Parliament pantomime as Abbott, Pyne run like naughty boys

Since MP Craig Thomson was ousted from the Labor caucus, he has proven a loyal outcast, always voting with the government despite their having rejected him.

Like a dumped boyfriend who keeps hanging around.

This has given the opposition a stick to poke the government with. Why is the government accepting his "tainted" vote?

Of course, the government is accepting it because it must, for its own survival.

But this morning's parliamentary farce shows that it is actually logistically quite difficult to reject a vote.

You can't physically oust someone from sitting on "your" side for the vote – so one of your number has to fall on his sword and sit out the vote so as to cancel the vote of the tainted guy.

This means leaving the chamber, and fast: after five minutes of bell ringing, the doors of the Parliament are locked, so that late-comers can't get in.

Thomson waited until the last minute to move, but the opposition noticed what he was doing.

And so, this morning, we had the unedifying spectacle of Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, and the manager of opposition business, Christopher Pyne, trying to bolt from the house like a pair of pantomime villains, so as to negate Thomson's vote.

Pyne moved like a gazelle, dashing for the doors like a hunted beast.

Abbott was in close pursuit, but got nabbed as Burke, at her school ma'amish best, whipped her head around to apprehend the naughty boys.

Pyne made it out, Abbott did not. ("You go on without me! Don't worry about me, leave me!")

It was a most athletic morning - theatrics staged to show that the opposition is so determined not to accept Thomson's vote, it will literally jump and dash from his taintedness.

It was either an extraordinary tactical display, or just another example of Parliament disappearing up its own procedural fundament.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/parliament-pantomime-as-abbott-pyne-run-like-naughty-boys-20120530-1zib5.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osID-_Zi-1I

That is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time in Politics.  Actually no, Craig Thomson's interview with Laurie Oaks was hilarious as well.

Mojoman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 3:56pm:

That is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time in Politics.  Actually no, Craig Thomson's interview with Laurie Oaks was hilarious as well.

didnt you like his stand up in parliament as well???.. now that was funny especially as just about everyman jack has shot holes through it all.


as for them running for the door.. ON YA Tony.. we dont want weazelbubs icky vote thank you

It's a premonition!

Pyne got out but poor Mr Athletico Tony just couldn't make it in time.

Our taxes actually pay these idiots.

What a bunch of clowns.


http://itsthecrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/clowns.jpg




See Pauline bottom right matty? Isn't she gorgeous?

It was funny! Run tony run!

SOB

it figures that you mob of morons wouldnt recognise PRINCIPLE in operation. the very fact of your unquestionoing support of labor shows you ahev no idea whatsoever what 'principle' even is.

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

it figures that you mob of morons wouldnt recognise PRINCIPLE in operation. the very fact of your unquestionoing support of labor shows you ahev no idea whatsoever what 'principle' even is.

Then why do you have unquestioning support for lib?

RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN

THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN!

i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'.

as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one.

That was a good idea. Thomson not THAT silly, lol. Makes the whole farce look like what it is,

SOB

What a disgrace.


Could you ever imagine John Winston Howard ever running away like that.


Disgrace.  Wake up liberals. You've got a joke for a leader.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

What a disgrace. Could you ever imagine John Winston Howard ever running away like that. Disgrace.  Wake up liberals. You've got a joke for a leader.

you mean the party with a MASSIVE LEAD???

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

What a disgrace. Could you ever imagine John Winston Howard ever running away like that. Disgrace.  Wake up liberals. You've got a joke for a leader.

nah THOMO and ALBO are the joke thinking they can pull the wool over our eyes...

just quietly I am sick of these shenanigans

can anyone tell me when they will get back to governing the country????..

or is there more to take our eyes off the Gina mining debacle..


btw what does gag mean.?? does it mean they cant ask A particular question or any question???

Quote:

can anyone tell me when they will get back to governing the country????..

How about you share with us when they stopped??? its nice propaganda bull sh it to crap on with but how about telling us when supply was stopped or bills not passed? otherwise your post is just more bull sh it, though I must say you're very good at it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one.

But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week.

The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister?

And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value?

This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns.

Why do we have two half wit NZ's telling us what we should do?

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns.

Teh ONLY way a govt or opposition has to reject someone elses vote is to do what they did which is to use a pair. So they effectively DIDNT take his vote which was the principle involved. What is actually more amusing is listening to you mock an attempt by Abbott to keep to his stated PRINCIPLE. Do any of you labor supporters even understand the MEANING of the term?

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

Teh ONLY way a govt or opposition has to reject someone elses vote is to do what they did which is to use a pair. So they effectively DIDNT take his vote which was the principle involved. What is actually more amusing is listening to you mock an attempt by Abbott to keep to his stated PRINCIPLE. Do any of you labor supporters even understand the MEANING of the term?

DO CHRISTIANS HAVE PRINCIPLES?  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

Gillard dodges hard questions


ONE of the more annoying aspects of Julia Gillard's behaviour in parliament, and it is telltale, is her resort to double standards. On the one hand she likes to cast herself as the toughest person on her frontbench.

More

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillard-dodges-hard-questions/story-e6frg7ko-1226367213987

Yet, faced with an invitation to explain herself to the house or a censure motion, she scurries out of the chamber for Tim-Tams in the safety of the Whip's office, leaving Anthony Albanese to defend her.

I imagine she must have been a real piece of work in the playground at Unley High and in student politics at the University of Adelaide, burnishing by turns, as circumstances demanded, her working-class and her feminist credentials but prepared to allow boys and men to do much of the heavy lifting as long as she was allowed to take most of the credit.

We got a taste of an earlier version of the real Julia on Wednesday when she told the opposition she was glad of question time because it reminded her and everyone else of how pathetic they were and that they should move their silly motion because it would give her 25 more minutes in the day to work on making the decisions that would make a difference to the country's future.

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns. Why do we have two half wit NZ's telling us what we should do?

Stooping to personal abuse is a clear sigh of an inability to produce any credible response. Quit while you're behind.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:14pm: Teh ONLY way a govt or opposition has to reject someone elses vote is to do what they did which is to use a pair. So they effectively DIDNT take his vote which was the principle involved. What is actually more amusing is listening to you mock an attempt by Abbott to keep to his stated PRINCIPLE. Do any of you labor supporters even understand the MEANING of the term? DO CHRISTIANS HAVE PRINCIPLES?  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

:o

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:13pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns. Why do we have two half wit NZ's telling us what we should do? Stooping to personal abuse is a clear sign of an inability to produce any credible response. Quit while you're behind.

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns. Teh ONLY way a govt or opposition has to reject someone elses vote is to do what they did which is to use a pair. So they effectively DIDNT take his vote which was the principle involved. What is actually more amusing is listening to you mock an attempt by Abbott to keep to his stated PRINCIPLE. Do any of you labor supporters even understand the MEANING of the term?

Like greens_win Longy we have another bloody NZer in Freedman.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

It was funny! Run tony run! SOB

He really did look like a complete idiot. "Watch me mummy i am going to prove i'm an idiot" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
So this is the behaviour of the alternative.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:24pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:19pm: RUN TONY RUN, RUN, RUN THOMPSON'S HAVING FUN, FUN, FUN! i dont think facing 9 investigations and probable jail is giving Thomson any 'fun'. as a labor stunt it failed miserably by proving that the Libs wont accept Thomsons vote as amatter prprinciple while Labor wouldnt know a principle if it tripped over one. But the Libs DID accept Thomson's vote, they had no choice. Denying someone else the vote doesn't mean Thomson's vote doesn't count. I think someone's longweekend lasts all week. The sight of two of the Libs running for the door, and one being called back by the headmistress and made to sit in his seat was hilarious. And people see this man as an alternative Prime Minister? And why did two of them try to leave? Do they think Thomson's vote has double value? This government is bad and couldn't manage a birthday party. But the opposition are even worse. What a pair of clowns.

you are wrong.. his vote didnt coun t... and now they are going to have to watch him at every vote to see what he does.. and someone calls this running the govt????>.hohum

THE OPPOSITION HAS INTEGRITY..it says his vote is BAD then it is ans they dont want it..

IF ADOLF HITLER WAS SITTING ON THE INDEPENDENT BENCHES GILLARD WOULD TAKE HIS VOTE NOTHING SURER.

Stooping to personal abuse is a clear sign of an inability to produce any credible response. Quit while you're behind.


No personal abuse. Just the truth.

You and Greens_win ignore credible responses.

Of course his vote counted. Look it up in Hansard.

Do you still think the earth is flat?

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Stooping to personal abuse is a clear sign of an inability to produce any credible response. Quit while you're behind. No personal abuse. Just the truth. You and Greens_win ignore credible responses.

So calling someone a halfwit isn't personal abuse? You need a new dictionary.

That was smacking hilarious.

I had decided to quit this forum for good, but upon seeing Abbott and Pyne fleeing the chamber like Rabbits caught in the viewfinder, I had to come back and comment.

What a laugh. He has made himself look like an absolute coward when it comes to bad press.

Amusing to see our resident conservatives rushing to Abbott's defence. The more intelligent ones would stay quiet, there is no defence for an adult behaving like a naughty child.

Whenever you ready anything posted by longweekend always remember this is the character who accuses others of unquestioning support for a political party!

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

Whenever you ready anything posted by longweekend always remember this is the character who accuses others of unquestioning support for a political party!

LONGY JUST PERSONALLY THREATENED THE FORUM MODERATOR WITH LEGAL ACTION!

Lol, he is the joke that just keeps on giving!!

  ;) ;)

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:33pm:

Whenever you ready anything posted by longweekend always remember this is the character who accuses others of unquestioning support for a political party!

Yep, Greens_win left school at fifteen too.

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:33pm: Whenever you ready anything posted by longweekend always remember this is the character who accuses others of unquestioning support for a political party! Yep, Greens_win left school at fifteen too.

Thank you for an intelligent and thoughtful response. I'll remember it whenever you post anything else.

The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News.

Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again?

Thde gift that keeps on giving.....

Abbott showed his true colours today..he's nothing but a sideshow clown

Julia Gillard, the ALP & Greens conspire against the Australian people with foreign Governments and corporations and that is one truth you cannot run from.

Quote:

you are wrong.. his vote didnt coun t... and now they are going to have to watch him at every vote to see what he does.. and someone calls this running the govt

I bet 100 bucks that phony Tony wouldn't be too proud to accept Thomson's vote in a no confidence motion against the government if the vote was dead locked. Any takers????

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Why do we have two half wit NZ's telling us what we should do?

But you don't mind having a South African that don't even live here telling us what to do.

So who is the idiot then

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving.....

.....

Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all?
As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time.

I didn't know they were new zealanders. Maybe there was a couple of sheep out there. ;D

Tony might have made it, if he hadn't been blocked by one of his own team.

New Avatar :-)

Kat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 10:20pm:

Tony might have made it, if he hadn't been blocked by one of his own team.

Did you like the way he assulted that guy - just turfed him out of the way.

You can do that in a footabll game but I'm not sure that it is acceptable in parlament.

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 12:37am:

Kat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:20pm: Tony might have made it, if he hadn't been blocked by one of his own team. Did you like the way he assulted that guy - just turfed him out of the way. You can do that in a footabll game but I'm not sure that it is acceptable in parlament.

Well its pretty obvious from all his bullying that he is a bully. Guy was on his own team not gunna complain.

SOB

I heard that Pyne declared after the event that he was a gazelle. Indeed:

http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/thomsons-gazelle.jpg

Thomsons gazelle...  ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 12:37am:

Kat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:20pm: Tony might have made it, if he hadn't been blocked by one of his own team. Did you like the way he assulted that guy - just turfed him out of the way. You can do that in a footabll game but I'm not sure that it is acceptable in parlament.

oh shock horror... you mean that HUGE guy sitting on the end.. that would make 3 of Abbott who was laughing his head off..


goodness me you sensitivity is showing dna...

you are in shock about a Lib... hilarious

I am amazed you wrote that up for all to see to be honest

What else do you expect from the turd known as phony Tony? he prides himself on being an attack dog, in this case he just dogged it.

If Abbott was discovered in bed with a troupe of Girl Guides some people here would try to tell us how great it was that he took such an interest in the nation's youth.

The mindless worshipping of such a flawed individual is hilarious.

Gist wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:22am:

I heard that Pyne declared after the event that he was a gazelle. Indeed: http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/thomsons-gazelle.jpg Thomsons gazelle...  ;D ;D ;D

Very clever.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:30pm:

What a disgrace. Could you ever imagine John Winston Howard ever running away like that. Disgrace.  Wake up liberals. You've got a joke for a leader.

On one hand, you've got Gillard cutting Thomson loose from the ALP, yet she still accepts his vote. On the other hand, you've got Abbott steadfastly refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with Thomson and attempting to leave the House in order to nullify Thomson's vote. Abbott stands by his principles, whereas Gillard does whatever is necessary to maintain her tenuous grip on power. I know which leader is a joke, and it sure as hell isn't Abbott!

Every MP has the right to vote. His vote cannot be rejected.

Making a fool of yourself over such a dubious "principle" is ridiculous.

Abbott set himself up for this and it would be hardly surprising if Labor and Thomson set a trap for him. And the silly man walked right into it.

Abbott remains the best thing Labor has going for it. His ability to act stupidly just goes on and on.

olive wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:48pm: The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time.

......

It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again.

So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count?

At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!!
Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims.

cods wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:29am:

Dnarever wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 12:37am: Kat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:20pm: Tony might have made it, if he hadn't been blocked by one of his own team. Did you like the way he assulted that guy - just turfed him out of the way. You can do that in a footabll game but I'm not sure that it is acceptable in parlament. oh shock horror... you mean that HUGE guy sitting on the end.. that would make 3 of Abbott who was laughing his head off.. goodness me you sensitivity is showing dna... you are in shock about a Lib... hilarious I am amazed you wrote that up for all to see to be honest

OH sorry Cods I forgot that its OK to assult big guys if their back is turned to you.

Women too or is that different?

olive wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

olive wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:48pm: The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time. ...... It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again. So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count? At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!! Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims.

Ah, so what if the man who wants to be seen as PM in waiting made an absolute dickhead of himself?

If there was a plan it worked perfectly. It was designed to push Abbott over the edge and that is precisely what it did. It wasn't very hard.

Acting impulsively and regretting it later (just look at Abbott's TV interviews after his "sprint" to see a man who was now thinking: "What the f-k was I doing?") is a symptom of a very common and easily treatable mental condition.

It is nothing to be ashamed of, it's like any physical illness. I suspect Abbott has it and is not getting treatment.

Will Tnoy Abbnott become Australias first child Prime Minister?

(Run RAbbott Run)

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:50am:

Very clever.

Thanks doc. I wish I could claim I thought of it but I didn't... it was spotted amongst one of the news articles I read somewhere.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:50am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:30pm: What a disgrace. Could you ever imagine John Winston Howard ever running away like that. Disgrace.  Wake up liberals. You've got a joke for a leader. On one hand, you've got Gillard cutting Thomson loose from the ALP, yet she still accepts his vote. On the other hand, you've got Abbott steadfastly refusing to have anything whatsoever to do with Thomson and attempting to leave the House in order to nullify Thomson's vote. Abbott stands by his principles, whereas Gillard does whatever is necessary to maintain her tenuous grip on power. I know which leader is a joke, and it sure as hell isn't Abbott!

On one hand, you've got Gillard cutting Thomson loose from the ALP, yet she still accepts his vote.

The man is entitled to a vote and neither party gets the option to either accept or reject votes - the notion is ridiculous and anti democratic.

Abbott acted like a spoiled brat and was only looking for political gain from the exercise.

He has again been caught out acting in a very grubby manner.

Once again trying to undermine our democracy.

Peter Freedman wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:31am:

olive wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 9:17am: olive wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:02pm: [quote author=12273627301D04302727262F232C420 link=1338346880/36#36 date=1338367715]The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time. ...... It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again. So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count? At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!! Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims.

_____________________________________Peter Freedman wrote:
Ah, so what if the man who wants to be seen as PM in waiting made an absolute dickhead of himself?
_______________________________________
......

That is YOUR perception. The Australian voters would consider the "ruse" put up by Albanese and Thomson a pretty low act. But we are getting used to low acts from the left, who are showing they are not good leaders....nowhere near. I don't think the fact that counter measures were taken by a couple of members running to leave the room would worry most of the electorate ...they just can't wait to get
rid of this nonsensical government at the next election and this will underscore that thinking.

Every day the Labor Party does something embarrassing. The plan to have the Opposition accept Thomson's vote was nullified...the Labor ruse didn't work.

I think most Australians would see that the Opposition was standing by their principles. That cannot be said for the other side.

Yes, the majority of voters want to remove this government, and with good reason.

But they don't like Abbott. What does that tell you, olive?

I thought it was a cowardly and immature display of childish petulance.

But it WAS funny!!!!!

Peter Freedman wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:55am:

Yes, the majority of voters want to remove this government, and with good reason. But they don't like Abbott. What does that tell you, olive?

.....

They may not want Abbott.....yet. Given the chance I think they will see that he isn't the bad guy the left try to paint him.
However, the electorate DEFINITELY don't want Gillard.......and the election  will show that they would be happier with Abbott. I guess the feeling out there is that "nothing could be worse than what we presently have!"

Would like to stay and debate the issue...but it has all been said before, I think...and I have a life outside of this forum (unlike some others) so I will go and paint a masterpiece (hopefully). See ya...:-)

olive wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

olive wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:48pm: The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time. ...... It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again. So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count? At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!! Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims.

His vote was counted and if it was a game it sure worked very well leaving the opposition leader looking very grubby and child like.

The liberals have made a huge mistake once again caught out trying to undermining our democracy, depriving the people of Dobell from having a vote and making themselves look very small and foolish in the process.

olive wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 10:02am:

Peter Freedman wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 9:55am: Yes, the majority of voters want to remove this government, and with good reason. But they don't like Abbott. What does that tell you, olive? ..... They may not want Abbott.....yet. Given the chance I think they will see that he isn't the bad guy the left try to paint him. However, the electorate DEFINITELY don't want Gillard.......and the election  will show that they would be happier with Abbott. I guess the feeling out there is that "nothing could be worse than what we presently have!" Would like to stay and debate the issue...but it has all been said before, I think...and I have a life outside of this forum (unlike some others) so I will go and paint a masterpiece (hopefully). See ya...:-)

Olive, good luck with the masterpiece. But when you have time let's continue the conversation, you may have debated this before but not with me.

Is "the people will find out later" the best you can do to support Abbott? If the elctorate DEFINITELY doesn't want Gillard, and she polls better than Abbott, doesn't that suggest they don't want him either?

Wouldn't the Liberal cause be helped by having a different leader?

Quote:

Wouldn't the Liberal cause be helped by having a different leader?

No way, Turnbull is a Labor plant, we don't want him, he's a moderate.

olive wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am:

olive wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:48pm: The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time. ...... It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again. So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count? At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!! Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims.

Well his vote wasn't actually nullified because Tony didn't make it out of the chamber, you need either two people to leave the chamber, or one to actually vote the other way to nullify the vote.

Fact is they're not even really nullifying his vote anyway, just their own, the whole thing is stupid, just like them

PoliticalReality wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:01am:

olive wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 9:17am: olive wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 10:02pm: Peter Freedman wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:48pm: The Murdoch media is already trying to close the topic down. It's a one-day wonder, says David Speers of Sky News. Does he really think Labor isn't going to use the footage of Abbott racing for the door and being called back on to the playing field? Over and over again? Thde gift that keeps on giving..... ..... Not wanting to accept a tainted man's vote?....I am ok with that... It does seem  that Thomson isn't due the sympathy that some are affording him, when he pulls stunts like this....so I guess he isn't suicidal after all? As for good television footage, we will see lots of footage of Thomson's weird denials, lots of footage of Julia giving him her "wholehearted support" then having him removed from Caucus, lots of footage of Julia's broken promise, lots of footage of Labor ministers bagging out Rudd....there is plenty to go around. Should be interesting come election time. ...... It is so interesting to see the Left "thinking" on this forum, once again. So what if they ran to be sure that the vote didn't really count? At least the fact that Thomson's vote was nullified shows that the little plan hatched by Albanese and Thomson didn't work. The fact that Pyne left the chamber pulled the rug on Albanese being able to crow by saying that the Opposition wanted Thomson's vote.Now all Albanese can do is taunt. His plan didn't work!!!! Soooo glad that Thomson is now so much better and up to playing games with his vote. I think that he doesn't deserve any consideration now for his "breaking point" claims. Well his vote wasn't actually nullified because Tony didn't make it out of the chamber, you need either two people to leave the chamber, or one to actually vote the other way to nullify the vote. Fact is they're not even really nullifying his vote anyway, just their own, the whole thing is stupid, just like them

lol. I see tony couldn't bring himself to vote the other way though.

SOb

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:18am:

lol. I see tony couldn't bring himself to vote the other way though. SOb

Yes, even though Thomson himself challenged him to. I gather Thomson called to Rabbott saying that if he really wanted to negate the vote then he should cross the floor. Obviously the challenge wasn't met!  ;D ;D

Good to see Australia dealing with the big issues as usual.

I can see the funny side of it, Pyne speaking to Abbott then all the sudden both (who was the 3rd?) bolting for the doors. But it does demonstrate how far this Parliament has slipped.  Both sides are @ fault, hell even the hung Parliament is @ fault. 

For those who criticise Abbott, I'll give him one thing and that he is effective, as I heard someone describe him "an attack dog with rabies".  IMO it's in Abbott's best interest that Gillard hangs on and the rumor and innuendo about leadership continues.  The electorate have clearly stopped listening to the ALP, regardless of what good policies they may announce so all Abbott has to do is oppose.

Mojoman wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:43am:

I can see the funny side of it, Pyne speaking to Abbott then all the sudden both (who was the 3rd?) bolting for the doors. But it does demonstrate how far this Parliament has slipped.  Both sides are @ fault, hell even the hung Parliament is @ fault.

Thomson on the other hand scored himself a point.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:23am:

Good to see Australia dealing with the big issues as usual.

So leadership isn't a big issue? What's the US presidential election about, then?

I heard that the ABC are renaming Question time to play school and marketing it to a different audience.

The first segment is called Run tony run.

Its a game where you walk around the speakers chare till she calls for the doors to be locked and then you have to get out without being caught.

Apparently Tony is not much good at the game but it is expected to rate well in a childrens time slot.

it was ridiculous to see .... something my 2 yr old would do

They ran out so the Coalition could not possibly take advantage of Thommo voting with them. They ran out TO LOSE the vote because to win would have meant accepting Craig's vote. So they ran and lost on principle.

But all the progs - who would have crowd even louder had they not run and won the vote with Craig's support -
are crowing about how undignified it looked.
Abbott and Pyne chose undignified over unprincipled.  The proles are disappointed that you have been robbed of an opportunity to fault the coalition.

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 10:09pm:

They ran out so the Coalition could not possibly take advantage of Thommo voting with them. They ran out TO LOSE the vote because to win would have meant accepting Craig's vote. So they ran and lost on principle. But all the progs - who would have crowd even louder had they not run and won the vote with Craig's support - are crowing about how undignified it looked. Abbott and Pyne chose undignified over unprincipled.  The proles are disappointed that you have been robbed of an opportunity to fault the coalition.

Bullshit ... it was a cheap political stunt ... if Abbott and Pyne had any principles they would have resigned years ago ... Abbott and Pyne are trying to deny the people of Dobell their voice .. where are their principles there? Or do principles only come into play when it suits you?

John Smith wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:46pm:

it was ridiculous to see .... something my 2 yr old would do

Nope: your 2 year old would have acted with more maturity.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:08pm:

John Smith wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 8:46pm: it was ridiculous to see .... something my 2 yr old would do Nope: your 2 year old would have acted with more maturity.

more maturity than Abbott?. ... even my 4 week old does that ....

Soren wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 10:09pm:

They ran out so the Coalition could not possibly take advantage of Thommo voting with them. They ran out TO LOSE the vote because to win would have meant accepting Craig's vote. So they ran and lost on principle. But all the progs - who would have crowd even louder had they not run and won the vote with Craig's support - are crowing about how undignified it looked. Abbott and Pyne chose undignified over unprincipled.  The proles are disappointed that you have been robbed of an opportunity to fault the coalition.

have meant accepting Craig's vote.

Thomson voted with them and there is nothing they can do about it acting like children only impacts themselves.

Is anyone really surprised that Abbott doesn't want to accept someone else's vote?

he still doesn't accept the publics vote from the last election

Its like a schoolroom. They have to be told to stop being rude and to shut up and to behave and they get sent out because they wont. They didnt have to run for the door - they could have just crossed the room. Dignified.

SOB

John Smith wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:26pm:

Is anyone really surprised that Abbott doesn't want to accept someone else's vote? he still doesn't accept the publics vote from the last election

Either do the public who were lied to by labor/Gillard

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:30am:

John Smith wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 11:26pm: Is anyone really surprised that Abbott doesn't want to accept someone else's vote? he still doesn't accept the publics vote from the last election Either do the public who were lied to by labor/Gillard

http://lipmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Crying-Baby-001.jpg

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 8:05am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:30am: John Smith wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 11:26pm: Is anyone really surprised that Abbott doesn't want to accept someone else's vote? he still doesn't accept the publics vote from the last election Either do the public who were lied to by labor/Gillard http://lipmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Crying-Baby-001.jpg

Pretty young to comprehend, but boy are they starting out early in hating labor and their lies.

Shame labor shame. Scaring people as young as this is telling.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:54am:

Its like a schoolroom. They have to be told to stop being rude and to shut up and to behave and they get sent out because they wont. They didnt have to run for the door - they could have just crossed the room. Dignified. SOB

No, they had to leave the room. That makes the vote void. Voting with labor makes the vote a labor win in the game.

People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started.

Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted.

But Abbott wouldn't leave it alone. In typical style he was in attack mode. He might as well have pinned a "Please Kick Me" sign on his arse.

Sooner or later the hole he was digging for himself was going to cave in on him. As it did.

When the time came, instead of doing nothing and then blaming Labor for setting him up ("Okay, we got caught out but we knew Labor was devious, we just didn't know how devious and won't let it happen again) Abbott reacted in his usual irrational manner and made a complete ass of himself.

The polls indicate Abbott frightens people and with good reason. His judgement is suspect and his behaviour frequently bizarre. The maniacal stare at a TV interviewer that went on and on and on and now this.

The thought of Abbott with real power scares many voters and so it should.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 8:48am:

People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. But Abbott wouldn't leave it alone. In typical style he was in attack mode. He might as well have pinned a "Please Kick Me" sign on his arse. Sooner or later the hole he was digging for himself was going to cave in on him. As it did. When the time came, instead of doing nothing and then blaming Labor for setting him up ("Okay, we got caught out but we knew Labor was devious, we just didn't know how devious and won't let it happen again) Abbott reacted in his usual irrational manner and made a complete ass of himself. The polls indicate Abbott frightens people and with good reason. His judgement is suspect and his behaviour frequently bizarre. The maniacal stare at a TV interviewer that went on and on and on and now this. The thought of Abbott with real power scares many voters and so it should.

Well his word is for labor not to accept thomson's vote. Just because labor still accepts thomson's vote, does not mean liberals have to.

John Smith wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 11:08pm:

Soren wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 10:09pm: They ran out so the Coalition could not possibly take advantage of Thommo voting with them. They ran out TO LOSE the vote because to win would have meant accepting Craig's vote. So they ran and lost on principle. But all the progs - who would have crowd even louder had they not run and won the vote with Craig's support - are crowing about how undignified it looked. Abbott and Pyne chose undignified over unprincipled.  The proles are disappointed that you have been robbed of an opportunity to fault the coalition. Abbott and Pyne are trying to deny the people of Dobell their voice .. where are their principles there? Or do principles only come into play when it suits you?

Are you saying that after all these scandals and with the police inversitgating the guy, as well as his own union mates after him and the Labor Party disowning him - the people of Dobell are proudly behind Thompson and demand that he be identified with them and that his voice be heard as their voice - by Abbott??

Are you saying that after Labor disowned him, Abbott not accepting his vote either is a slap on the face of the people of Dobell - by Abbott??

You guys can't fooking think straight, probably because you are smelling the demise of the Gillard government but can't bring yourselves to face facts. All you are capable of is to attribute every stupid mistake, every scandal and every crap decision Labor makes to Abbott. This sort of spin ran its course about a year ago and nobody is listening to it. Not even you believe it, even though you parrot it because you have  nothing else to say. Get a grip on something other than your d!ck, fella. Like reality.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 8:48am:

People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted.

His vote WAS counted, numpty.
Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:33am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that?

You are right of course but it makes you wonder about how silly in your words numpty Abbnott is by suggesting that he would not allow his vote to be accepted.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:33am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that?

Rabbotts vote WAS counted numpty. He was too slow, unlike Thomsons gazelle. Maybe you need to stop frothing bile and go get that cuppa?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:47am:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:33am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that? You are right of course but it makes you wonder about how silly in your words numpty Abbnott is by suggesting that he would not allow his vote to be accepted.

It is an old Westminster tradition. They close the doors and if you are out, you are out. You can see MPs run on the corridors of Parliament when they ring the bells, signalling that the doors will be closed shortly. The patry whips exist, among other things, to ensure that MPs are in the chamber when they need to be there.
SO if you do not want to be counted, you get outa there before the doors are closed. It is simple and easy.

It may have looked silly but the principle was demonstrated memorably.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:11am:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:33am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that? Rabbotts vote WAS counted numpty. He was too slow, unlike Thomsons gazelle. Maybe you need to stop frothing bile and go get that cuppa?

But Thommo's was neutralised, so the Coalition didn't benefit from Thomo's vote, Git. That is the point. You understand the point. Yet you babble as if what you say made any difference to the point.

Old boy, as every schoolboy knows, one dresses in one's sports kit before taking excercise.

If you don't have the right uniform and plimsols, you get put on detention. Repeat offenders get sent to the house master.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:33am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that?

Indulging in abuse and sarcasm simply demonstrates your mental inability to put together a cogent argument.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:11am: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:33am: Peter Freedman wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:48am: People like cods and longweekend, who unquestioningly adore Abbott, need reminding how this whole ridiculous business started. Abbott began it by taunting the government about "accepting" Thomson's "tainted vote". In fact his vote is one of the few things about Thomson that isn't tainted. As long as he remains an MP, he is entitled to vote and have his vote counted. His vote WAS counted, numpty. Abbott's and Pyne's weren't. You are frothing because you can't think. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anythng for a while. See how you go.  WHen you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that? Rabbotts vote WAS counted numpty. He was too slow, unlike Thomsons gazelle. Maybe you need to stop frothing bile and go get that cuppa? But Thommo's was neutralised, so the Coalition didn't benefit from Thomo's vote, Git. That is the point. You understand the point. Yet you babble as if what you say made any difference to the point.

Hmm.. nnooo... his vote wasn't quite neutralised. Despite all your froth and phlegm you fail to fully understand that Thomson had two choices - vote with the government or vote with the opposition.

Had he voted with the government and all the other independents voted with the opposition as they did the the vote would have been 72/78 for/against.

Had he voted with the opposition and Pyne not absented himself then the vote would have been 71/79 for/against.

But Pyne leapt with the speed of a thousand gazelles so the vote was actually 71/78 for/against.

In other words, it reduced the opposition vote by one. It didn't negate Thomson's voting with the opposition. To do that would have meant someone from the opposition voting with the government so that the count would be 72/78 which a proper negation required.

But they never truly had the courage of their convictions. Thomson even challenged Rabbott to do it at the time.. Rabbott, hypocrite that he is, declined.

To neutralise his vote ADDED to your own all you need to do is remove one of your own which you would have had otherwise, so adding his to yours didn't increase your vote in the ned - no benefit to your numbers.

That's the point Git.

Asking you to actively vote against yourself is the kind of BS we have come to expect from Thommo - and you.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

To neutralise his vote ADDED to your own all you need to do is remove one of your own which you would have had otherwise, so adding his to yours didn't increase your vote in the ned - no benefit to your numbers. That's the point Git. Asking you to actively vote against yourself is the kind of BS we have come to expect from Thommo - and you.

(*sigh*) Wrong.  ::)

Try reading my previous post a few times Soren. Have a cup of tea and think without saying anything for a while. See how you go.  When you hear a penny drop, you can talk again. How about that?

Pyne would have voted with the Coalition. SO they would have had whatever vote they normally do. Adding Thommo's would have meant ONE MORE for the coalition.

They didn't want ONE MORE if it means having obe from Thomo. They can't stop him voting whatever way, guido, but they can determine whether his vote increases their own or not.

I though yoiu were just a middling git but can now see that you are up a fully fledged one, in competition with PP and SOB. In that contest, you get one point.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Pyne would have voted with the Coalition. SO they would have had whatever vote they normally do. Adding Thommo's would have meant ONE MORE for the coalition. They didn't want ONE MORE if it means having obe from Thomo. They can't stop him voting whatever way, guido, but they can determine whether his vote increases their own or not. I though yoiu were just a middling git but can now see that you are up a fully fledged one, in competition with PP and SOB. In that contest, you get one point.

You are supposed to wait until you hear the sound of the penny dropping. From that post, I can see that hasn't happened yet. I suggest you read my post quietly a few more times before making a fool of yourself again.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:47pm:

Pyne would have voted with the Coalition. SO they would have had whatever vote they normally do. Adding Thommo's would have meant ONE MORE for the coalition. They didn't want ONE MORE if it means having obe from Thomo. They can't stop him voting whatever way, guido, but they can determine whether his vote increases their own or not. I though yoiu were just a middling git but can now see that you are up a fully fledged one, in competition with PP and SOB. In that contest, you get one point.

It would have meant one more to the coalition and one LESS to Labor - that's two which is why the were both trying to leave.

Even the Libs understand this one and there's little evidence they can even count ...

Git:

Quote:

Had he voted with the government and all the other independents voted with the opposition as they did the the vote would have been 72/78 for/against. Had he voted with the opposition and Pyne not absented himself then the vote would have been 71/79 for/against. But Pyne leapt with the speed of a thousand gazelles so the vote was actually 71/78 for/against. In other words, it reduced the opposition vote by one. It didn't negate Thomson's voting with the opposition.

In other words Pyne's absence DID negate any benefir to the opposition - they had the same vote as if Thommo had voted with Labor. So for the Coalition's numbers, Thommos' vote made no difference.


Sound it out if necessary: Thommo's vote did not benefit the Coalition whose numbers were exactly what they would have been without Thommo.

Read your OWN post slowly, paying particular attention to the number 78. It occurs twice, see if you can spot both. Good luck.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:16pm:

Git: Quote: Had he voted with the government and all the other independents voted with the opposition as they did the the vote would have been 72/78 for/against. Had he voted with the opposition and Pyne not absented himself then the vote would have been 71/79 for/against. But Pyne leapt with the speed of a thousand gazelles so the vote was actually 71/78 for/against. In other words, it reduced the opposition vote by one. It didn't negate Thomson's voting with the opposition. In other words Pyne's absence DID negate any benefir to the opposition - they had the same vote as if Thommo had voted with Labor. So for the Coalition's numbers, Thommos' vote made no difference. Sound it out if necessary: Thommo's vote did not benefit the Coalition whose numbers were exactly what they would have been without Thommo. Read your OWN post slowly, paying particular attention to the number 78. It occurs twice, see if you can spot both. Good luck.

Good, you're getting there. Yes 78 is there twice. Now look again and you will see that the number 72 only appears once. I've even enlarged it for you to help your decrepit old brain find it.

The results are not the same. Get it? Rabbott and the Gazelle did. You'd best wait for that penny.

In what way is the Labor number the Coalition's responsibility??


Fee free to speak slowly and with lotsa highlights because the point escapes me completely and I would be fascinated to learn if you can pin that responsibility on them in any way.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:01pm:

Good, you're getting there

Oh, by the way, fook off - I have been saying all along that leaping outa the chamnber neutralised Thomo's vote insofar as it would have benefited the Coalition, so don't start inching towards pretending that it was your point.

Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle?
They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling.

Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government??
You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:08pm:

In what way is the Labor number the Coalition's responsibility?? Fee free to speak slowly and with lotsa highlights because the point escapes me completely and I would be fascinated to learn if you can pin that responsibility on them in any way.

Ahhh... you poor doddering old fool. I didn't pin responsibility on the opposition. Nor did the government. That honour goes completely and solely to the gRabbott and Run opposition who demanded the government deny Thomson's vote.

Well grAbbott got his chance to do the deed and he failed abysmally. Like the hypocrite he is, he failed to live up to the demands he makes of others. Again.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what?

It has the same effect as running for the door except it proves their point a lot better and is way more professional if all they are doing is nullifying Thomsons vote

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:01pm: Good, you're getting there Oh, by the way, fook off - I have been saying all along that leaping outa the chamnber neutralised Thomo's vote insofar as it would have benefited the Coalition, so don't start inching towards pretending that it was your point.

Never mind. Those of us who can comprehend English will understand the point I was making.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:10pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:01pm: Good, you're getting there Oh, by the way, fook off - I have been saying all along that leaping outa the chamnber neutralised Thomo's vote insofar as it would have benefited the Coalition, so don't start inching towards pretending that it was your point. Never mind. Those of us who can comprehend English will understand the point I was making.

Soren gets a little "tense" sometimes  :D

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:13pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what?

In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it?

If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:20pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what? In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't.

Soren seems to get a tad upset when the obvious is pointed out to him  :D

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:20pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what? In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't.

You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:27pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what? In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset.

So why not just cross the floor?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:27pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what? In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset. So why not just cross the floor?

Well if you see the game being played by labor, as Abbott may have, then you do not side with them. That is the win win for the game starter. You go out the door as if you did not play, but at the same time you win because you nullified thomson vote.

To simply say
"We will not accept Thomsons vote so if he crosses the floor we will send one of our members across the floor to nullify his vote"
is much simpler and professional than running head long into a closed door.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:27pm:

You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset.

Adults? That counts you out then lolly!  :D :D


progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:30pm:

Well if you see the game being played by labor, as Abbott may have, then you do not side with them. That is the win win for the game starter. You go out the door as if you did not play, but at the same time you win because you nullified thomson vote.

Or in other words, you don't play. Instead you go out the door and fail to nullify Thomson's vote.

Only question I have is do you take your bat and ball when you go home lolly? Do you want to ask an adult what the answer is?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:34pm:

To simply say "We will not accept Thomsons vote so if he crosses the floor we will send one of our members across the floor to nullify his vote" is much simpler and professional than running head long into a closed door.

But that leaves labor to play the game and get the result regardless. The door has no party.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:27pm: You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset. Adults? That counts you out then lolly!  :D :D progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:30pm: Well if you see the game being played by labor, as Abbott may have, then you do not side with them. That is the win win for the game starter. You go out the door as if you did not play, but at the same time you win because you nullified thomson vote. Or in other words, you don't play. Instead you go out the door and fail to nullify Thomson's vote. Only question I have is do you take your bat and ball when you go home lolly? Do you want to ask an adult what the answer is?

Exactly. The cheater does not get to play. No-one does. The result is, I take my bat and ball and the result is what is was suppose to be, thomson not getting to vote.

No win  for thomson. no win for labor. No win for liberals. Only that thomson did not get to vote. I would say that that is a win for
australians

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:38pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:34pm: To simply say "We will not accept Thomsons vote so if he crosses the floor we will send one of our members across the floor to nullify his vote" is much simpler and professional than running head long into a closed door. But that leaves labor to play the game and get the result regardless. The door has no party.

It is a non issue if the Libs announce that is what they are going to do if Thomson crosses the floor and its way more dignified

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:42pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:38pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:34pm: To simply say "We will not accept Thomsons vote so if he crosses the floor we will send one of our members across the floor to nullify his vote" is much simpler and professional than running head long into a closed door. But that leaves labor to play the game and get the result regardless. The door has no party. It is a non issue if the Libs announce that is what they are going to do if Thomson crosses the floor and its way more dignified

They did announce it by action.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:44pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:42pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:38pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:34pm: To simply say "We will not accept Thomsons vote so if he crosses the floor we will send one of our members across the floor to nullify his vote" is much simpler and professional than running head long into a closed door. But that leaves labor to play the game and get the result regardless. The door has no party. It is a non issue if the Libs announce that is what they are going to do if Thomson crosses the floor and its way more dignified They did announce it by action.

They looked like tools and showed the stupidity of the game they have been playing so it was hardly a triumph

.

A fairy gets its wings every time Abbott misses a vote

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:11pm:

.

So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:27pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:13pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:11pm: Why didn't Abbott and Pyne just casually cross the floor and vote with Labor instead of bolting for the door like a couple of frightened gazelle? They're obviously not the brightest of sparks despite their exclusive private schooling. Because they are not as goddam stupid as you are. Why the hell would they vote with the government?? You are usually out of your mind, Che, so mebbe I shouldn't act surprised, what? In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. You are not bright enough for these games. You had better leave the adults to this, you may get upset. So why not just cross the floor?

ABBOTT VOTED WITH GILLARD!!!!! HYPOCHRITE!!!!!


You guys would have been screaming for weeks.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: . So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman.

Only if they cross the floor as well

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:41pm:

Exactly. The cheater does not get to play. No-one does. The result is, I take my bat and ball and the result is what is was suppose to be, thomson not getting to vote. No win  for thomson. no win for labor. No win for liberals. Only that thomson did not get to vote. I would say that that is a win for australians

STREWTH you righties can be thick!

But Thomson did vote. He voted with the opposition. You can't pretend he abstained! Reducing your count by one doesn't nullify that. It just reduces your count by one. It isn't hard lolly.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:41pm: Exactly. The cheater does not get to play. No-one does. The result is, I take my bat and ball and the result is what is was suppose to be, thomson not getting to vote. No win  for thomson. no win for labor. No win for liberals. Only that thomson did not get to vote. I would say that that is a win for australians STREWTH you righties can be thick! But Thomson did vote. He voted with the opposition. You can't pretend he abstained! Reducing your count by one doesn't nullify that. It just reduces your count by one. It isn't hard lolly.

der how dam dumb

1 - 1 = 0.

Welcome to school

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:17pm:

ABBOTT VOTED WITH GILLARD!!!!! HYPOCHRITE!!!!! You guys would have been screaming for weeks.

He did??!? When did that happen Soren?

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:17pm: ABBOTT VOTED WITH GILLARD!!!!! HYPOCHRITE!!!!! You guys would have been screaming for weeks. He did??!? When did that happen Soren?

Abbott doesn't have to cross the floor..just 1 of his underlings

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:20pm:

In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't.

Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber.

You can only deny yourself any advantage from an undesirable vote. That is not the same as increasing your opponents vote, which what and Che are inventing as the supposedly only way to go.

You are both cathching up with SOB and PP.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:17pm: ABBOTT VOTED WITH GILLARD!!!!! HYPOCHRITE!!!!! You guys would have been screaming for weeks. He did??!? When did that happen Soren?

Jesus, you are fooking thick.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:22pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:21pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:17pm: ABBOTT VOTED WITH GILLARD!!!!! HYPOCHRITE!!!!! You guys would have been screaming for weeks. He did??!? When did that happen Soren? Abbott doesn't have to cross the floor..just 1 of his underlings

Yeah, pal, you sure do inhale. Carry on.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: . So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman.

71/79
.
.
.
.
71/78
.
.
.
72/78
.
.
.
Do those three results look the same to you lolly? Do any two of them look the same? If so, which ones?

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:25pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:16pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: . So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman. 71/79 . . . . 71/78 . . . 72/78 . . . Do those three results look the same to you lolly? Do any two of them look the same? If so, which ones?

The +1 thomson vote vs the -1 liberal vote looks exactly the same as 0 every single time my 3 year old calculates it.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:22pm:

Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber.

Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day.

Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:27pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:25pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:16pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: . So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman. 71/79 . . . . 71/78 . . . 72/78 . . . Do those three results look the same to you lolly? Do any two of them look the same? If so, which ones? The +1 thomson vote vs the -1 liberal vote looks exactly the same as 0 every single time my 3 year old calculates it.

Maybe we need to get your 3 year old on this forum then.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Jesus, you are fooking thick.

Don't let longwhine see you going off at Jesus like that! Gets up his nose it does.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:27pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:25pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:16pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm: . So a +1 person, thomson, cant be nulified by -1 person. What a superman. 71/79 . . . . 71/78 . . . 72/78 . . . Do those three results look the same to you lolly? Do any two of them look the same? If so, which ones? The +1 thomson vote vs the -1 liberal vote looks exactly the same as 0 every single time my 3 year old calculates it. Maybe we need to get your 3 year old on this forum then.

And lose you. No way. You are gold compared to a 3 year old.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:22pm: Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber. Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day. Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand.

Hey, Git, some d!ckhead is using your login details and is posting crap under your name.
Look, he is so stupid that he is even talking about nullifying votes:

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:20pm:

In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't.

This d!ckhead thinks it is possible to nullify a vote. You should be outraged.

You shoud contact the Mods. Are your credit card and DL safe?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:45pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:30pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:22pm: Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber. Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day. Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand. Hey, Git, some d!ckhead is using your login details and is posting crap under your name. Look, he is so stupid that he is even talking about nullifying votes: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. This d!ckhead thinks it is possible to nullify a vote. You should be outraged. You shoud contact the Mods. Are your credit card and DL safe?

Well, to be fair, he was talking to a simpleton. You have to talk to them in terms they understand you know. Kind of like water wearing down a house brick. Eventually it gets through... and see? Some time later you yourself realise the error.

Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action.

Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy.

Run Tnoy Run.

We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options.

He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:24pm:

Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader.

We now know that when put under pressure that Tony will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options.

He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader.

He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution.

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution.

In fact, that's one of the few policies he does have. His policy is to impose a true carbon tax (not an ETS) on all of us and give the money to the polluters. That's right isn't it lolly?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution.

And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say.

Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:34pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party.

So despite Abbott saying a carbon tax is the best way to combat CO2 pollution he is willing to ditch the policy for political reasons?
He said it was the best..why wont he take the best way forward?

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party. So despite Abbott saying a carbon tax is the best way to combat CO2 pollution he is willing to ditch the policy for political reasons? He said it was the best..why wont he take the best way forward?

Because he feels there can be a vote from the green gaia believers, the CO2 nutjobs (some) and the ordinary person who feels we should do a little better for our mothe rearth. What a great guy, doing this for mother earth lol.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:34pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party.

And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say.

Yes but he was the Leader at that time.

likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party

When Tony Abbnott suggested that a carbon tax was the best option he specified that he meant that you pay a tax when you buy petrol and you pay a tax when you pay your electricity bill etc.

In the case of the gillard government fixed price on carbon I would think that when people are told they will pay a tax they expect that somebody will actually pay some tax at some point in time.

Tnoy abbnotts carbon tax would have meant a truck load of money being payed by all of us to the ATO but the fixed price machanism runs for two or three years as an interum measure and not one cent goes to the ATO ever.

It technically can be called a tax but gee it's a desperate streatch.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 7:02pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Yes but he was the Leader at that time. likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party When Tony Abbnott suggested that a carbon tax was the best option he specified that he meant that you pay a tax when you buy petrol and you pay a tax when you pay your electricity bill etc. In the case of the gillard government fixed price on carbon I would think that when people are told they will pay a tax they expect that somebody will actually pay some tax at some point in time. Tnoy abbnotts carbon tax would have meant a truck load of money being payed by all of us to the ATO but the fixed price machanism runs for two or three years as an interum measure and not one cent goes to the ATO ever. It technically can be called a tax but gee it's a desperate streatch.

Don't pretend to know what he meant when even he doesn't know what he meant

poor form from these 'leaders'

forgiven

namaste

-:)

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:24pm:

Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader.

Maaaate, laaaame.....

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:30pm:

He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution.

He did not.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:57pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:45pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:30pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:22pm: Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber. Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day. Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand. Hey, Git, some d!ckhead is using your login details and is posting crap under your name. Look, he is so stupid that he is even talking about nullifying votes: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. This d!ckhead thinks it is possible to nullify a vote. You should be outraged. You shoud contact the Mods. Are your credit card and DL safe? Well, to be fair, he was talking to a simpleton. You have to talk to them in terms they understand you know. Kind of like water wearing down a house brick. Eventually it gets through... and see? Some time later you yourself realise the error.

Yeah, you are caught out being a git, thank you.  You have argued against yourself and calling me a simpleton will not change that, no matter how many dot dot dots you use.

He is English, after all. Apparently he's quite rugged.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:33pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. He did not.

Well not in those exact words, what he said was closer to - if you want to put a price on carbon then why not a simple tax - tax petrol , electricity and get a tax refund from the ATO at the end of the year etc.

Note: 4 out of 5 of his current positions on climate action require a price on carbon - 80% of the time he does want to do this.

He said that a carbon tax was the best method and he was right.

He was clearly talking about a real tax which everyone would have paid as a tax to the tax office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:34pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:27pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:24pm: Look at the possitive side - at least we finally see a coalition policy in action. Unfortunatly looks like a failed policy. Run Tnoy Run. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will turn tail and run for it well when he is not telling lies - Its great that he has alwways got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. We now know that when put under pressure that Tnoy will stick to his word  (and not call a carbon tax) and run for it well when he has stated his position - Its great that he has always got options. He clearly has all the traits the conservatives require in a leader. He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. And. Most party pollies say what ever their leader wants them to say. Even if he truely believes that, that does not explain if he feels that CO2 is a pollution problem, likewise we the people dont believe that when told there will not be a carbon tax, that we then are happy there will be a carbon tax from the very same person/party. So despite Abbott saying a carbon tax is the best way to combat CO2 pollution he is willing to ditch the policy for political reasons? He said it was the best..why wont he take the best way forward?

He said that if there was only the option of either a carbon tax or ETS, he's choose a carbon tax. He did NOT say a carbon tax is the best way to go, merely that it was the lesser of two evils. The sooner you and other Leftards acknowledge this FACT, the sooner you will stop looking like a fool with egg all over your face.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:33pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. He did not. Well not in those exact words, what he said was closer to - if you want to put a price on carbon then why not a simple tax - tax petrol , electricity and get a tax refund from the ATO at the end of the year etc. Note: 4 out of 5 of his current positions on climate action require a price on carbon - 80% of the time he does want to do this. He said that a carbon tax was the best method and he was right. He was clearly talking about a real tax which everyone would have paid as a tax to the tax office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74

Yes - instead of an ETS.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 7:22am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:58pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:33pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. He did not. Well not in those exact words, what he said was closer to - if you want to put a price on carbon then why not a simple tax - tax petrol , electricity and get a tax refund from the ATO at the end of the year etc. Note: 4 out of 5 of his current positions on climate action require a price on carbon - 80% of the time he does want to do this. He said that a carbon tax was the best method and he was right. He was clearly talking about a real tax which everyone would have paid as a tax to the tax office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74 Yes - instead of an ETS.

Yes, not instead of a direct action.

Cant believe the labrats are still going on with this.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:11am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 7:22am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:58pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:33pm: adelcrow wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 5:30pm: He once said that a carbon tax was the best way to fix the problem of CO2 pollution. He did not. Well not in those exact words, what he said was closer to - if you want to put a price on carbon then why not a simple tax - tax petrol , electricity and get a tax refund from the ATO at the end of the year etc. Note: 4 out of 5 of his current positions on climate action require a price on carbon - 80% of the time he does want to do this. He said that a carbon tax was the best method and he was right. He was clearly talking about a real tax which everyone would have paid as a tax to the tax office. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74 Yes - instead of an ETS. Yes, not instead of a direct action. Cant believe the labrats are still going on with this.

Anything to try to distract them from the fact that Abbott will be PM next year.

I have come to the conclusion that Dnarever is short on grey matter. Anyone that thinks Juliar and Swan aren't  liars needs remedial English lessons. .

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:36pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:57pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:45pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:30pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:22pm: Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber. Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day. Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand. Hey, Git, some d!ckhead is using your login details and is posting crap under your name. Look, he is so stupid that he is even talking about nullifying votes: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. This d!ckhead thinks it is possible to nullify a vote. You should be outraged. You shoud contact the Mods. Are your credit card and DL safe? Well, to be fair, he was talking to a simpleton. You have to talk to them in terms they understand you know. Kind of like water wearing down a house brick. Eventually it gets through... and see? Some time later you yourself realise the error. Yeah, you are caught out being a git, thank you.  You have argued against yourself and calling me a simpleton will not change that, no matter how many dot dot dots you use.

Poor old Simple Soren. I didn't argue against myself. Let me explain it for you step by step in terms you might understand:

There is no true nullifying of a vote. Thomson voted with the opposition. He was entitled to vote that way and he did. There he was along side them and NOTHING can nullify that unless maybe you have a time machine in your back pocket and can somehow go and forcibly remove him. He's there. There are pictures to prove it. You can't nullify that! Anyone with any sense can realise that, as you've now come to realise yourself.

But if you want to nullify the COUNT then the only way to do that is for someone on the opposition benches to cross the floor. As I also said.

I realise this is complicated for you. Don't rush it, you may need a while to digest it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 7:21am:

He said that if there was only the option of either a carbon tax or ETS, he's choose a carbon tax. He did NOT say a carbon tax is the best way to go, merely that it was the lesser of two evils. The sooner you and other Leftards acknowledge this FACT, the sooner you will stop looking like a fool with egg all over your face.

He said that if there was only the option of either a carbon tax or ETS

It is hard to believe that your comprehension could be that poor, what he said was very specific "if you want to put a price on carbon" which he clearly does.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 8:35am:

I have come to the conclusion that Dnarever is short on grey matter. Anyone that thinks Juliar and Swan aren't  liars needs remedial English lessons. .

And yet you can not refute the facts I post?

Just look at the quality of content in your post here, OH sorry as usual there is none.

You know that what I said was correct and the guy in support of the conservative view was just making silly comments so you jump in and play the man.

Gist wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 9:05am:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:36pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:57pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:45pm: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:30pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:22pm: Git, you can't 'nullify' a vote of MPs in the chamber. Of course you can't Soren. Well done, that's the only sensible thing you've said all day. Now maybe you could explain it to Grabbott because he's been saying for ages now that you can and that Labor should. Of course, you'll need to muster some patience. He's an even bigger dunderhead than you are so it could take weeks for him to understand. Hey, Git, some d!ckhead is using your login details and is posting crap under your name. Look, he is so stupid that he is even talking about nullifying votes: Gist wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:20pm: In fact crossing the floor is the ONLY way to nullify Thomson's vote as my earlier posts showed. But the penny still hasn't dropped with you has it? If grAbbott wanted to nullify Thomson's vote then he should have crossed the floor. But he's a hypocrite so it's no surprise that he didn't. This d!ckhead thinks it is possible to nullify a vote. You should be outraged. You shoud contact the Mods. Are your credit card and DL safe? Well, to be fair, he was talking to a simpleton. You have to talk to them in terms they understand you know. Kind of like water wearing down a house brick. Eventually it gets through... and see? Some time later you yourself realise the error. Yeah, you are caught out being a git, thank you.  You have argued against yourself and calling me a simpleton will not change that, no matter how many dot dot dots you use. Poor old Simple Soren. I didn't argue against myself. Let me explain it for you step by step in terms you might understand: There is no true nullifying of a vote. Thomson voted with the opposition. He was entitled to vote that way and he did. There he was along side them and NOTHING can nullify that unless maybe you have a time machine in your back pocket and can somehow go and forcibly remove him. He's there. There are pictures to prove it. You can't nullify that! Anyone with any sense can realise that, as you've now come to realise yourself. But if you want to nullify the COUNT then the only way to do that is for someone on the opposition benches to cross the floor. As I also said. I realise this is complicated for you. Don't rush it, you may need a while to digest it.

No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor. 

Quantum wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:42pm:

No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor.

I don't think the solution would be for Labor to act as childishly and improperly as the Liberals had is a solution.

Once the doors are ordered locked nobody is allowed to leave the chamber. Abbnott and Pine should have been repremanded for their very ordinary behaviour.

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the option to abstain from the vote?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:42pm: No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor.  I don't think the solution would be for Labor to act as childishly and improperly as the Liberals had is a solution. Once the doors are ordered locked nobody is allowed to leave the chamber. Abbnott and Pine should have been repremanded for their very ordinary behaviour. I wonder why nobody has mentioned the option to abstain from the vote?

Who said anything about Labor? They just have to sit there.

The two people leaving (in this situation) have to be coalition MP's. That is what Abbott and Pyne tried to do. By removing themselves from the vote the balance in the chamber would have been restored to the same as if Thomson didn't change sides.

Once Pyne had got out the door there was no longer an option for Abbott to cross the floor without disadvantaging the coalition. 

Quantum wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 1:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:49pm: Quantum wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:42pm: No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor.  I don't think the solution would be for Labor to act as childishly and improperly as the Liberals had is a solution. Once the doors are ordered locked nobody is allowed to leave the chamber. Abbnott and Pine should have been repremanded for their very ordinary behaviour. I wonder why nobody has mentioned the option to abstain from the vote? Who said anything about Labor? They just have to sit there. The two people leaving (in this situation) have to be coalition MP's. That is what Abbott and Pyne tried to do. By removing themselves from the vote the balance in the chamber would have been restored to the same as if Thomson didn't change sides. Once Pyne had got out the door there was no longer an option for Abbott to cross the floor without disadvantaging the coalition.

Then they take another chair away and start the music again?

Next week they are going to bring in the blind fold and a tail with a pin in it to play pin the tail on the Abbnott.

Then they take another chair away and start the music again?

Next week they are going to bring in the blind fold and a tail with a pin in it to play pin the tail on the Abbnott.



Sounds like your kind of game.

Simple.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Then they take another chair away and start the music again? Next week they are going to bring in the blind fold and a tail with a pin in it to play pin the tail on the Abbnott. Sounds like your kind of game. Simple.

Remember that Tnoy could not even get out the door - the worry is that he isn't smart enough to play the Donkey.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:49pm:

Quantum wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 12:42pm: No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor.  I don't think the solution would be for Labor to act as childishly and improperly as the Liberals had is a solution. Once the doors are ordered locked nobody is allowed to leave the chamber. Abbnott and Pine should have been repremanded for their very ordinary behaviour. I wonder why nobody has mentioned the option to abstain from the vote?

Their decision making under pressure needs to be questioned..

Quantum wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 12:42pm:

No, there is another way. Two people form the opposition leave the chamber, just as Abbott and Pyne tried to do. That balances the votes as there is no advantage for the coalition and no disadvantage for Labor.

Thanks Quantum but it still isn't quite the same. To revisit an earlier post:


Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:17pm:

... Thomson had two choices - vote with the government or vote with the opposition. Had he voted with the government and all the other independents voted with the opposition as they did the the vote would have been 72/78 for/against. Had he voted with the opposition and Pyne not absented himself then the vote would have been 71/79 for/against. But Pyne leapt with the speed of a thousand gazelles so the vote was actually 71/78 for/against. ...

In your scenario the vote would be 71/77 which is different again from the 72/78 scenario of Thomson voting with the government. I accept that this is a fine line to be drawing nevertheless, it's there and I'm calling attention to it. If Tony truly wanted to wash away the stain he should have had the courage to get one of his team to cross the floor.

Oh.. for Soren's benefit I better highlight that we are talking about the COUNT. Thomson's vote still can't be nullified in any real way. There are pictures of him voting with the opposition and they don't go away no matter what anyone does with the count.

This is one of the first things I said on this, Git:



Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

To neutralise his vote ADDED to your own all you need to do is remove one of your own which you would have had otherwise, so adding his to yours didn't increase your vote in the ned - no benefit to your numbers. That's the point Git. Asking you to actively vote against yourself is the kind of BS we have come to expect from Thommo - and you.

Not benefiting from Thommo's vote when the votes are counted. Not nullify, as you wanted for a while. Neutralise as far as it would benefit the Coalition. But being a dedicated prog numpty, reasoning just doesn't cut it with you if it is not in support of some prog ideological battle.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:37pm:

He is English, after all. Apparently he's quite rugged.

Is that what you like up ya?