Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall.

Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep.

But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007.

Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios:

1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over.

2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament.

3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over.

4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion.

5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job.

Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs.

All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers:

"... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics."

Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees.

Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss.

He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work.

The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election.

He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian.

If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead.

Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up.

Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party.

Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian.

I still say it wont happen... he loves what he is doing... creating a stir then leaving the country ...LOL..

he is like the cat playing the mouse.

he knows if he gets the job half the people wont work with him and who in the hell would he trust???????????..Wilkie... oh right?..

I reckon once she has gone.. then he too will go..he just wants her out before himself..

look being Foreign Minister is not much different from being PM.. not in all the fringe benefits..

if they have a spill and he loses he wont be Foreign Minister anymore..

if he resigns.. he losses both ways...

I dont think he will risk it.

he just want this pot to keep perking away thats all

cods wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

I still say it wont happen... he loves what he is doing... creating a stir then leaving the country ...LOL.. he is like the cat playing the mouse. he knows if he gets the job half the people wont work with him and who in the hell would he trust???????????..Wilkie... oh right?.. I reckon once she has gone.. then he too will go..he just wants her out before himself.. look being Foreign Minister is not much different from being PM.. not in all the fringe benefits.. if they have a spill and he loses he wont be Foreign Minister anymore.. if he resigns.. he losses both ways... I dont think he will risk it. he just want this pot to keep perking away thats all

-- They certainly are birds of one feather - neither gives a stuff about Australia

-  but don't stick together.

Quote:

Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd?

The video was hilarious, makes him look like a regular Aussie...this leaked video could backfire on Gillard and give Rudd a bounce in the polls ... 8-)

The Australian Labor Party right now is in utter chaos and a leadership challenge will cause further disruption as opposed to heal anything.

Shambles.

I hope so!!

beware wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

I hope so!!

So you'd advocate a 1 party state?

Any group or movement which attempts to impose a dictatorship on the Australian people and force Australians to work for it as serfs deserves to be pushed out.... :)

I Predict Gillard will come out of this looking stronger. The Media and Opposition are playing you as fools.( Don't mention the economy). There will be NO Leadership Spill. It is a  game . Everytime  labor gains in the polls, or has a good news story -and Abbott is looking weak. Bam. In general, True blue Australians aren't idiot. They may not be showing support now, but it is only half time !

This could potentially destroy the Liberals more.Its a game of wait and see !

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

I Predict Gillard will come out of this looking stronger. The Media and Opposition are playing you as fools.( Don't mention the economy). There will be NO Leadership Spill. It is a  game . Everytime  labor gains in the polls, or has a good news story -and Abbott is looking weak. Bam. In general, True blue Australians aren't idiot. They may not be showing support now, but it is only half time !

Sure mate... you need to get out and socialise more and find out what the people are talking about.

Ok so Australians are idiots, well you let in all those new English & European migrants ,  that like to whinge before seeing how good they have it.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

I Predict Gillard will come out of this looking stronger. The Media and Opposition are playing you as fools.( Don't mention the economy). There will be NO Leadership Spill. It is a  game . Everytime  labor gains in the polls, or has a good news story -and Abbott is looking weak. Bam. In general, True blue Australians aren't idiot. They may not be showing support now, but it is only half time !

well justcallmestupid, that analysis is at complete odds to the actual facts or history. your denial should keep you warm at nights however. fantasies can do that for you.

Wilkie was on TV the other day saying he had a meeting with Rudd Dudd and said something in the line of 'well in the meeting Rudd certainly does want his old job back'. So why at the same time, Rudd is making out in public as if he doesn't.

Repeat To have such an Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do. Yet they could potentially run the country. Says a lot about the quality of those that could vote for such a mob. Low IQ.

Yes Longweekend my analysis  includes you and Blackadder

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Repeat To have such an Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do. Yet they could potentially run the country. Says a lot about the quality of those that could vote for such a mob. Low IQ.

After the next election, you would be spot on with 'but when they were in power, were so incompetent as to be Australia's worst government in history.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

beware wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 6:29pm: I hope so!! So you'd advocate a 1 party state?

if it was a well run, decent, controlled state then yeah, I'd have no issue with it.

Better to have 1 good party than many poor ones.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do.

Like what? What was the last thing the opposition did? Pink bats. Malaysia? NBN? Million dollar school canteens? What?

Everythging they said about this government has turned out to be correct - or a polite understatement.

What's not to like about the Opposition? They are correcty in every assessemnt of the government.

Watch this: when Labor gets into Opposition, they will copy Abbott. He's that good.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 6:33pm: beware wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 6:29pm: I hope so!! So you'd advocate a 1 party state? if it was a well run, decent, controlled state then yeah, I'd have no issue with it. Better to have 1 good party than many poor ones.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgb3vzyE2l1qf9dk8o1_500.png

It will ALWAYS happen in your situation.
The only thing that changes is the time it takes.

Nothing to see here. No Leadership spill. What Now.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall. Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep. Gillard famously said she had a better chance of becoming the Bulldog's full forward than challenging for the PM's job. But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007. It was a united party back then - now its a rabble Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios: 1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over. The other point is they might then put Gillard back into the seat 2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament. He does not want to damage his personal brand either. Given that his wife is worth $$$$ it might also damage her branding. Might not be worth the trouble. 3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over. Amen 4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion. Will Gillard come out with the dirt? 5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job. Then he'll have to justify himself when he does take over. Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs. All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers: "... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics." Sounds like he's talking himself up to make a challenge Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees. Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss. He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work. The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election. He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian. If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead. Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up. Its a simple revenue and expenses model. We are paying interest from our $230B debt therefore this comes out of the budget. Even at 5% interest this is a large chunk. The hard decision must be taken to pay back the debt that Labor incurred. Anyone is better than Swan. Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party. Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian.

Will Rudd Destroy Labor? - that's my hope

Soren wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 7:01pm: Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do. Like what? What was the last thing the opposition did? Pink bats. Malaysia? NBN? Million dollar school canteens? What? Everythging they said about this government has turned out to be correct - or a polite understatement. What's not to like about the Opposition? They are correcty in every assessemnt of the government. Watch this: when Labor gets into Opposition, they will copy Abbott. He's that good.

Remember the last election? Abbott told everyone who would listen that Labor would introduce a carbon tax if elected. Gillard made her infamous "not under the govt I lead" speech while Swan ridiculed Abbotts' assertions as "hysterically inaccurate". Turned out that Abbott was right - told ya so!

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

Wilkie was on TV the other day saying he had a meeting with Rudd Dudd and said something in the line of 'well in the meeting Rudd certainly does want his old job back'. So why at the same time, Rudd is making out in public as if he doesn't.

good old wilkie telling the world HIS version of a, I am sure private conversation..

can you really see rudd confiding in HIM...LOL.. the mind boggles.

wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Repeat To have such an Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do. Yet they could potentially run the country. Says a lot about the quality of those that could vote for such a mob. Low IQ.

so what have they DONE>. that has been so WRONG?.. you have examples I am sure???

cods wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 6:45am:

wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 7:01pm: Repeat To have such an Discreditable Opposition whom have shown to be WRONG on nearly everything they say and do. Yet they could potentially run the country. Says a lot about the quality of those that could vote for such a mob. Low IQ. so what have they DONE>. that has been so WRONG?.. you have examples I am sure???

It is JUSTCALLMEWRONG being a tryhard and failing.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall. Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep. But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007. Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios: 1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over. 2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament. 3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over. 4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion. 5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job. Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs. All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers: "... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics." Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees. Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss. He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work. The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election. He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian. If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead. Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up. Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party. Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian.

Will rudd destroy Labor???????
;D ;D ;D ;D
Going by the whiny little bitching from the Libs he has a much better chance of destroying Abbott. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 7:43am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 4:33pm: Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall. Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep. But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007. Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios: 1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over. 2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament. 3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over. 4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion. 5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job. Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs. All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers: "... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics." Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees. Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss. He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work. The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election. He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian. If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead. Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up. Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party. Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian. Will rudd destroy Labor??????? ;D ;D ;D ;D Going by the whiny little bitching from the Libs he has a much better chance of destroying Abbott. ;D ;D ;D

yeah because he was so effective last time when abbott took him from a 16% lead to just 4%  in under 6 months???  bring on Rudd and complete the destruction of the ALP!

Quote:

because he was so effective last time

He sure was, its nice to see you tell the truth,FOR ONCE, good for you. As you know, Abbott never beat Rudd as preferred PM,EVER, he also never beat Rudd in TPP,?EVER. Good to see you finally decided to tell the truth, all of those lies you consistently tell must be very bad for your karma.

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 8:02am:

Quote: because he was so effective last time He sure was, its nice to see you tell the truth,FOR ONCE, good for you. As you know, Abbott never beat Rudd as preferred PM,EVER, he also never beat Rudd in TPP,?EVER. Good to see you finally decided to tell the truth, all of those lies you consistently tell must be very bad for your karma.

Abbott whipped Rudd good. and everybody knows it - even labor. it appears that only old fools like you fail to see that. bring on Rudd! he will get a few percent bump and then sink the party into the mire such that it will not be in govt for 20 years.

sounds good to me.

longliar wrote-
Quote:

Abbott whipped Rudd good

Yet he never beat him in a TPP or preferred PM poll. Why do you lie so much, longliar? are you a compulsive liar? oh, don't bother answering that we already know you are by the posts that you make filled with lies.  :D

This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time.
A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really.
Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 9:49am:

This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst.

haha well said...now they should do a poll on that one..."who is the worst" not all this crap who is the best??

lets face it Abbott has never been a PM>. and hes never been a DEPUTY PM...so never had 5 in the sun... so get a life..

we have  two boils.....trying to be the last man standing... and its pathetic.

the elephant is in the room...

and what do they do..

do they kill it????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


they keep feeding it. with little bizarre meaningless videos...

hands up all those that didnt know kevvie had a temper and swears?????

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 9:49am:

This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst.

a contest between dumb and dumber and unable to tell which is which. BOTH OF them comprehensively destroyed by Tony Abbott.

cods wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:04am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:49am: This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst. haha well said...now they should do a poll on that one..."who is the worst" not all this crap who is the best?? lets face it Abbott has never been a PM>. and hes never been a DEPUTY PM...so never had 5 in the sun... so get a life.. we have  two boils.....trying to be the last man standing... and its pathetic. the elephant is in the room... and what do they do.. do they kill it????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO they keep feeding it. with little bizarre meaningless videos... hands up all those that didnt know kevvie had a temper and swears?????

Well, it's not as if Bob Hawke or Paul Keating never dropped a clanger from time to time.
They were both well known as having potty mouths.
This attempted set up has fallen flat once again, just like the attempted Abbott set up which backfired.
These Labor dunderclumpers need to quit while their ahead, and offering up these sorts of distractions will only hurt the government.
Gillard needs to get rid of her 'dirty tricks' department masquerading as the Office of the Prime Minister, as they are not very good at it.
They need to focus on doing what they are good at.
Whatever that might be.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:08am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:49am: This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst. a contest between dumb and dumber and unable to tell which is which. BOTH OF them comprehensively destroyed by Tony Abbott.

Destroyed by Tony?? Skippy has made a complete ass of you on that point! You need to learn when to beat a tactical retreat.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:20am:

Well, it's not as if Bob Hawke or Paul Keating never dropped a clanger from time to time. They were both well known as having potty mouths. This attempted set up has fallen flat once again, just like the attempted Abbott set up which backfired. These Labor dunderclumpers need to quit while their ahead, and offering up these sorts of distractions will only hurt the government. Gillard needs to get rid of her 'dirty tricks' department masquerading as the Office of the Prime Minister, as they are not very good at it. They need to focus on doing what they are good at. Whatever that might be.

My money is on Rudd's people releasing it.

Gist wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:51am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 10:20am: Well, it's not as if Bob Hawke or Paul Keating never dropped a clanger from time to time. They were both well known as having potty mouths. This attempted set up has fallen flat once again, just like the attempted Abbott set up which backfired. These Labor dunderclumpers need to quit while their ahead, and offering up these sorts of distractions will only hurt the government. Gillard needs to get rid of her 'dirty tricks' department masquerading as the Office of the Prime Minister, as they are not very good at it. They need to focus on doing what they are good at. Whatever that might be. My money is on Rudd's people releasing it.

You know, that is a possibility.
Very clever.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 9:49am:

This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst.

Come on chook, poor old Billy Mcmahon would be rolling in his grave reading that.

Gist wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 10:08am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:49am: This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst. a contest between dumb and dumber and unable to tell which is which. BOTH OF them comprehensively destroyed by Tony Abbott. Destroyed by Tony?? Skippy has made a complete ass of you on that point! You need to learn when to beat a tactical retreat.

hmmm... Abbott comes in when Rudd was in his ascendancy with stratospheric approval ratings and a hige 16% lead over the coalition. 6months later his approval is dropping like a stone and the lead has been cut to only 4% and clearly headed towards disaster for Labor. As a DIRECT RESULT, Rudd is removed as PM.

Im trying to work out how that can be anything BUT having been destroyed by Abbott. What more do you want? He removed a sitting PM without even needing an election? an almost unprecedented act. PLUS his swing towards the coalition was so fast and so massive that it is arguably the fastest and biggest in 50 years.

ABBOTT DESTROYED RUDD. any other interpretation is ludicrous.

If the Liberal party had won the 2007 election we would already have an ETS.....Kevin Rudd should have stuck with the ETS and hung Abbott out to dry.....I hope Julia Gillard has more conviction than either of these two flakes!!!

Quote:

ABBOTT DESTROYED RUDD. any other interpretation is ludicrous.

EVIDENCE where Abbott EVER bettered Rudd??? or its another lie.You're soooo easy to show up as a liar,I love it. ;D ;D ;D

Now lets look at how Abbott has destroyed Gillard.

She came in after assassinating the previous PM and received a modest poll boost. a few months later, she went to the polls where she was comprehensively thrashed and saved only by two turn-coat independents. You can call it anything you like, but a comprehensive victory is not one of them.

Since that time Abbotts relentless attack on her and her govt have led to him now being preferred PM - a status rarely acheived by Opposition leaders and holding a huge margin. Labors primary vote has dropped to sub 30% - lowest in history - while the coalition has even reached over 50%. the only thing stopping labor from being virtually annihilated are the Greens, but even they cant stop Labor from a probable biggest-ever defeat.

if that is not being DESTROYED, then obviously your understanding of the word in apolitical context needs revision.

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 11:52am:

Quote: ABBOTT DESTROYED RUDD. any other interpretation is ludicrous. EVIDENCE where Abbott EVER bettered Rudd??? or its another lie.You're soooo easy to show up as an inadequate liar,I love it. ;D ;D ;D

find one sitting LABOR MP that thinks Rudd bettered Abbott. You wont and that is why he was replaced.

but your childish understanding of such concepts is why the truth eludes you.

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 11:26am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 9:49am: This whole Gillard / Rudd tussle means nothing to the electorate and is taking up too much air time. A toss up between the worst ever Prime Minister, and the second worst ever Prime Minister isn't much of a choice really. Particularly when you don't know which one is the worst. Come on chook, poor old Billy Mcmahon would be rolling in his grave reading that.

I thought he would be feeling better actually knowing there are two others vying for top spot. :)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 11:55am:

skippy. wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: Quote: ABBOTT DESTROYED RUDD. any other interpretation is ludicrous. EVIDENCE where Abbott EVER bettered Rudd??? or its another lie.You're soooo easy to show up as an inadequate liar,I love it. ;D ;D ;D find one sitting LABOR MP that thinks Rudd bettered Abbott. You wont and that is why he was replaced. but your childish understanding of such concepts is why the truth eludes you.

Your evidence that Abbott EVER beat Rudd? at anything? preferred PM even? or TPP? pawned again old chap, you make it soooooooooooooo easy. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 11:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 11:55am: skippy. wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 11:52am: Quote: ABBOTT DESTROYED RUDD. any other interpretation is ludicrous. EVIDENCE where Abbott EVER bettered Rudd??? or its another lie.You're soooo easy to show up as an inadequate liar,I love it. ;D ;D ;D find one sitting LABOR MP that thinks Rudd bettered Abbott. You wont and that is why he was replaced. but your childish understanding of such concepts is why the truth eludes you. Your evidence that Abbott EVER beat Rudd? at anything? preferred PM even? or TPP? pawned again old chap, you make it soooooooooooooo easy. ;D ;D ;D

have you ever wondered why when you make these ridiculous assertions that virtually no one from your side of politics stands up for you? Could it just possibly be that even the labor side of politics knows that Abbott handed Rudd a political flogging?

the reason could possibly be that you are an idiot and most are unwilling to associate with your idiotic claims.

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

Quote:

have you ever wondered why when you make these ridiculous assertions that virtually no one from your side of politics stands up for you?

Really? I'm yet to see anyone other than you argue Abbott ever beat Rudd in the preferred PM or TPP polls, no one else is that stupid, even the rightards know you are wrong. Only you are stupid enough to keep coming back for more hits. Even gist gave you a friendly warning a few posts back that you looked like a knob for arguing against the facts,which I suppose also shoots your assertion down in flames. But it takes a proper fool to ignore that and keep asking to be hit back down.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

COULD OFF SWORE  SHE NEEDED THE INDERPENDANTS  TO FORM GOVT    ;D ;D ;D ;D   

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

yeah because all the evidence shows that is likely...!!! LOL
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Quote: have you ever wondered why when you make these ridiculous assertions that virtually no one from your side of politics stands up for you? Really? I'm yet to see anyone other than you argue Abbott ever beat Rudd in the preferred PM or TPP polls, no one else is that stupid, even the rightards know you are wrong. Only you are stupid enough to keep coming back for more hits. Even gist gave you a friendly warning a few posts back that you looked like a knob for arguing against the facts,which I suppose also shoots your assertion down in flames. But it takes a proper fool to ignore that and keep asking to be hit back down.

and im yet to hear anyone BUT YOU say  that that is what I am implying. cleverer people than you (most of us) recognise the actual facts.

come on, find a few people who will coherently claim that rudd was flogging abbott. even labor's greatest supporters (at least the thinking ones) dont make that stupid claim.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:48pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 12:04pm: Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!! Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

That's a nice, simple catch phrase that usually plays true. But sometimes, the common fella out on the street will choose to go with the devil he knows.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 1:47pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 12:08pm: Quote: have you ever wondered why when you make these ridiculous assertions that virtually no one from your side of politics stands up for you? Really? I'm yet to see anyone other than you argue Abbott ever beat Rudd in the preferred PM or TPP polls, no one else is that stupid, even the rightards know you are wrong. Only you are stupid enough to keep coming back for more hits. Even gist gave you a friendly warning a few posts back that you looked like a knob for arguing against the facts,which I suppose also shoots your assertion down in flames. But it takes a proper fool to ignore that and keep asking to be hit back down. and im yet to hear anyone BUT YOU say  that that is what I am implying. cleverer people than you (most of us) recognise the actual facts. come on, find a few people who will coherently claim that rudd was flogging abbott. even labor's greatest supporters (at least the thinking ones) dont make that stupid claim.

Unlike liars, like YOU, I deal in facts, I dislike Rudd, but he was never beaten in a poll by phony tony, and besides elections polls are the only measure we have to judge how parties/leaders are going, another big FAIL for you Mr liar. I love showing you and your lies up, I dont even get bored even though I show you up as a liar and a partisan fool EVERYDAY. ;D ;D ;D

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

Its looking more like the classic "rope a dope" scenario.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall. Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep. But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007. Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios: 1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over. 2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament. 3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over. 4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion. 5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job. Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs. All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers: "... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics." Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees. Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss. He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work. The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election. He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian. If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead. Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up. Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party. Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian.

I accuse Longweekend of plagiarism:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Kevin-Rudd-Labor-leader-poll-leak-Gillard-challeng-pd20120220-RMQMM?OpenDocument&src=sph

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 20th, 2012 at 4:33pm: Is there a greater hypocrite in Australia than Kevin Rudd? His performance over the weekend following the leaking of a video revealing his infamous propensity for swearing showed a staggering amount of only one thing – gall. Rudd's failure to speak directly on whether or not he will challenge Julia Gillard before the next poll is in most respects pretty conventional stuff. Would-be leaders on both sides of the House duck that question for months before finally making their run and telling cameras shortly afterwards "I never absolutely said I wouldn't run". Bill Shorten probably mutters that in his sleep. But that's where the conventional pattern ends. Unlike other leadership skirmishes, Rudd risks a lot more than a shattered ego. Indeed, it is hard to see how his actions in recent months can do anything but destroy the party he led to election victory in 2007. Discounting a desperate bid to parachute Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten or Simon Crean into the top job, here are the possible scenarios: 1) If, by a miracle, Rudd is brought back to lead the party to the next election, victory is far from assured. If Labor lost under Rudd, the turncoats who backed him at the spill would fight tooth and nail with Gillard loyalists for what's left of a diminished party – the best seats, the best staff, the best factional connections and the best chance of being part of a Labor Party edging daily closer to being the Greens' equal at the ballot box rather than maintaining its status as one of two majors. Party over. 2) If Rudd challenges Gillard and comprehensively loses the vote, he will remain in parliament and, having lost his ability to destabilise Gillard directly, would be tempted to tell the world every damaging morsel of information he has about her. That is precisely what the anti-Rudd camp believes he did during the 2010 poll – they blame him for the leaks that dragged Labor's vote down to result in a hung parliament. 3) If Rudd does not run, but never actually gets around to saying he fully supports Gillard, then he will do more than anyone else could (including Tony Abbott) to ensure Gillard is trashed at the general election. Unless something changes, that is the course Labor is currently on, and it would be a rout of such magnitude that the party would be unlikely to recover. Again, party over. 4) Rudd wins a spill and wins the subsquent Reps-only election (or, with the support of crossbenches manages to cling to power until a general election in 2013). In this scenario, Rudd appears to have saved Labor from oblivion. 5) Finally, if Rudd does not challenge for the prime minister's job, and comes out hand on heart to tell Australia that Gillard is the better PM, his support could help the party to win the next election without him in the top job. Of those possibilities, the first three are the most likely. The fourth scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility but is far from likely. And the fifth scenario would involve a press conference featuring a fly-over by a squadron of aerobatic pigs. All of which brings us back to Rudd's hypocrisy this weekend. He told Sky News' David Speers: "... [there is one thing that] Australians want more than ever and that is for government and Opposition, Mr Abbott as well, to focus on the absolute detail of how we sustain the strength of this economy into the future. That's what motivates me. That's what motivated me during the global financial crisis: trying to keep the economy out of recession which we did; trying to prevent mass unemployment which we did; trying to ensure that we continue to keep this country strong despite the financial crisis in Europe. That's what motivates me and the government. I think we're doing okay on that score and I think it's important that we look on that main game, rather than be distracted by all the bits and pieces of day to day popular politics." Breathtaking – and a statement that ensures Rudd's place in history as the arch-villain of Labor, the man who for reasons of pure power lust brought his own party to its knees. Rudd truly believes, along with all his ALP colleagues, that his and Wayne Swan's stewardship of the Australian economy is what has delivered Australians a miracle economy at a time when our major trading partners are sliding toward the abyss. He believes that, but he also knows that there are only two scenarios that will avoid handing government on a platter to the Abbott Coalition, thereby undoing what Rudd considers to be Labor's best work. The choices are: Rudd backs Gillard to the hilt, or Rudd wins the spill and the subsequent election. He knows he won't do the first. And on the second slim possibility he is willing to gamble the entire future of the ALP and, if you subscribe to his view of Labor's roles in navigating the GFC, the economic future of every Australian. If this were a game, it would be thrilling. As things stand, it's terrifying. Australia has low unemployment, job creation is outpacing job losses, we have relatively low net public debt and a sensible fiscal consolidation program that will gradually deflate both our national debt and trim fat from the public service over years ahead. Most serious commentators acknowledge the ongoing strength of the economy, and none has been brave enough to suggest that the Abbott/Hockey alternative can work – massive spending cuts to fund the repeal of the MRRT and carbon tax but also to maintain Labor's personal tax cuts and pension increases and, most recently, the promise to reinstate the private health rebate for higher income Australians. At this stage, it just doesn't add up. Some readers will disagree with that analysis, but it is certain Rudd agrees that Labor has got its economic settings right. And he's shown he's willing to risk blowing that up simply because he feels cheated by his own party. Unless Rudd can conquer his pride and publicly back Gillard in a convincing way, he is, by his own reasoning, putting himself ahead of every other Australian. I accuse Longweekend of plagiarism: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Kevin-Rudd-Labor-leader-poll-leak-Gillard-challeng-pd20120220-RMQMM?OpenDocument&src=sph

you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there!

Longweekend,

Quote:

you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there!

Longweekend,
Apologise for not including a link to the source or
I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism.

No wonder you were banned as a moderator.
You don't even understand simple rules.

cods wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

I still say it wont happen... he loves what he is doing... creating a stir then leaving the country ...LOL.. he is like the cat playing the mouse. he knows if he gets the job half the people wont work with him and who in the hell would he trust???????????..Wilkie... oh right?.. I reckon once she has gone.. then he too will go..he just wants her out before himself.. look being Foreign Minister is not much different from being PM.. not in all the fringe benefits.. if they have a spill and he loses he wont be Foreign Minister anymore.. if he resigns.. he losses both ways... I dont think he will risk it. he just want this pot to keep perking away thats all

Couldn't agree with you more Cods. He has destroyed any hope of Gillard getting on message and the public don't care anyway. He is probably really enjoying himself.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

Nice thought, if they could get on message and change the focus tom the oppositions lack of policy and 70 billion + black hole plus the damage that un doing all the tax reforms will do Abbott will be done in three months. Just a pity they dont have a hope in hell.

Apologise for not including a link to the source or
I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism.


Jesus, could you imagine being married to that.

---

Longweekend,

The rules:


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/pages/Website_Terms_of_Use_Agreement?OpenDocument

Quote:

Intellectual Property Reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form of the Website is prohibited other than for individual use only, and the contents of this Website may not be copied or otherwise shared with any third parties. Without limitation, You agree that You will not print, distribute, display, sell, publish, broadcast, circulate, disseminate or commercially exploit, in any form or by any method whatsoever, part or all of the contents of the Website, or incorporate the website material, or any part of it, in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic, or any other form. Unless otherwise noted, all materials on this site are protected as the copyright, trade dress, trademarks and/or other intellectual properties owned by Business Spectator or by other parties that have licensed their material to Business Spectator.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:10pm:

Longweekend, The rules: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/pages/Website_Terms_of_Use_Agreement?OpenDocument Quote: Intellectual Property Reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form of the Website is prohibited other than for individual use only, and the contents of this Website may not be copied or otherwise shared with any third parties. Without limitation, You agree that You will not print, distribute, display, sell, publish, broadcast, circulate, disseminate or commercially exploit, in any form or by any method whatsoever, part or all of the contents of the Website, or incorporate the website material, or any part of it, in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic, or any other form. Unless otherwise noted, all materials on this site are protected as the copyright, trade dress, trademarks and/or other intellectual properties owned by Business Spectator or by other parties that have licensed their material to Business Spectator.

madweekend was hoping that nobody would notice his pathetic attempt at plagerism ;)

Hi Nail,
He hoped that no one would notice & would think
that he wrote that article.
I knew straight away that he didn't write it because the level of english
was way above his head.
I did a search in google & found it  immediately.


Finally - I've caught him out with real evidence.  :)

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Hi Nail, He hoped that no one would notice & would think that he wrote that article. I knew straight away that he didn't write it because the level of english was way above his head. I did a search in google & found it  immediately. Finally - I've caught him out with real evidence.  :)

again madweekend lives up to his reputation of being a loser ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Tony Abbott lost to Julia Gillard at the last election.....In 18 months time he will lose again.....Australian's do not want Tony Abbott as PM pure and simple.....His policies will sink him again!!!

well no one could be more pleased than me that he lost... to do deals like she has done and to do what she has done.. I would be so ashamed.. no way would I stick up for him.. no way..

he didnt lose he was outsold to/by the devil.. and you are welcome to her.and her disciples..

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Longweekend, Quote: you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there! Longweekend, Apologise for not including a link to the source or I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism. No wonder you were banned as a moderator. You don't even understand simple rules.

what a twat you are...if you really thought that was written by longy more fool you.. I agree its nice to have the byline..but honestly you and rusty...or is that rusty and you.. are birds of a feather stuck together..

its like a bad smell wither ones goes there goes the other..hilarious.almost too coincidental to be true.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 5:46am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 7:21pm: Longweekend, Quote: you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there! Longweekend, Apologise for not including a link to the source or I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism. No wonder you were banned as a moderator. You don't even understand simple rules. what a twat you are...if you really thought that was written by longy more fool you.. I agree its nice to have the byline..but honestly you and rusty...or is that rusty and you.. are birds of a feather stuck together.. its like a bad smell wither ones goes there goes the other..hilarious.almost too coincidental to be true.

its kinda funny watching these two gay girls waffle on. it was pretty obvious I didnt write it. It isnt my style for one thing.

Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it.

skippy. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:06am:

Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it.

Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:14am:

skippy. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:06am: Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it. Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D    COME ON GIRLS   ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:14am:

Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made.

While you're at it bobby, you'd better report Imcrookonit for these three...
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1328557260
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327811944
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327698728

No author credit on any of them either

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:14am: Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made. While you're at it bobby, you'd better report Imcrookonit for these three... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1328557260 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327811944 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327698728 No author credit on any of them either

The man who wrote Kevin Rudd's speeches says the former prime minister is doing everything in his power to reclaim the top job.

Troy Bramston, former speechwriter for Mr Rudd and an adviser to his government, told the Sydney Institute on Tuesday night that he believes Mr Rudd has the leadership firmly in his sights.

"I think Kevin Rudd has been campaigning for a return to the leadership, almost from the day he lost it," Mr Bramston said.

"Yes, Rudd Redux as I call him, wants his old job back."

Speculation has been mounting that a vote on the leadership of the Labor party may be called as soon as next week.

Mr Bramston says he has no doubt support for Mr Rudd is growing in caucus.

He told AAP: "It may not be at a critical mass yet enough for him to claim the leadership back, but caucus members are coming to the view that it's unlikely they can win the next election with (Prime Minister) Julia Gillard.

"But given Kevin Rudd's personal relations and the way he dealt with people and the problems he faced as prime minister they're reluctant to go back to him."

While Mr Rudd has maintained his position that he's happy being Australia's foreign minister, Mr Bramston said he believed he'd be happier as prime minister.

"He didn't want to leave it in the first place, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that he wants the job back," he said.
Questioned about the leadership on Tuesday, Ms Gillard told reporters in Sydney she was 'getting on with the job'.ii




ADVERTISEMENT

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:14am:

skippy. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:06am: Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it. Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made.

you are such a child... and once again, everyone is laughing at you.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:14am: Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made. While you're at it bobby, you'd better report Imcrookonit for these three... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1328557260 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327811944 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1327698728 No author credit on any of them either

now you have spoilt their little pick on a lib rants.. LOL>.

if you think they are about to pick on one of their own.. think again.  I havent seen it yet.and dont expect too..

its more than childish anyway...I am almost sure no one is going to take anyone to court for plagiarism on a pathetic forum like this.

The rules:


http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/pages/Website_Terms_of_Use_Agreement?...
Quote:


Quote:

Intellectual Property Reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form of the Website is prohibited other than for individual use only, and the contents of this Website may not be copied or otherwise shared with any third parties. Without limitation, You agree that You will not print, distribute, display, sell, publish, broadcast, circulate, disseminate or commercially exploit, in any form or by any method whatsoever, part or all of the contents of the Website, or incorporate the website material, or any part of it, in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic, or any other form. Unless otherwise noted, all materials on this site are protected as the copyright, trade dress, trademarks and/or other intellectual properties owned by Business Spectator or by other parties that have licensed their material to Business Spectator.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 10:08am:

The rules: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/pages/Website_Terms_of_Use_Agreement?... Quote: Quote: Intellectual Property Reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form of the Website is prohibited other than for individual use only, and the contents of this Website may not be copied or otherwise shared with any third parties. Without limitation, You agree that You will not print, distribute, display, sell, publish, broadcast, circulate, disseminate or commercially exploit, in any form or by any method whatsoever, part or all of the contents of the Website, or incorporate the website material, or any part of it, in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic, or any other form. Unless otherwise noted, all materials on this site are protected as the copyright, trade dress, trademarks and/or other intellectual properties owned by Business Spectator or by other parties that have licensed their material to Business Spectator.

Jesus batpoo grow up and stop being such a belligerent little prat.

You married batpoo? Ever been married? Ever had a girlfriend? Ever had sex? Er with  a woman.

In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another
website as long as you put a link to it.

In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article
& pretended that it was his.

That is not only illegal it is dishonest.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 10:21am:

In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another website as long as you put a link to it. In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article & pretended that it was his. That is not only illegal it is dishonest.

its not even illegal, twitface.

one day you may get a girlfriend and discover how much fun life can be with a FEMALE love interest instead of toenail.

you act like a baby.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 10:46am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 10:21am: In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another website as long as you put a link to it. In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article & pretended that it was his. That is not only illegal it is dishonest. its not even illegal, twitface. one day you may get a girlfriend and discover how much fun life can be with a FEMALE love interest instead of toenail. you act like a baby.

LONGEY Dont pick on the kid    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

FRED. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 10:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 10:46am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 10:21am: In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another website as long as you put a link to it. In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article & pretended that it was his. That is not only illegal it is dishonest. its not even illegal, twitface. one day you may get a girlfriend and discover how much fun life can be with a FEMALE love interest instead of toenail. you act like a baby. LONGEY Dont pick on the kid    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

its a bit like child abuse, or beating up on a mentally retarded person.

The same old political cycle..Libs get in..Labor gets in...Libs get in... Labor gets in...blah blah blah.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 7:21pm:

Longweekend, Quote: you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there! Longweekend, Apologise for not including a link to the source or I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism. No wonder you were banned as a moderator. You don't even understand simple rules.

LOLZ

Dobber dobber dobber!!

Bobby the Dobber. ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 8:44am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:14am: skippy. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:06am: Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it. Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made. you are such a child... and once again, everyone is laughing at you.

Of course, the correct thing to do would have been to admit the minor mistake in not including a link and then go update the post. But no, just go ahead and dig a hole for yourself.

What is Plagiarism?
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
    to use (another's production) without crediting the source
    to commit literary theft
    to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file).
All of the following are considered plagiarism:

    turning in someone else's work as your own
    copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
    failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
    giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
    changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
    copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Link -
http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html
=================================
I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material.

A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.   

Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

FriYAY wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 7:21pm: Longweekend, Quote: you are stupider than snot booby. of COURSE it came from there! Longweekend, Apologise for not including a link to the source or I will report you to the moderators for plagiarism. No wonder you were banned as a moderator. You don't even understand simple rules. LOLZ Dobber dobber dobber!! Bobby the Dobber. ::)

You must be Fred's older twin by all of about 10 minutes I reckon. How do you enjoy preschool? Do you like drawing with crayons too?

Gist wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:44am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:14am: skippy. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 8:06am: Its been forum policy for the five years or so that I've posted here for posters to put up a link if they reproduce an article. Anything else is pure plagiarism, longlie has form on this, and has been told before to do it, but being the sad little man he is he ignores the rules. Lets face it most of what he does write is proven lies, I think he steals others articles to give himself some cred, dog knows he needs it. Thanks - the moderators have been informed as no apology or retraction was made. you are such a child... and once again, everyone is laughing at you. Of course, the correct thing to do would have been to admit the minor mistake in not including a link and then go update the post. But no, just go ahead and dig a hole for yourself.

if everyone was called to account for minor mistakes, then what would happen here? it was obvious to anyone with a brain that it was copied as it is not even close to my style of writing. its only a problem to a moron like booby.

as if we dont have any ther things to discuss.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:39am:

What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

Thanks Perceptions -
that's good advice for all of us.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:39am:

What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

Thomson spent $60,000 on an overseas trip and all we got from it was a plagiarised report.

now THAT is plagiarism worth mentioning. Your contextual use of 'plagiarism' here is, as usual, wrong.

That's really bright Longweekend -
now you attack the moderator.  :D

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:55am:

That's really bright Longweekend - now you attack the moderator.  :D

I think you mean the 'mover of threads'. 'moderator' is a different function.

I bet you were always the kid in school dobbing on the others and getting beaten up in the playground. is that how you ended up gay?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:58am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:55am: That's really bright Longweekend - now you attack the moderator.  :D I think you mean the 'mover of threads'. 'moderator' is a different function. I bet you were always the kid in school dobbing on the others and getting beaten up in the playground. is that how you ended up gay?

LOL,as Gist says, the old codger gets busted plagiarising others posts and instead of correcting it he just keeps digging a bigger hole. If thats not enough, he then taunts other posters as being gay, as if there is something wrong with that, talk about childish ,the silly old bugger is obviously going through menopause. ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:52am:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:39am: What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism! Thomson spent $60,000 on an overseas trip and all we got from it was a plagiarised report. now THAT is plagiarism worth mentioning. Your contextual use of 'plagiarism' here is, as usual, wrong.

How so?

skippy. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 12:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:58am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:55am: That's really bright Longweekend - now you attack the moderator.  :D I think you mean the 'mover of threads'. 'moderator' is a different function. I bet you were always the kid in school dobbing on the others and getting beaten up in the playground. is that how you ended up gay? LOL,as Gist says, the old codger gets busted plagiarising others posts and instead of correcting it he just keeps digging a bigger hole. If thats not enough, he then taunts other posters as being gay, as if there is something wrong with that, talk about childish ,the silly old bugger is obviously going through menopause. ::)

And he seems to get away with it.  :o

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 12:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:39am: What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism! Thomson spent $60,000 on an overseas trip and all we got from it was a plagiarised report. now THAT is plagiarism worth mentioning. Your contextual use of 'plagiarism' here is, as usual, wrong. How so?

the nonsense about albanese's supposed 'plagiarism' of movei lines was just that: nonsense. he quoted very well known lines which the vast majoriy knew were quotes. to attribute them was unnecessary and a little insulting to his welleducated listeners. 'plagiarism' also needs to prove intent, not just action.

If I say 'you can't handle the truth!' I dont have to attribute it because everyone knows where it is from.  Often the charges of plagiarism arise from ill-educated and inexperienced people whose exposure to the wide world is limited. in the case of booby, the description fits very well.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 2:00pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 12:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:52am: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:39am: What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism! Thomson spent $60,000 on an overseas trip and all we got from it was a plagiarised report. now THAT is plagiarism worth mentioning. Your contextual use of 'plagiarism' here is, as usual, wrong. How so? the nonsense about albanese's supposed 'plagiarism' of movei lines was just that: nonsense. he quoted very well known lines which the vast majoriy knew were quotes. to attribute them was unnecessary and a little insulting to his welleducated listeners. 'plagiarism' also needs to prove intent, not just action. If I say 'you can't handle the truth!' I dont have to attribute it because everyone knows where it is from.  Often the charges of plagiarism arise from ill-educated and inexperienced people whose exposure to the wide world is limited. in the case of booby, the description fits very well.

Q.What has any of that got to do with the legal & cost issues involving Plagiarism, as raised in the website which is specifically about Plagiarism?

A. Nothing!

As I have already said, I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material.

A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.   

Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

That even includes idiots like you, LW!

Quote:

A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.

its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead.

Legal ACTION against some one on this FORUM   ;D ;D ;D VISIONS OF GRANDURE  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead.

If you don't like the advice of the plagiarism website, in the following post or my complimentary suggestions, that's your choice, but I would suggest the advice is correct & proper!


perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:39am:

What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

FRED. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 4:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 3:37pm: Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead. Legal ACTION against some one on this FORUM   ;D ;D ;D VISIONS OF GRANDURE  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

If you don't like the advice of the plagiarism website, in the following post or my complimentary suggestions, that's your choice, but I would suggest the advice is correct & proper!


perceptions_now wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:39am:

What is Plagiarism? Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense: According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means     to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own     to use (another's production) without crediting the source     to commit literary theft     to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source. In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward. But can words and ideas really be stolen? According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file). All of the following are considered plagiarism:     turning in someone else's work as your own     copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit     failing to put a quotation in quotation marks     giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation     changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit     copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules) Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. Link - http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html ================================= I recommend that all members, if using someone else's material, credit the source of that material. A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action.    Whilst the result of any such legal action, would be for the courts to decide, the risk of incurring what can be massive legal costs alone, should be a sufficient deterrent for most people, not to risk whether something is or is not plagiarism!

FRED. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 4:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 3:37pm: Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead. Legal ACTION against some one on this FORUM   ;D ;D ;D VISIONS OF GRANDURE  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

that was kinda my point. it was a trivial issue on a barely noticable forum.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:45am:

if everyone was called to account for minor mistakes, then what would happen here? it was obvious to anyone with a brain that it was copied as it is not even close to my style of writing. its only a problem to a moron like booby. as if we dont have any ther things to discuss.

Well, I guess we don't because had you gone down the path I set out, the issue would have been dead in its tracks there and then. Instead, we're still banging on about it a page later (and building).

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead.

Longweekend called the moderator a  pedantic pinhead.

How can he get away with it?

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 3:37pm:

Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead.

why don't you just admit that you are wrong instead of wasting time arguing for the sake of arguing  you belligerent buffoon !

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 3:37pm: Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead. why don't you just admit that you are wrong instead of wasting time arguing for the sake of arguing  you belligerent buffoon !

Thanks Nail,
In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another
website as long as you put a link to it.

In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article
& pretended that it was his.

That is not only illegal it is dishonest.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:20pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 11:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 3:37pm: Quote: A failure to do so, could place those members not doing so, in greater danger of facing legal action. its that kind of drivel that makes you sound like a pedantic pinhead. why don't you just admit that you are wrong instead of wasting time arguing for the sake of arguing  you belligerent buffoon ! Thanks Nail, In general - it is acceptable to take a small excerpt from another website as long as you put a link to it. In the case of Longweekend - he copied an entire article & pretended that it was his. That is not only illegal it is dishonest.

And he wasn't going to admit anything until he got caught out which makes him a deceitful character among the many other of his negative traits :(

Nail,

Quote:

And he wasn't going to admit anything until he got caught out which makes him a deceitful character among the many other of his negative traits

Not only that - he describes himself as a water trainer.
He tells people how to turn taps off to save water.
Who buys his training? -
the intellectually handicapped schools?

I have zero respect for any politician or the Government at this time in Australia - zero. 8-)

Bobby and Lastnail.

Ozpolitics' very own Bert and Ernie

---

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:41pm:

Bobby and Lastnail. Ozpolitics' very own Bert and Ernie

and they are gay too!

I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual.

Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:07am:

I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument.

It is a common thread, for Longweakend to revert to form (poor form), when he is losing a discussion.

Actually, that's not quite right, LW's standard modus operandi is to go straight to poor form!

Will Rudd destroy Labor = Looks like it ;)

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:07am: I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument. It is a common thread, for Longweakend to revert to form (poor form), when he is losing a discussion. Actually, that's not quite right, LW's standard modus operandi is to go straight to poor form!

Thanks Perceptions,
Longweekend was caught out for plagiarism.
He then attacked me for pointing it out by
saying that I was a homosexual.
He then attacked - you - the moderator - as well.

I am surprised that he is still here.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:07am:

I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument.

if you aernt gay then stop acting as if you are. it's that simple.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:07am: I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument. It is a common thread, for Longweakend to revert to form (poor form), when he is losing a discussion. Actually, that's not quite right, LW's standard modus operandi is to go straight to poor form!

At least I can put forward and well-argued and logical post. your posts are the same drivel time and time again and still make no sense.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 9:48am:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:38am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:07am: I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument. It is a common thread, for Longweakend to revert to form (poor form), when he is losing a discussion. Actually, that's not quite right, LW's standard modus operandi is to go straight to poor form! At least I can put forward and well-argued and logical post. your posts are the same drivel time and time again and still make no sense.

Well, I don't know about the Logical OR the well argued, but your posts are usually simple & make little sense!

Bobby. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 9:36am:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:38am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 8:07am: I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual. Longweekend always says that when he has lost an argument. It is a common thread, for Longweakend to revert to form (poor form), when he is losing a discussion. Actually, that's not quite right, LW's standard modus operandi is to go straight to poor form! Thanks Perceptions, Longweekend was caught out for plagiarism. He then attacked me for pointing it out by saying that I was a homosexual. He then attacked - you - the moderator - as well. I am surprised that he is still here.

Even idiots are entitled to their say, but there are limits!

The question is even more relevent now...

WILL RUDD DESTROY LABOR and render it unelectable for 20 years? He's doing well so far!

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 5:25pm:

The question is even more relevent now... WILL RUDD DESTROY LABOR and render it unelectable for 20 years? He's doing well so far!

HE ALREADY HAS, AND SOME FOOLS THINK HE CAN SAVE THEM, DER :D

>:( >:(All of you people who think Rudd is so marvelous , you are warped big time .

Back in Copenhagen time , that Climate agreement that Rudd was pushing , that 'Treaty" had a 'Government' part struck on page 18 . The UN were to run a 'Government' that would have overridden Australia's Parliament and so , kiss goodbye Australia's Sovereignty .That UN thing was entirely unelected . You think that Rudd did not know this ? You are total wankers if you think this was so .

I heard Rudd trying to talk Parliament into signing this shi.t , he sounded just like a bloke trying to talk his way into a sheila's pants , sickening . To show what a shi.t Rudd is , I hope Pinocchio , sorry , Julia wins the battle .

Labour destroyed labour three decades ago when it abandoned the working class and became a party for the rich, for lawyers and for corporate greed and international financiers.  Labour publicly abandoned its commitment to job security in Australia and embarked on an agenda to send all of our good jobs and industries off shore and destabilize the lives of Australian workers.  Labour destroyed Labour a long long time ago. 8-)

PigStyPete wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

>:( >:(All of you people who think Rudd is so marvelous , you are warped big time . Back in Copenhagen time , that Climate agreement that Rudd was pushing , that 'Treaty" had a 'Government' part struck on page 18 . The UN were to run a 'Government' that would have overridden Australia's Parliament and so , kiss goodbye Australia's Sovereignty .That UN thing was entirely unelected . You think that Rudd did not know this ? You are total wankers if you think this was so . I heard Rudd trying to talk Parliament into signing this shi.t , he sounded just like a bloke trying to talk his way into a sheila's pants , sickening . To show what a shi.t Rudd is , I hope Pinocchio , sorry , Julia wins the battle .

Thats complete rubbish. Unlike you, I actually rad the document and there is no such provision.

Labor is looking more and more a rabble in front of the whole country with each passing hour.

Senior Ministers coming out and making personal attacks on a former PM and former colleague is an utter disgrace and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Labor - perfectly suited to opposition - totally unsuited to lead the country. It's just not in their DNA.

''It wasn't K. Rudd who made a pre-election commitment on carbon tax. It wasn't K. Rudd who made a particular commitment to a Mr Wilkie on the question of poker machines. It wasn't K. Rudd who had anything to do with the East Timor solution or the Malaysia solution. These were initiatives and decisions taken uniquely by the Prime Minister.''

Kevin Rudd
Feb 25, 2012


Kev comes out swinging and its a bloody good set of points isn't it?
The Governments failures all rest at the door of the current PM.

How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles?

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:23pm:

How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles?

They don't look very good either.

Come on mate, do you think this is impressing the Australian electorate at large?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

''It wasn't K. Rudd who made a pre-election commitment on carbon tax. It wasn't K. Rudd who made a particular commitment to a Mr Wilkie on the question of poker machines. It wasn't K. Rudd who had anything to do with the East Timor solution or the Malaysia solution. These were initiatives and decisions taken uniquely by the Prime Minister.'' Kevin Rudd Feb 25, 2012 Kev comes out swinging and its a bloody good set of points isn't it? The Governments failures all rest at the door of the current PM.

No it was K Rudd who introduced then withdrew action on carbon pricing, it was K Rudd who created the god awful mess on asylum seekers it was K Rudd that fail to implement anything that was central to his platform. He sat in his office and sucked his thumb for three months when his climate deal failed and his Batt disaster turned to poo and he could not even keep his word to help those he rolled. remember Krudd, that was then and it will be now, Gillard stays and goes to the election and cops it sweet.

As for Pokies, there is a trial going on in the ACT soon and it is a subject that will be dealt to in the next few years. It was a little before its time but has the train on its way. Wilkie will win in the end.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:24pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:23pm: How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles? They don't look very good either. Come on mate, do you think this is impressing the Australian electorate at large?

Personally...Im finding it quite entertaining which is more than I can say about Aussie politics since the good old days when this sort of thing was par for the course.
Lets face it, the senior public servants run the country anyway and they are still doing their jobs.

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:24pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:23pm: How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles? They don't look very good either. Come on mate, do you think this is impressing the Australian electorate at large? Personally...Im finding it quite entertaining which is more than I can say about Aussie politics since the good old days when this sort of thing was par for the course. Lets face it, the senior public servants run the country anyway and they are still doing their jobs.

I think to the country at large they are coming across as petulant children.
It shows why the real decent leaders are CEOs and the ordinary ones are in the public service.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:32pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:28pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:24pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:23pm: How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles? They don't look very good either. Come on mate, do you think this is impressing the Australian electorate at large? Personally...Im finding it quite entertaining which is more than I can say about Aussie politics since the good old days when this sort of thing was par for the course. Lets face it, the senior public servants run the country anyway and they are still doing their jobs. I think to the country at large they are coming across as petulant children. It shows why the real decent leaders are CEOs and the ordinary ones are in the public service.

You are joking of course... ;D ;D ;D ;D

Im enjoying the stoush, Im not ever going to vote for either of them but it does take me back to the good old days when pollies on the same side had enough passion to give each other a good public flogging.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 2:32pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:28pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:24pm: adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 2:23pm: How is it any different to the old Peacock vs Howard or McMahon vs the whole Coalition battles? They don't look very good either. Come on mate, do you think this is impressing the Australian electorate at large? Personally...Im finding it quite entertaining which is more than I can say about Aussie politics since the good old days when this sort of thing was par for the course. Lets face it, the senior public servants run the country anyway and they are still doing their jobs. I think to the country at large they are coming across as petulant children. It shows why the real decent leaders are CEOs and the ordinary ones are in the public service.

Andrei,
You mean the CEOs that sack 1000's of workers & then
pay themselves $millions per annum?

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

Im enjoying the stoush, Im not ever going to vote for either of them but it does take me back to the good old days when pollies on the same side had enough passion to give each other a good public flogging.

Howard and Coesllo were quite tame. Hawke and Keating were quite strident fights but NOTHING like this has happened in a very long time - not since the 1950s. Rudd and Gillard could literally destroy the party.

All good fun to sit back and watch.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

adelcrow wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 3:01pm: Im enjoying the stoush, Im not ever going to vote for either of them but it does take me back to the good old days when pollies on the same side had enough passion to give each other a good public flogging. Howard and Coesllo were quite tame. Hawke and Keating were quite strident fights but NOTHING like this has happened in a very long time - not since the 1950s. Rudd and Gillard could literally destroy the party. All good fun to sit back and watch.

Im talking more about the post Menzies stoushes in the Liberal Party that only came to an end with Howards secret deal with Costello.
The constant pre Hawke stoushes in the Labor Party post ww2 were lots of fun as well.

I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading.

Why put the blame on Rudd?
He did no more than Gillard did when she tapped him on the shoulder.

And for those saying that she is being treated differently because she is a woman, it is absolutely true.
If she was a man she never would have kept the leadership with the poll numbers she has been getting.

tonegunman1 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Why put the blame on Rudd? He did no more than Gillard did when she tapped him on the shoulder. And for those saying that she is being treated differently because she is a woman, it is absolutely true. If she was a man she never would have kept the leadership with the poll numbers she has been getting.

indeed, and if she'ld been a man she would have never knifed rudd or won the following election.

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/02/28/1226284/410724-120229-nicholson.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 6:11pm:

I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading.

He'll never get a Guernsey.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 6:11pm:

I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading.

One fatal flaw in that einstein. He has to be a member of the cabinet to be able to get the juicy gossip so as to leak it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 6:11pm: I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading. He'll never get a Guernsey.

Ah Guernsey.

My "residence" of 2008-2010.

:)

Gist wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 6:11pm: I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading. One fatal flaw in that einstein. He has to be a member of the cabinet to be able to get the juicy gossip so as to leak it.

hey genius... he already has 5 years of stories to tell. more than enough to dump on his 'colleagues'

The Government has no legal right to force unemployed or disabled Australians into casual labour for Therese Rein Rudd - especially if they need secure and or full time work...

Ingeus Workfare Corp...
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6059178057_2fc34aa124_z.jpg
:o :o :o

Therese Rein_Rudd - Managing Director of Ingeus Workfare Corp
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/08/26/1111117/305280-therese-rein.jpg
::) ::) ::)

Conflict Of Interest?
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/03/26/1225700/778879-therese-rein.jpg
>:( >:( >:(

:P :P :P

8-) 8-) 8-)

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Gist wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 9:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Feb 28th, 2012 at 6:11pm: I wonder now if Rudd will leak juicy cabinet gossip. It would make for fun reading. One fatal flaw in that einstein. He has to be a member of the cabinet to be able to get the juicy gossip so as to leak it. hey genius... he already has 5 years of stories to tell. more than enough to dump on his 'colleagues'

Yes, I suppose he could! That'll really do wonders for his little ambition to return to the leadership won't it?

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 11:46am:

The Government has no legal right to force unemployed or disabled Australians into casual labour for Therese Rein Rudd - especially if they need secure and or full time work... Ingeus Workfare Corp... http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6059178057_2fc34aa124_z.jpg :o :o :o Therese Rein_Rudd - Managing Director of Ingeus Workfare Corp http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/08/26/1111117/305280-therese-rein.jpg ::) ::) ::) Conflict Of Interest? http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/03/26/1225700/778879-therese-rein.jpg >:( >:( >:( :P :P :P 8-) 8-) 8-)

I challenge the Government that they have no legal right to force unemployed or disabled Australians to work as casuals for Therese Rein-Rudd and Kevin Rudd.  They have no legal right to engineer employment instability to make Kevin Rudd and Therese Rein richer.
8-) 8-) 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 29th, 2012 at 11:46am: The Government has no legal right to force unemployed or disabled Australians into casual labour for Therese Rein Rudd - especially if they need secure and or full time work... Ingeus Workfare Corp... http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6059178057_2fc34aa124_z.jpg :o :o :o Therese Rein_Rudd - Managing Director of Ingeus Workfare Corp http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/08/26/1111117/305280-therese-rein.jpg ::) ::) ::) Conflict Of Interest? http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/03/26/1225700/778879-therese-rein.jpg >:( >:( >:( :P :P :P 8-) 8-) 8-) I challenge the Government that they have no legal right to force unemployed or disabled Australians to work as casuals for Therese Rein-Rudd and Kevin Rudd.  They have no legal right to engineer employment instability to make Kevin Rudd and Therese Rein richer. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Centrelink has no legal right to force unemployed and disabled people to work for Therese Rein and Kevin Rudd in Casual jobs, against their free sovereign will, when they require secure full time work either.
8-) 8-) 8-)

well Greens_Lose & Noweekend you have set this mystery of iniquity economy up but how do you make it work if you cant force us to act against our free will?  I will not be forced by centrelink into casual labour for Kevin Rudd.  I am not product or commodity. :D :D

Nobody can be forced by Gillard, Abbott, Brown or Rudd to work as casuals for Therese Reins slave industry or work weekends or more than 38hrs per week. 8-) ::) :P 8-)