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!! After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Policies will dictate who will be the next Prime Minister and nothing else.....That is not to say Abbott will not provide good policies before the next election.....He will have to dump his paid maternity leave scheme and come up with more than slogans to convince people to vote for him!!!

So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-?

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:51am: FRED. wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:45am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:29am: What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!! After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Policies will dictate who will be the next Prime Minister and nothing else.....That is not to say Abbott will not provide good policies before the next election.....He will have to dump his paid maternity leave scheme and come up with more than slogans to convince people to vote for him!!! So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-?

Are you that stupid.....Of course you are.....Tony Abbott will provide his policy agenda before the next election and might even have them audited correctly next time around.....What he does after the election will determine how well he is perceived by the public and affect his popularity and perceived honesty as it has Julia Gillard.....If you think Abbott will just walk into the Prime Ministership without a solid policy agenda you are a deluded fool!!!

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-?

Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course.

Gist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course.

As soon as you start talking policies with the Faithful they shut up real quick....They know it is a bad topic to debate and Tony Abbott's achilles heal.....Something Abbott will have to fix before he is even considered for PM!!!

4 Corners Triumph
The angry face and complete put down/shut down to the 4 corners reporter and the very angry and curt responses strongly suggests poor old Miss Gillard is suffering a bit from the old inevitable menopause, the effects of which can be quite disturbing.

Julia Gillard jumped the gun before Kevin Rudd was knifed
by: Phillip Hudson, AAP From:Herald Sun February 14, 2012 9:45AM 177

Gillard grilled over rolled Rudd. See how Julia Gillard handles questioning on ABC's Four Corners about an acceptance speech drafted two weeks before Kevin Rudd's ousting.

Gillard speech drafted before Rudd out. The ABC reports that events leading to Kevin Rudd's ouster in 2010 were set in train two weeks earlier.

JULIA Gillard's staff were working on a "victory speech" two weeks before she toppled Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister.

But Ms Gillard insists she did not ask for the speech to be written and did not make the decision to challenge her leader until the day it happened.

It comes as Ms Gillard lost her rating as preferred prime minister to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in the latest Newspoll.

New claims have also emerged that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded a meeting with Washington Ambassador Kim Beazley a fortnight before the coup on Mr Rudd, seeking assurances that a change of PM would not be bad for America.

Thanks for voting!
Do you believe Julia Gillard's claim that her 2010 coup was not pre-planned?
Yes 4.77% (107 votes)
No 95.23% (2134 votes)
Total votes: 2241

The claims made on ABC TV's Four Corners program last night have caused ALP leadership tensions to again flare with some Labor figures questioning why the PM took part in a program called "The Comeback Kid" and focusing on Mr Rudd.

Ms Gillard refused to say if she knew her staff had started writing the leadership speech two weeks before she became PM on June 24, 2010, and during a period where he had been professing her loyalty to Mr Rudd.

"I am not surprised that whether it's people in my office or people more broadly in the government or the Labor Party were casting their mind where circumstances might get to," Ms Gillard told the ABC.

"I did not ask for a speech to be prepared."

When pressed if she knew a speech was being written, Ms Gillard said: "I've just given the best answer I can to your question."

Today, Ms Gillard said "no question, no television program, nothing" would ever change the facts that she made up her mind on the day she told Mr Rudd of the challenge.

"I wouldn't have seen the need for it," she told ABC Radio today.

"I decided to challenge Kevin Rudd, to ask him for a ballot in the Labor Party on the day I asked him for that ballot."

But the Prime Minister could not "specifically say" when she became aware her staff were preparing a speech.

It could have been the night she went to Mr Rudd's office or "it could have been before".

Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne said Ms Gillard's interview on Four Corners showed a "lack of judgment".

"Perhaps she thought Kevin Rudd had agreed to do the program," he said. "What it points to is a divided and dysfunctional government."

Her protestations of innocence and spontaneity were "fake", Mr Pyne said.

Four Corners also said Ms Gillard was shown a secret ALP report before the coup that was not shown to Mr Rudd that revealed she was more popular and was used to convince MPs they could not win under Mr Rudd.

Ms Gillard told the program she did not have "specific recall" of it but, as deputy leader, was frequently shown polling.

Ms Gillard said the challenge "was not in any way motivated by polling".

The latest Newspoll shows that if an election were held now the Government would be routed (rooted ?).

Voters surveyed in last weekend's poll said their satisfaction with Mr Abbott had risen in the past two weeks while Ms Gillard's standing had sunk to its lowest level since November, before the positive impact of the visits of the Queen and US President Barack Obama.

Labor's primary vote rose from 30 per cent to 32 per cent and the coalition's from 45 per cent to 46 per cent.


Comments on this story

Paymoretaxes of Melbourne Posted at 9:58 AM Today
Yet another trial by media. A political party has the right to change its leader, but what's more concerning is the way the ALP has not had the balls to end the middle class and corporate welfare system brought about by the Howard government. You remember Mr Howard, he was the PM who promised the top job to Peter Costello but it was all a lie. and as you all cast your stones, ask yourself how honest you have been in your daily interactions with friends and family. Are you motivated by money or integrity? You might find that your glass house is already beginning to crack. As for the leadership issue. Here's how it will play out. Julia will be dropped by the party for K Rudd, Abbott will be dropped by the Libs for Malcom Turnbull and Turnbull will win because he is liked by both sides of politics.

BigT of Gold Coast Posted at 9:57 AM Today
I was astounded at the angry face and complete put down/shut down to the reporter who asked the question - did you know that the speech was being written - to which she waffled. He asked again and she said I have already answered your question to which he said with respect no you haven't. She replied very angrily and curtly - something in the order - that she was not going to reply any further. SHEEESH - how much further is she going to treat Australians with this rudeness. I realise that Rudd was a demon on people when he got his back up and he was removed basically because of this perceived dictatorship, but she is becoming at least as bad if not worse. And all with her 5 famous quotes before she removed Rudd - like I would have more chance sailing around the world solo 5 times, or she would have more chance playing in the AFL grand final than staging a coup and winning leadership

Why OH Why... of Melbourne Posted at 9:57 AM Today
You don't just wake up one morning and say I am going to take over the Govt today then go do it... It is something you plan and think about for days, weeks even months and wait for the person to slip so you can slide right in. We are not stupid Gillard... Seriously we didn't come down the last shower... Enough lies already, If i lied that much at work I would have been sacked a long time ago...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/julia-gillard-jumped-the-gun/story-fn7x8me2-1226270184895

Ah, lovely. Calling Gillard a "lying slag" and blaming any kind of emotional response on menopause, while still denying that there is sexism involved in criticism directed at her.

Good one, boys.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Ah, lovely. Calling Gillard a "lying slag" and blaming any kind of emotional response on menopause, while still denying that there is sexism involved in criticism directed at her. Good one, boys.

She has lost all aspects of respect. Derogatory remarks are the only thing left for this PM, sexist or not.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Ah, lovely. Calling Gillard a "lying slag" and blaming any kind of emotional response on menopause, while still denying that there is sexism involved in criticism directed at her. Good one, boys.

Do not judge everyone on the right by the low standards of the posters on these boards Annie.....These are the people who sit at the extreme right of the political spectrum and see no problem with personal attacks and low blows to appeal to the worst in people....Abbott supporters!!!

Gillard has been dragged through the mud for claiming that criticism directed at her had a sexist tone. The comments here are yet another example of how on the money she was.

The main sexist claim by Miss Gillard supporters is that Miss Gillard is dumb and stupid because it IS NOT A MAN.

Bolty expresses his utmost admiration for Miss Gillard's squirming.

Gillard’s deceit exposed Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:51am

My thoughts last night on Julia Gillard on Four Corners:

- First, why did Gillard come on a show that could only have been bad news for her, to talk about Rudd and her knifing of him? She really does have a tin ear.

- Gillard appeared stressed, defensive and angry. She looked like someone who does not know from where the next attack will come, but is sure it will hurt.

- Her evasiveness, so transparent in Question Time, was even more brutally exposed here, especially on the one detail that I think will transfer into print coverage - a refusal to say whether or not she knew her staff had prepared her first speech as Prime Minister two weeks before she knifed Rudd. If she did know, she has lied in pretending she’d had no thought of taking over until the very day. Likewise, Gillard refused to give a clear answer on whether she’d read party polling on her popularity just before the challenge. Her reputation for a lack of honesty and credibility has almost become set in stone. This program was another setting agent.

It was excruciating:

ANDREW FOWLER: ... Are you aware that two weeks before Rudd was removed from office, that a speech was being prepared in your office that you would subsequently deliver when you were Prime Minister?

JULIA GILLARD: Look, I am not surprised that… whether it’s people in my office or people more broadly in the Government or the Labor Party were casting in their mind where, circumstances might get to, of course. Political people look at political circumstances, and they think about where they might go to.

ANDREW FOWLER: With respect, you haven’t answered the question, and the question was: did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as Prime Minister, were preparing a speech that you subsequently delivered?

JULIA GILLARD: Look, I’ve given you… I’ve given you the best answer I can - which is, I’m not surprised that there were people, you know, around government, who were c… you know, in their own mind…

ANDREW FOWLER: But did you know?

JULIA GILLARD: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.

ANDREW FOWLER: But were you aware that one was being prepared?

JULIA GILLARD: Look, I’ve just given the best answer I can to your question.

ANDREW FOWLER: My question was simply whether or not you knew…

JULIA GILLARD: I heard your question and I’ve answered it.

ANDREW FOWLER: You haven’t answered the question.

JULIA GILLARD: Well, I’ve given you the answer I’m going to give you.

Phillip Coorey, Sydney Morning Herald:

Footage of the Prime Minister repeatedly avoiding questions on whether she knew her office was drafting her acceptance speech two weeks before she ousted Kevin Rudd made her look shifty, even if she was telling the truth.

Had Gillard not agreed to the interview, the episode would have been largely unsensational…

Gillard agreed to an interview thinking Rudd would do one. Rudd declined in the end because he did not want to be accused of promoting himself.

Thus, the Prime Minister created the news and now she has her own side questioning her judgment again....

The revelation about the prewritten speech undermines claims by coup plotters that the move on Rudd was spontaneous, driven by a story in the Herald.

In her defence, Gillard has never claimed that to be the case.

Coorey is being far too kind to Gillard again. Here’s the Prime Minister herself on Four Corners last night denying having plotted for the leadership:

But in terms of my motivations and when I acted and when I made a decision, I made a decision the same day I acted.

Indeed, Michelle Grattan, in a piece that also is soft on Gillard’s deceit, nevertheless reports that Gillard’s staff are still insisting she acted against Rudd only at the last minute:

Ms Gillard’s office released an extended transcript to show she had stressed that she made the decision to run on the day she asked Mr Rudd for a ballot.

UPDATE

Gillard herself destroys the excuse Coorey offered her:

The truth is I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked him for a ballot. I did not make that decision at any time earlier.

UPDATE

Professor Bunyip enjoyed the show:

Last night as Gillard squirmed and those darting, cornered eyes supplied a candour that her voice dared not, you had to love every miserable second of the creature’s unravelling. Finally, the woman who has told so many lies ran out of them. She would not answer because she could not answer. To confirm that she knew her victory speech was drafted two weeks before the knife went into Rudd would have been to validate every suspicion of cynical and predatory ambition she has for so long denied.

Sinclair Davidson says Rudd’s eyes said so much.

UPDATE

Gillard was out there flailing around this morning:

SABRA LANE: But first this morning a lot of people are asking the question: Why did you give Four Corners an interview for its program last night?

JULIA GILLARD: I was approached by Four Corners for an interview on what was described as the Government’s progress since 2007.

And so in those circumstances of course I said yes… I’m not someone who runs away from questions and so I did agree to the Four Corners interview.

SABRA LANE: Kevin Rudd didn’t. He maintained a silence.... The episode last night revealed that staff in your office had been working on a prime ministerial acceptance speech two weeks before the leadership change happened. That’s pretty damaging. Did you know that speech was being written?

JULIA GILLARD: ... I did not direct staff in my office to prepare a speech for me as prime minister. I wouldn’t have seen the need for it. I decided to challenge Kevin Rudd and to ask him for a ballot in the Labor Party on the day I asked him for that ballot…

SABRA LANE: But did you know…

JULIA GILLARD: And no question- no, you know, no question, no television program, nothing will ever change the facts that I made up my mind to ask Kevin Rudd for a ballot within the Labor Party for the Labor Party leadership on the day I walked into his office.

SABRA LANE: But did you know about this speech being written? You may not have asked for it but did you know that it was being written?

JULIA GILLARD: Well I didn’t direct it. And this was a tense few days for me and the Government. So I can’t specifically say to you when I came to know about the speech. It could have been on the Wednesday night, it could have been before. .

Enough

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_deceit_exposed/

juliar wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

The main sexist claim by Miss Gillard supporters is that Miss Gillard is dumb and stupid because it IS NOT A MAN.

What? Now you're not even making sense.

Is that because you have a penis or because you are an idiot?

juliar wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

The main sexist claim by Miss Gillard supporters is that Miss Gillard is dumb and stupid because it IS NOT A MAN.

WTF are you on about???

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968), Strength to Love, 1963

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:19pm:

Gillard has been dragged through the mud for claiming that criticism directed at her had a sexist tone. The comments here are yet another example of how on the money she was.

Oh please. Some people use sexist remarks and you say that Gillard was right about sexism. That is just as daft as Booby Brown.

Comments from right wing nut jobs should not be allowed to pollute our boards!!!

Andrew Bolt
Is a Dolt
If I saw him in person
I would be done for assault

My apologies to Gina Rhinehart!!!

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:19pm: Gillard has been dragged through the mud for claiming that criticism directed at her had a sexist tone. The comments here are yet another example of how on the money she was. Oh please. Some people use sexist remarks and you say that Gillard was right about sexism. That is just as daft as Booby Brown.

Errr....that comment would confirm the accusation not refute it???

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Unknown

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Comments from right wing nut jobs should not be allowed to pollute our boards!!! Andrew Bolt Is a Dolt If I saw him in person I would be done for assault My apologies to Gina Rhinehart!!!

OOPPS Sorry didnt know Its your BOARD    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Comments from right wing nut jobs should not be allowed to pollute our boards!!! Andrew Bolt Is a Dolt If I saw him in person I would be done for assault My apologies to Gina Rhinehart!!! OOPPS Sorry didnt know Its your BOARD    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you Andrew Bolt???

He has his own blog for people stupid enough to read his crap!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

FRED. wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:30pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Comments from right wing nut jobs should not be allowed to pollute our boards!!! Andrew Bolt Is a Dolt If I saw him in person I would be done for assault My apologies to Gina Rhinehart!!! OOPPS Sorry didnt know Its your BOARD    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you Andrew Bolt??? He has his own blog for people stupid enough to read his crap!!!

Did you read it to know its crapp  Or you just guessing    ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!!

fair enough.. so why did they change leaders then?? as the only thing we know for sure is..

that she lied before the election.

when her back was against the wall.. she reneged  on that promise..or policy..by selling out to the greens for their support..

on the one hand your lot are going mad about polls.. popularity polls.. and then the next you for instance are claiming the PM has nothing to do with how people vote its policies..

I would like to think that was the case.. but really I dont think so.

the fact that labor are behind on everything must mean two things.. a lousy leader and lousy policies.

phil btw it isnt just PAID MATERNITY leave that is a shocker... you should see what they throw at my grandaughter.. who now is amongst those claiming anything and everything from centrelink..

I shake my head... she is now in a womens refuge with her toddler son....thanks to her exboyfriends violence..waiting for the govt to find her permanent accommodation.

the govt is paying her to go to TAFE not only that they are paying the school fees plus buying the books she need.. whilst she is in the refuge.. they all get this apparently.instead of paying $40 a day childcare she pays $1 a day..although the fees for childcare were $80 centrelink paid half when she was just on single parent pension..it goes on and on..her pension far outweighs mine..on top of which she gets child payment.. he of course pays nothing as he claims hardship..what a joke..

when it comes to money she has never been so well off in her life.. its weird..


do I believe in it.. I most certainly dont..but what can I do?..

Tent Embassy
Gillard tells us that she didn't know her staff had made the phone call


Backstabbing Rudd
Gillard tells us that she didn't know her staffer had wrote the speech


Carbon Tax
Gillard tells us that she didn't know the PM was going to go back on her promise

If we believe Gillard when she said she had made the decision on the day - then she comes out as an undisciplined opportunistic communist

If we believe that she planned this out weeks if not months before she knifed Rudd - then she comes out as a backstabbing liar

Which one of this would she prefer?

Anyone who votes ALP now is nothing more than a mushroom....

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 2:04pm:

Anyone who votes ALP now is nothing more than a mushroom....

...feeding off the turds who voted Coalition!  ;D ;D

It just from extremely bad to even worse for Gillard. She cannot do anything right. It's funny, but also sad now, that this is the leader of our country. A shame, a disgrace, and a downright embarrassment.

Just getting ready for the permanent burial of the world's worst Slime Spinster...

What are the earliest possible dates for the next federal election ?

The earliest possible date for a joint House/Senate election is Saturday, 3 August 2013.

The earliest possible date for a House of Representatives election is any Saturday, 33 days after dissolution of House.

The earliest possible date for a Senate election is Saturday, 3 August 2013.


What are the latest possible dates for the next federal election ?
The latest possible date for a joint House/Senate election is Saturday, 30 November 2013.

The latest possible date for a House of Representatives election is Saturday, 30 November 2013.

The latest possible date for a Senate election is *Saturday, 24 May 2014.

* The Constitution (section 13) requires the election to be completed by 30 June each third year. Following polling day, the Australian Electoral Commission needs five weeks to allow for the receipt of postal votes; then distribution of preferences; followed by return of Writs.

When Labor and the ghastly ghoulish Red Witch are finally ousted a collective cry will be heard from the masses "God Mohammad Buddha etc has answered our most fervent prayers".

http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Elections.htm#next

juliar wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 2:25pm:

Just getting ready for the permanent burial of the world's worst Slime Spinster... What are the earliest possible dates for the next federal election ? The earliest possible date for a joint House/Senate election is Saturday, 3 August 2013. The earliest possible date for a House of Representatives election is any Saturday, 33 days after dissolution of House. The earliest possible date for a Senate election is Saturday, 3 August 2013. What are the latest possible dates for the next federal election ? The latest possible date for a joint House/Senate election is Saturday, 30 November 2013. The latest possible date for a House of Representatives election is Saturday, 30 November 2013. The latest possible date for a Senate election is *Saturday, 24 May 2014. * The Constitution (section 13) requires the election to be completed by 30 June each third year. Following polling day, the Australian Electoral Commission needs five weeks to allow for the receipt of postal votes; then distribution of preferences; followed by return of Writs. When Labor and the ghastly ghoulish Red Witch are finally ousted a collective cry will be heard from the masses "God Mohammad Buddha etc has answered our most fervent prayers". http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Elections.htm#next

we have had a double deal if incompetence with this lot thats for sure...it seems forever..

and as we can see nothing is getting any better... its still all about the LABOR PARTY and not the COUNTRY..

what ineptitude..I ask you.. do they really want the spotlight on them all the time?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:22pm:

juliar wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 12:20pm: The main sexist claim by Miss Gillard supporters is that Miss Gillard is dumb and stupid because it IS NOT A MAN. What? Now you're not even making sense. Is that because you have a penis or because you are an idiot?

Playing the sex card yet again.

Dolly Disease just can't comprehend that Miss Gillard's supporters are defending their heroine in a blatantly sexist way by saying that Miss Gillard can't help being dumb and incompetent because Miss Gillard is not a man.

It is really quite a clever sexist twist on words conjured up by those few Laborites who are still faithful to the red witch.

Did Miss Gillard's aging failing ailing "brain" fail to function and warn of the obvious dangers of crossing no-mans land into 4 Corners enemy territory ? Maybe Miss Gillard is suffering from health problems ? Are Miss Gillard's advisers plotting against the red witch ?
 
The sword and the stiletto
Return to Jack The Insider Blog

Last night’s Four Corners program on the political assassination of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has sparked further tension in the government.

The show will add to the prospect of a return to the Lodge for Kevin Rudd. Certainly, we can safely conclude that Kevin Rudd is not the type to die wondering.

For all the noise, Kevin Rudd declined to be involved in the program in any formal way and when approached by Four Corners while out and about, deftly straight batted questions about his ambitions.

That said there was nothing new in the program; the only glimpse of the previously unseen was the allegation that someone in Ms Gillard’s office had prepared a victory speech for her some two weeks before Mr Rudd was toppled as PM.

The obvious question is why did Prime Minister Gillard agree to be interviewed for the Four Corners program?

On radio this morning, she said that she had been approached by the Four Corners reporter, Andrew Fowler to provide her view on the government’s progress since 2007 and hinted at the fact that the interview was something of an ambush.

It beggars belief that any review of Labor in government since 2007 would not at some point touch on the abrupt termination of Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership in June 2010.

Whether your preferred metaphor is own goals or self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the foot, it is further evidence that Julia Gillard’s office is dysfunctional. Any media manager who couldn’t see what was coming should undergo a brain function CT scan and a hearing test in that order.

Of course, the buck stops with Ms Gillard who was happy to sit down and be miked up for the interview.

Beside the disclosure of the speech being prepared in advance – and really one must wonder how a speech containing a string of platitudes could have taken any longer than ten minutes to knock together - there was nothing else that was revelatory in the program.

It did serve as a reminder of the utter political brutality of people like Senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney. I’ve been around long enough to remember when Mr Arbib was a young up and comer, extolled as a genius by his adherents in Sussex Street.

All I can say is that it brings to mind Gore Vidal’s famous quote that Andy Warhol was the only genius he had ever known with an IQ of 60.

Put simply, Mark Arbib’s political career as an operative is littered with poor judgments, bad decisions and dark, behind-the-scene machinations that have invariably inflicted unnecessary pain on the party he is bound to serve. 

The Rudd Government was not spooked by bad polling or stuck in a morass over policy. While many polling companies had the government behind, others had it marginally in front in June of 2010. Certainly, as polling goes in the life of any government, the situation was far from irredeemable.

And while Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership was in a funk over how to proceed on an ETS and a mining tax, the government had plenty of shots left in the locker to fire off.

I have no doubt that Kevin Rudd would have won an election in 2010 and a whole host of people including former Prime Minister John Howard have expressed the same view.

Regardless of what one thinks of Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard, this was an act of bastardry by the factional powerbrokers who acted as they did because they could. In many ways, Kevin Rudd was the architect of his own demise but the factional bosses had a range of possibilities open to them, including issuing the then PM with a stern warning and telling him he had lost the confidence of the caucus.

Alas, diplomacy and frank discussion are not their strong suits. They prefer the sword and the stiletto.

No doubt the conspirators would claim that they acted in the best interests of the party and a caucus frustrated and angry by Kevin Rudd’s overbearing leadership style.

At some point around 8.00pm on the evening of June 23, 2010, Rudd became aware that he did not have the numbers to survive a spill on the floor. At that time he beseeched Julia Gillard to give him more time to turn the polls around.

He had asked to be given three months. Ms Gillard took the offer back to the factional heavyweights and within an hour was back in Mr Rudd’s office to turn him down.

That was that for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. And Julia Gillard has been scrambling around seeking legitimacy ever since.

The other stark reminder was that Tony Abbott’s role in the drama was virtually incidental. Too much has been made of the force and effectiveness of his tactics in the six month period since he had become leader in a party room spill in December 2009.

When the movie or tele-series is made as no doubt it will, Tony Abbott’s role will be of the walk on variety; a cameo that one could easily blink and miss. If this sordid tale was ever made in to a piece of theatre produced by the local primary school, Tony Abbott could play a tree; existing in the background but inconsequential to the tragedy going on around him.

Mr Abbott should claim Kevin Rudd as a notch on his belt for that is how politics works but one could say the same of Wayne Swan and the notches on his belt which include Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull.

No, this is a squalid story that could only be played out by Labor; a party struggling to find a sense of itself while being ruled by Machiavellian warlords whose ruthlessness knows no bounds other than the exercise of power for its own sake.

In mid 2009, the Rudd Labor Government held a commanding 15 to 20 point lead over the Opposition. An election at or around that time would have dispatched Labor’s traditional rivals, possibly forever.

The Labor Party now faces the prospect of a landslide defeat in an election just four years later and with it a long stretch in the political wilderness.

Indeed, it may lead to political extinction and if so, we will be able to mark the time that the once great Labor Party stumbled into the darkness and who is responsible for delivering it to oblivion.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/the_sword_and_the_stiletto/

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:51am: FRED. wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:45am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:29am: What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!! After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Policies will dictate who will be the next Prime Minister and nothing else.....That is not to say Abbott will not provide good policies before the next election.....He will have to dump his paid maternity leave scheme and come up with more than slogans to convince people to vote for him!!! So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Are you that stupid.....Of course you are.....Tony Abbott will provide his policy agenda before the next election and might even have them audited correctly next time around.....[highlight]What he does after the election will determine how well he is perceived by the public and affect his popularity and perceived honesty as it has Julia Gillard.[/highlight]....If you think Abbott will just walk into the Prime Ministership without a solid policy agenda you are a deluded fool!!!

What I was saying was that Gillard walked into the Prime Ministership with policy that she had non intention of honouring. So next time around such dishonesty is going to open up any policy she may present to the public, good, bad or indifferent to suspicion that it is not genuine policy...I'm putting it nicely here. But the fact that she has not honoured what she went to an election with shows her to be dishonest pure and simple and I don't give a toss what gender she is, what colour she is, what sexuality she is, these are not an issue, but honesty is, loyalty is.  These are qualities this particular politician does not have. Should she be held to a lower standard because she is a female? Policy may win some elections but it does not win all. Some governments simply become unelectable and this seems to be the case with Gillard.
Let's just see who the fool is after the next election...when Gillard is no longer PM.  :)

Gist wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course.

If he goes to an election with policies that he does not honour he will be just as contemptable and unworthy of office as Gillard.
Not that I care what a one-eyed, bleeding, greasy, hemorrhoid such as youself thinks.

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:05am: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:51am: FRED. wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:45am: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:29am: What matters is policy not this leadership rubbish.....Anyone who thinks Tony Abbott will become Prime Minister without first seeing his policies is delusional.....He might just surprise everyone and dump his paid maternity scheme and come up with some worthwhile policies of his own before the next election....That will be the acid test for Tony Abbott not whether Julia Gilllard or Kevin Rudd are leading the ALP.....Policies dictate how people vote more than any other factor....Then he must show the public how he will pay for his promises!!! After what we have just witnessed  he could be JACK THE RIPPER AND STILL WIN ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Policies will dictate who will be the next Prime Minister and nothing else.....That is not to say Abbott will not provide good policies before the next election.....He will have to dump his paid maternity leave scheme and come up with more than slogans to convince people to vote for him!!! So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Are you that stupid.....Of course you are.....Tony Abbott will provide his policy agenda before the next election and might even have them audited correctly next time around.....[highlight]What he does after the election will determine how well he is perceived by the public and affect his popularity and perceived honesty as it has Julia Gillard.[/highlight]....If you think Abbott will just walk into the Prime Ministership without a solid policy agenda you are a deluded fool!!! What I was saying was that Gillard walked into the Prime Ministership with policy that she had non intention of honouring. So next time around such dishonesty is going to open up any policy she may present to the public, good, bad or indifferent to suspicion that it is not genuine policy...I'm putting it nicely here. But the fact that she has not honoured what she went to an election with shows her to be dishonest pure and simple and I don't give a toss what gender she is, what colour she is, what sexuality she is, these are not an issue, but honesty is, loyalty is.  These are qualities this particular politician does not have. Should she be held to a lower standard because she is a female? Policy may win some elections but it does not win all. Some governments simply become unelectable and this seems to be the case with Gillard. Let's just see who the fool is after the next election...when Gillard is no longer PM.  :)

I am not saying Tony Abbott will not be PM I am saying it will depend on his policies not who is leader of the ALP......I also think you are wrong about Julia Gillards intention before the last election but the Liberal Faithful have already painted it as a lie so think what ever you like.....If Abbott does not provide sound policies he will be the architect of his own defeat!!!

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:07am: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course. If he goes to an election with policies that he does not honour he will be just as contemptable and unworthy of office as Gillard. Not that I care what a one-eyed, bleeding, greasy, hemorrhoid such as youself thinks.

My mistake......I quoted the wrong post!!!

:-[

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Gist wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:07am: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course. If he goes to an election with policies that he does not honour he will be just as contemptable and unworthy of office as Gillard. Not that I care what a one-eyed, bleeding, greasy, hemorrhoid such as youself thinks.

Liar.

With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to.
I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D

As a parliamentarian, Matty has committed to telling the absolute truth at all times. No evading, double-speaking, fibbing, pretending or pulling the wool over the public's eyes. If preselected and elected by the Australian people, Matty will be 100% truthful.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:53pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:38pm: Gist wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:07am: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course. If he goes to an election with policies that he does not honour he will be just as contemptable and unworthy of office as Gillard. Not that I care what a one-eyed, bleeding, greasy, hemorrhoid such as youself thinks. How pathetic.....your comments say more about you than me mate....You are not worth my time!!! The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence. Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

Classic you start off your reply by called me stupid twice and conclude with "deluded fool" so lets not lose track of who started being abusive and from such a poor intellectual elevation at that.
So when I also get "the likes of you" from Gist and respond to such blind ignorance in a manner befitting such a statement you reply thus,
"How pathetic.....your comments say more about you than me mate....You are not worth my time!!!"

What is pathetic is hiding behind multiple identities, did you lose track for a moment? Because that is a cry for help...are you seeing someone?

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 4:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:53pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:38pm: Gist wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 11:07am: tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 10:58am: So on Gillards example he can provide as many policies as he likes and after he is elected walk away from them and he would still be regarded as legitimate by you?  :-? Going on past history, we can be sure he can walk away from all policies and still be regarded as legitimate by the likes of you. As long as he labels them "non-core promises" as he's walking of course. If he goes to an election with policies that he does not honour he will be just as contemptable and unworthy of office as Gillard. Not that I care what a one-eyed, bleeding, greasy, hemorrhoid such as youself thinks. How pathetic.....your comments say more about you than me mate....You are not worth my time!!! The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence. Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964 Classic you start off your reply by called me stupid twice and conclude with "deluded fool" so lets not lose track of who started being abusive and from such a poor intellectual elevation at that. So when I also get "the likes of you" from Gist and respond to such blind ignorance in a manner befitting such a statement you reply thus, "How pathetic.....your comments say more about you than me mate....You are not worth my time!!!" What is pathetic is hiding behind multiple identities, did you lose track for a moment? Because that is a cry for help...are you seeing someone?

Excuse me? Show me where I abused you.

Probably not abuse but more offensive.

A lot of your posts are just plain old offensive.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

Probably not abuse but more offensive. A lot of your posts are just plain old offensive.

Don't read 'em then. It's up to you y'know.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D

Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy

I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY!

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY!

Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D
Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D

See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes

yep..thats what I was saying  ;
but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D

In Question Time today Australians saw the real Juliar - nasty, spiteful, vicious, and full of hate. Don't get too close !!!!

Prime Minister in full vitriolic anger flow today - and spat the dummy and suddenly got to her feet and closed off Question Time over her shoulder as she was walking out - seething - left everyone sitting there amazed! Definitely chucking multiple menopausals.

You see, if you can't handle it - close it down!

Oh, she's good this one!

We were treated to a close-up of Thomson. Urk.

Even Slipper looked amazed!

All very slippery!

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-pulse/politics-live-february-14-2012-20120214-1t2sw.html

juliar wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

In Question Time today Australians saw the real Juliar - nasty, spiteful, vicious, and full of hate. Don't get too close !!!! Prime Minister in full vitriolic anger flow today - and spat the dummy and suddenly got to her feet and closed off Question Time over her shoulder as she was walking out - seething - left everyone sitting there amazed! Definitely chucking multiple menopausals. You see, if you can't handle it - close it down! Oh, she's good this one! We were treated to a close-up of Thomson. Urk. Even Slipper looked amazed! All very slippery! http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-pulse/politics-live-february-14-2012-20120214-1t2sw.html

Dont worry...Kevon 07 will be back in power by the end of the month

Does Kevin12 have the approval of the Sussex St Union power brokers ? If so, when will the magic day be ?

If Miss Gillard is already so fowl that it could lay eggs what will the red witch be like when the Sussex St union power brokers replace it with Kevin 12 ?

Will it become violent ? Will it resign ? Will it dump the dirt on all sorts of union affairs going all the way back to the Slater and Gordon days ? Will it keep handbag Tim ? Will it cry crocodile tears during the leave the lodge speech ?

Quote:

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to face new leadership questions, amid claims she handed out negative polling on Kevin Rudd before taking over the reigns". "Ms Gillard has rejected claims this week that she worked with staff and Labor colleagues behind the scenes weeks before Mr Rudd stepped down in June 2010". "But new claims have surfaced, saying that Ms Gillard had personally handed copies of secret internal polling to her Labor colleagues in the days before challenging Mr Rudd, Fairfax reported on Tuesday". "Labor MPs claim she used the polling to persuade them to support her for the top job".

Sprung!!!
Oh, what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
The cow couldn't lie straight in bed.
I hope she enjoys today in Parliament when Abbott launches against her on this, her latest big new lie.
Abbott will tear her apart on this one.
Everything she touches turns to crap.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

Quote: "Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to face new leadership questions, amid claims she handed out negative polling on Kevin Rudd before taking over the reigns". "Ms Gillard has rejected claims this week that she worked with staff and Labor colleagues behind the scenes weeks before Mr Rudd stepped down in June 2010". "But new claims have surfaced, saying that Ms Gillard had personally handed copies of secret internal polling to her Labor colleagues in the days before challenging Mr Rudd, Fairfax reported on Tuesday". "Labor MPs claim she used the polling to persuade them to support her for the top job". Sprung!!! Oh, what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. The cow couldn't lie straight in web. I hope she enjoys today in Parliament when Abbott launches against her on this, her latest big new lie. Abbott will tear her apart on this one. Everything she touches turns to crap.

Dont worry...Kevin 07 is saddling up to save the day for the Labor govt.
Julia is yesterdays news.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 8:45am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:42am: Quote: "Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to face new leadership questions, amid claims she handed out negative polling on Kevin Rudd before taking over the reigns". "Ms Gillard has rejected claims this week that she worked with staff and Labor colleagues behind the scenes weeks before Mr Rudd stepped down in June 2010". "But new claims have surfaced, saying that Ms Gillard had personally handed copies of secret internal polling to her Labor colleagues in the days before challenging Mr Rudd, Fairfax reported on Tuesday". "Labor MPs claim she used the polling to persuade them to support her for the top job". Sprung!!! Oh, what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. The cow couldn't lie straight in web. I hope she enjoys today in Parliament when Abbott launches against her on this, her latest big new lie. Abbott will tear her apart on this one. Everything she touches turns to crap. Dont worry...Kevin 07 is saddling up to save the day for the Labor govt. Julia is yesterdays news.

Mmmm, they might do better bringing back Simon Crean to the leadership.
But I suspect this latest debacle has a few more days to run in conjunction with the tent embassy debacle.
Both of these will be in the tabloids for another week or more before she becomes yesterdays news.
The sharks are circling.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.
And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm.

Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings.
Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:00am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on.

Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies.
Puts things in perspective eh. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies. Puts things in perspective eh. :)

At least Labor didnt invade another country based on lies or create a multi billion dollar pollie superannuation slush fund in that 5 yrs.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:00am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on.

Like Labor's broadband that jumped from $4.7B to $36B?

Or the $21B per year Labor surplus they promised for the last 5 years?

That's about $140B - Laborites accepted that mistake happily so as long as we stay below $139.99B we'll be better than the ALP

Maqqa wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:09am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Like Labor's broadband that jumped from $4.7B to $36B? Or the $21B per year Labor surplus they promised for the last 5 years? That's about $140B - Laborites accepted that mistake happily so as long as we stay below $139.99B we'll be better than the ALP

It costs money to make up for all the infustructure and training investment that Howard pulled from the budget. He was more concerned with filling the pollies superannuation slush fund with tens of billions of taxpayers dollars and getting the middle class and favoured businesses addicted to his welfare splurge.
Im sure Maqqa also remembers that hundreds of billions of dollars was wiped off our economy by the GFC. And remember who was in power while the borrow like theres no tomorrow mentality which bought about the GFC was at its height..Howard, Blair and Bush.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:06am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:02am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies. Puts things in perspective eh. :) At least Labor didnt invade another country based on lies or create a multi billion dollar pollie superannuation slush fund in that 5 yrs.

No, but they did invade another country eh. :)
1991 - 1st Gulf War.
And our troops are still in Afghanistan today.
Feel better. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:06am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:02am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies. Puts things in perspective eh. :) At least Labor didnt invade another country based on lies or create a multi billion dollar pollie superannuation slush fund in that 5 yrs. No, but they did invade another country eh. :) 1991 - 1st Gulf War. And our troops are still in Afghanistan today. Feel better. :)

Gillard wasnt the PM in 1991 and Im sure you remember the Iraqis invaded Kuwait and started a war. As for Afghanistan..I concede that we should have neuked Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from .

juliar wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

Dolly Disease just can't comprehend that Miss Gillard's supporters are defending their heroine in a blatantly sexist way by saying that Miss Gillard can't help being dumb and incompetent because Miss Gillard is not a man. It is really quite a clever sexist twist on words conjured up by those few Laborites who are still faithful to the red witch.

Dolly Disease and Juliar?

You wouldn't know what a clever twist on words was if it smacked you in the face. Your insults are the same as I hear used in the playground at my local primary school.

But keep trying.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 9:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:37am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:06am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:02am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies. Puts things in perspective eh. :) At least Labor didnt invade another country based on lies or create a multi billion dollar pollie superannuation slush fund in that 5 yrs. No, but they did invade another country eh. :) 1991 - 1st Gulf War. And our troops are still in Afghanistan today. Feel better. :) Gillard wasnt the PM in 1991 and Im sure you remember the Iraqis invaded Kuwait and started a war. As for Afghanistan..I concede that we should have neuked Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from .

No, that was another Labor Prime Minister.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15^th, 2012 at 10:06am:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:51am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:37am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:06am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:02am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 9:00am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 15th, 2012 at 8:56am: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:49pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 5:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 14th, 2012 at 3:59pm: With the Greens in control of a hostile Senate Abbott would have had to impliment a carbon pollution solution that pleased the Greens just as Julia had to. I suppose that means that Abbott would have had to change policies to keep power just as Julia did or call a DD and end up with even more Greens in the Senate  ;D Its called "Get the F#(K out of my way or I'll call a double dissolution on you!" policy I dare Bob Brown to vote against it - MAKE MY DAY! Yep..people that vote Green will change their mind and vote for the coalition come a DD  ;D Green voters just looooove Abbott  ;D See - even you acknowledge the Greens will lose votes yep..thats what I was saying  ; but first Abbott has to beat Rudd at the next election ;D Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And Labor will stand on it's record at the next election, and it will make no diffference to the outcome whether it's KRudd or Juliar at the helm. Lets see what happens when the Abbott starts releasing policies and costings. Until then all we have is his unprofessional behaviour to go on. Balanced against 5 years of Labor incompetence, waste, mismanagement and lies. Puts things in perspective eh. :) At least Labor didnt invade another country based on lies or create a multi billion dollar pollie superannuation slush fund in that 5 yrs. No, but they did invade another country eh. :) 1991 - 1st Gulf War. And our troops are still in Afghanistan today. Feel better. :) Gillard wasnt the PM in 1991 and Im sure you remember the Iraqis invaded Kuwait and started a war. As for Afghanistan..I concede that we should have neuked Pakistan and Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 terrorists came from . No, that was another Labor Prime Minister.

they are all the same. liars.